control in this day and age around multiple voting. ... Somebody's got 90 per cent of the control and 10 per cent of the stock. You sit back and you say to yourself, 'Would anyone allow that to happen now as a starting point? Could you finance off a structure like that today?' The answer is probably no. But Thomson Reuters is a relatively rare case where a huge company is controlled by a family, but that family actually owns a majority of the shares outright. You don't think the rules give majority shareholders enough credit? We have a very hard time convincing people that our motivation to ensure share performance exceeds anyone else's, because we have a more concentrated portion of our wealth sitting there - $18-billion or $20-billion tied up in one company. All the corporate governance types are saying, "Geoff Beattie can't sit on the [compensation]committee. He's not independent. He can't sit on the audit committee." But you're saying you'd have every reason to be concerned if someone was cooking the books? Nobody gets hurt more than us on a proportionate, absolute or relative basis. Yet the rules are clear. The reason nobody fights against this stuff is because it's "Thou dost protest too much, and there must be a reason why you want it so badly." You mean people think if you care about changing this you must be up to something? Exactly. It's a reaction to what's gone on in the past. It's like people