Thank you, Madam Chair. No problem.
I agree with my colleague on the core of his thinking. Culture is extremely important. It's a foundation of society. We need it in order to move forward and know where we have come from.
That said, it's a bit funny to hear him say that we shouldn't associate it with figures and then hear him give us all the figures related to return on investment in his next sentence. The principle is the following: Public funds come from taxpayers. I agree that every dollar invested yields a return on investment of $29. We need to support culture. It's very important. We need to support our artists.
I'm really proud of what you answered, S.E. Grummett. You said that, as a result, you have been able to make a living from your art and showcase it internationally. You're the Canadian artist who is now making a name for themselves everywhere, so it's a good investment.
However, when it comes to asking whether there's something Canadian in a production funded to the tune of $151,000, I'm not asking to pour maple syrup over the world's head. That's not the point. Will someone who goes through the experience understand that it's offered by Canadians? That's why I asked the question earlier. It wasn't a question to oppose what's being done. If someone goes out, experiences something in Boston just a few steps from their house, goes back home and has no idea that they just had an experience that was paid for by Canadians, then we may be missing the mark.
It's important to stay focused on the objective, because the program, as it's defined—I may go back to this question—is meant to promote Canadian culture. It states that it aims “to increase export revenues for Canada's creative industries”. That means it's directly linked to revenue. That's stated in the definition. We aren't attacking culture when we ask for a return on investment. We're just linking the very definition of the funding program to the expectation of a return on investment. The goal of that question wasn't to tell everyone to put on antlers and wear plaid. That wasn't the point. We want to support culture, and we agree. However, if there's a publicly funded program that aims to export our knowledge and increase our export revenues, then I think it's normal to ask questions about those revenues. I don't understand why my colleague lost it, saying he's fed up of hearing that everyone has to wear arrowhead sashes. That isn't the point.
I just want to say thank you again, S.E. Grummett, because you're an example of a success story who has been funded and has a return on investment internationally. Bravo.
Ms. Straughan, you said that people watch American content and that, in the meantime, a Canadian artist loses their work. Is that what you said?