It would seem to me it would be a good strategy on the CBC's part to invest the effort or money, if necessary, in this type of programming, because I would think if a kid gets used to watching CBC as a four- or five- or six-year-old, they tend to feel a connection to the broadcaster later on in life.
My other point is I have a sense that everyone here today shares your vision of the CBC. I think all of us do. What I'm struggling with is the need for.... I don't want to call it a compromise, because that's pejorative, but in reality, how do we...? You've come to us with kind of a purist's point of view, and it sounds like you're saying CBC has to be all about great ideas and the ideas that you produce, which I'm sure are very good ideas. You're saying we need more money to produce our ideas for the CBC and for Canada, and that's great, because we need quality programming. But at some point, especially when you have these perpetual minority governments, unless stable and increased funding for the CBC is entrenched in the Constitution, parliamentarians have to decide what the appropriation is going to be. If Canadians are not watching any more, for whatever reason, then they have trouble justifying those decisions.
At one point I was very much in favour of getting rid of commercials on CBC television, and then I started to think that the people from the advertising council made a good point: that a little bit of advertising is kind of like a barometer to see how relevant the programming is to the public. I mean, if people aren't watching, you're not going to get any advertising.
So how do we maintain this kind of accountability without sacrificing the main ethic of the CBC, which is high-quality programming, diversity of voices, alternative points of view? And what's wrong with Hockey Night in Canada? I know it's not highbrow, but it brings eyeballs to the CBC and it's a connection we all have on a sort of visceral level.