Thank you.
I'd like to talk about the funding. Certainly one of the focuses of your submission was that there needs to be long-term sustainable funding. That's a refrain we've heard time and again from virtually all the witnesses we've heard from.
When I hear about funding, usually people are saying the government needs to put in more money. I'm always concerned when I hear that, if there's not discussion about partnerships, about leveraging a government commitment.
I want to refer to page 2 of your submission. About halfway down you refer to public funding of the CBC and to the CTF. I'll read that particular paragraph for the record:
We do not believe that public funding of the CBC should necessarily include a guaranteed portion of the Canadian Television Fund. The arrangement whereby the CBC receives 37% of the CTF seems to be a half measure, offering the CBC some compensation for the lack of government support but at a cost to the private sector and to independent producers for whom the CTF was created.
I do want you to explain that and maybe put it a little bit more into context. We've heard witnesses such as the former CBC president and the chief of staff of former Prime Minister Joe Clark say it is time we got rid of all government subsidies of the private broadcasters, and in return we would remove the regulations relating to Canadian content for the private broadcasters. It is a trade-off.
One of the suggestions I made, which was actually echoed in private by Mr. Neville, the former chief of staff, was that there may be a willingness within the private broadcast industry to actually acknowledge that they have a role to play in defending a very robust public broadcaster by contributing toward the CBC. That doesn't in any way suggest that the government would retreat from funding or retreat from enhanced funding, but there was a suggestion that there's perhaps a more significant role for private broadcasters to play. Your statement today seems to run counter to that. Could you respond?