Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the parliamentary secretary. She began by suggesting the motion was too timid, which would suggest also that there was really no reason to oppose it other than it could have been a little stronger. Then she began to suggest that specific components of the motion were restrictive or were going to produce stagnation. I am wondering, as I look at the bottom part of the motion in terms of:
(a) existing Canadian cultural content requirements; (b) current restrictions on foreign ownership in the cultural sector; and (c) financial support for public broadcasting--
Which specific elements does she object to and how would she replace them with words which would be less timid or stagnating or whatever else? Would she give us some specifics?