Thank you.
On the issue of income averaging, I'm very proud that many of my constituents work in the arts sector. We have musicians, painters, writers, theatre performers, actors, and income averaging is something that I have long been in support of. While we have some very, very successful architects, artists, broadcasters, filmmakers, we also have so many people who are living in poverty, and they are really subsidizing the artistic work they offer us.
I have a motion, in fact, on income averaging for artists, because I think it's one way to help smooth out the lumpy income that they have over a period of years.
I want to address the issue of Canadian content, because while someone said earlier that the U.S. just has a free market on this, in fact, the U.S. is the largest cultural exporter in the world. They are fiercely competitive in cracking open markets and ensuring that their products are sold to foreign markets. Other countries, whether it's European countries or others, are also very aggressive in supporting their cultural communities. It seems to me that, unlike some other sectors of the economy, where you have a short R and D and then you go into production, in the cultural sector the research and development is the development of the actor's talent. All the huge creative input that goes in upfront, whether it's design or writing or whatever the creation is...it's a huge amount of research and development, and when you actually get to the product, whether it's a video, a CD, a performance, whatever it is, that's actually the smallest part of the actual creation of this product.
It seems to me that unless we support that R and D part, that creation of the Canadian product, and we're fierce in defending that, in fact, it will not be a fair competition with other producers, especially the U.S.
I wonder if any of you would like to comment on that.