I'm going to continue in the same vein. When the government enters the picture, with considerable subtlety—I won't name one as opposed to the other or anyone in particular—because it has the power to do so, to appoint to its head decision-makers whom it mandates to achieve such and such an objective with regard to the Crown corporation, and that mandate is never public, do you think there is any reason for us to ask ourselves some questions?
We were faced with that situation under the previous Liberal government, and, this time, under the Conservative government. We asked what the actual mandate was that was given to such and such a person appointed to an important decision-making position, but were never able to extract any information whatever. It was a total stonewall. That's why I asked you the first question, which wasn't an innocent question.
Normally, when someone is given a mandate to direct a corporation such as this one, it should be a transparent exercise, but it isn't in actual fact. That's what caused the fears over the proposal that the parliamentary appropriation for the Crown corporation should be increased.
Elsewhere, at the BBC, for example, or even in Australia, the public broadcaster is funded out of television fees, which makes it possible to maintain a certain degree of independence. In Australia, the public broadcaster's mandate even states that it must remain independent of political authority, which is not the case here. It isn't a public television network, but, without impugning anyone's motives, the facts, from a historical perspective, show us that it's a state television network, whether we like it or not.
In view of the fact that we are currently engaged in what can be characterized as group think, market logic, which applies even in public institutions with considerable finesse, where that logic would take over the Crown corporation, that is to say where the government would gradually reiterate its duty to support the CBC/Radio-Canada financially, in this case, what other types of funding should be considered, apart from advertising? This is anticipation; it's a scenario.
We know the consequences that can have on a public broadcaster. The more advertising there is, the more you acquire the profile of a private broadcaster and the more you cast off Canadian content, in this instance, and the more it loses its specific characteristics. So, apart from advertising, are there any other funding options, in your view?