Yes, my remarks covered all of Canada, obviously including Quebec. You seem to be arguing that Bell Canada, for example—I don't want to pick on Bell, and it could be another Canadian-owned carrier—will enhance Canadian content for some reason, more than any other carrier would.
All carriers will behave the same way. They invest, they look at prices, and they want to make a profit. One carrier, because it's Canadian owned, will not necessarily purchase more Canadian content than will a carrier that is not Canadian owned. My point is that for Canadian citizens, for users, it's important to have good quality networks that are cheap and offer a range of services, and you can have that only through competition.
Let's turn now to the cultural choices. The cultural choices that you're talking about.... And yet cultural diversity is important; I don't think people doubt that. But they may within a framework. All I'm saying is that this framework, which you can adapt quite easily to a new Internet environment, a new environment where a telco offers programming online, doesn't have anything to do with restricting investment.
It's a direct regulation on what a telco can--I'll use the term--“broadcast”, on what it can offer in its program choice to its customers. That regulation is quite light relative to the restrictions on foreign investment and that type of regulation is easy to put into place and administer.
I don't see any danger in opening investment on the network or in that link, which I think is very tenuous, to eroding cultural diversity in a country. If you want to maintain that diversity, all I'm saying is to put those regulations in place that you already have anyway.