Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Lacroix. I much appreciate all of your comments and your presentation, but some of the things you said pleased me more than others, particularly those comments that seemed to me to be the crux of your argument.
On page 1 of your document, it is stated that:
We play a pivotal role in the social, cultural and democratic life of this country, and we cannot do that unless we're in Canadian communities. This is how we ensure that the issues and challenges people face in one community are heard and shared by people living across the country.
However, the key phrase that sparked my interest is the following:
That identification with the lives of people in other communities is the very essence of a national identity.
I am a sovereigntist, but if I were a regular Canada who wanted Canada to be set on solid ground, I would take that sentence at face value. It seems to me that national identity is at the heart of a nation. If you cannot ensure it by investing the funds needed, where does that leave us? I am not here to defend Canada, but I feel the question needs to be asked.
You are asking for additional resources in order to carry out your mandate. You are facing a budget shortfall because your revenues are declining. Industrialized countries around the world have decided, given the economic crisis, to make massive investments in the labour market to stimulate the economy. Countries are investing hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of billions even, to support the economy and the labour market, in order to minimize the number of job losses. Some 800 jobs could be lost at your corporation. There is no funding to compensate for these losses. Instead, millions of dollars will be invested to build bridges, roadways and ports, basically in infrastructures. I have nothing against that, but I believe that culture is worth at least the price of a bridge. I know of bridges costing $800 million. However, for there to be investments made in culture, you need collective, political will. That is why my question springs from the following comment, which can be found on page 5:
[...] we need a new contract with Canadians, a memorandum of understanding that would clearly lay out Canadians' priorities for their public broadcaster and the resources necessary to fulfill those objectives.
Would this not be a way to get Canadians or their government to reinvest in culture? That is precisely where the fundamental problem lies.