Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome and thank you for your presentations.
In fact, I believe that everyone here is on the same wave length. We all understand the role of the public broadcaster, and we want it to affirm culture, diversity of opinion and general interest, not superficial programming. We are all in agreement on that point.
Obviously, a lot of groups like yours are appearing before us, in some instances, to request additional funding to support their public broadcaster. Some would say that you are lobbying for your own interests. You say you want to develop more products, and CBC/SRC is the only network interested in Canadian cultural works. That has to be said, I believe. So, since the government is the distributor of funding, you would like it to give Radio-Canada more. You mentioned the idea of granting a dedicated budget envelope to film production. I think you are right in that sense.
In addition, we have to talk a little about accountability. Perhaps you didn't mention it, but others said that, at the same time, advertising is being taken away because the commercial imperative must be removed if we want a really good cultural product. So where does accountability come from? In the long run, who will judge the relevance of the product that CBC/SRC broadcasts? Who would prevent CBC/SRC from diverging into a field where Canadians no longer are, so that that plays against its long-term interests? Canadians might say, at some point, that, since they are not watching it, why should it be subsidized? We have even heard from people who hate CBC/SRC. I know a lot of people who don't watch CBC/SRC. They increasingly wonder why we subsidize it.
In the interests of everyone, how could we guarantee accountability? Perhaps advertising should be retained in order to determine whether sponsors find the programming relevant, though without going too far and without that becoming a commercial imperative.
I'm asking you a kind of philosophical question.