I'd like to go back to your first point.
Both Canadian and Quebec cultural policies have contributed to the development of Quebec culture. I can attest to that in the case of song more than in any other field. In that area, I often still hear things that surprise me. such as, for example, that this success in Quebec is due to the fact that we speak French and these are French-language songs. You have to know little about the singing world to say such a thing. If there is one cultural sector where it is easy for other cultures to penetrate, it is song. If people like French-language song from Quebec, it's not because they speak French: it's because the singing is good, and there has been financial support and regulation. People have discovered song, love it and now support it. That's very important in my mind.
I've also heard it said that, since things are going well now, it's no longer necessary to apply rules. That makes me think of a situation that I recently experienced. Someone whom I adored told me he was taking pills for high blood pressure but that he could stop taking them now since his blood pressure had stabilized. What will happen to him if he stops taking them? His blood pressure will go back up. I know this is trivial and that my example seems stupid, but I think this corresponds exactly to what is going on. It's not because things are going well that you should open everything up now. It's because we have this that things are going well. We must especially maintain the policies in effect so that things continue to go well. You must not imagine that we can withdraw all the rules in Quebec or Canada, that our culture is solid and that the Americans won't try to invest in our market because they're no longer interested in doing so. They've always been interested in that. That's still the case today. If we give them even the smallest of opportunities, they will come back into our market in force.
You also talked about those satellites. This is a field I had no knowledge in, but I did some research. We had to organize an accelerated course on the subject. I imagine Mr. Garneau knows more than we do about the issue. He can correct me if my remarks are incorrect. A satellite is a telecommunications business, not some other thing. If you open the door to foreign ownership of satellites, you will be opening it to telecommunications businesses. There are no specific provisions regarding satellites in the Telecommunications Act: there is an ownership rule for all telecommunications businesses, and it also applies to satellites.
I'm a lawyer by training, and when I heard, in connection with the budget, that we were going to start with satellites, I really wondered how that could be. A satellite is a telecommunications business. By changing the ownership of satellites, we will be opening the door even further. If that is not the case, I would like to know how you intend to proceed. Perhaps the lawyers will be more creative. I entirely agree with you that 3D will really require much more space in view of the fact that films and song, in particular, are increasingly broadcast via those satellites. Incidentally, we were already calling them death stars a very long time ago. That's true; you can check it.
BCE has just sold Telesat to Loral and another organization for $3.25 billion. They have 13 satellites. This is a Canadian business that became the fourth largest satellite supplier in the world. The BCE people talked about what a good deal they had made by selling Telesat, and the buyers said what a good deal that purchase was for them. If they paid that price, it was no doubt because they want to develop the field. I believe in the development of Canadian satellites.