Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of short comments and then a question for the hon. member.
I listened to his comments quite closely with respect to the CBC. It brings a lot of things home to me because I spent many years at the corporation.
Implicit in his remarks is the privatization of the CBC. In suggesting that, the hon. member really does not understand what public broadcasting is all about. The private networks are not interested in a lot of the things done by the CBC. The CBC carries programs like "Man Alive", "Marketplace", "The Fifth Estate" and "Meeting Place" which is the religious broadcast on television on Sundays. There is also its entire radio service.
Private broadcasters are not interested in programs of that kind for two reasons. One is that they are not that cost effective for commercial organizations. They do not draw the kinds of audiences that programs with all the violence and sex do. It is not fair to public broadcasting or Canadians to lump public broadcasting in with commercial broadcasting. They are very, very different. It is like comparing a bakery with a farm machinery company; they just do not match.
It is unfair to CBC employees when the hon. member suggests there is no bottom line at the CBC. If the hon. member had made those remarks in 1970, the year I joined the CBC, I think he would have been pretty well right. The CBC could be accused of some very serious profligate spending in 1970 but that is not the case now. Sure, you are going to find some fat, but there is no comparison to 20 or 25 years ago. Therefore, to suggest there is no bottom line is just not true.
My question has to do with the borrowing aspect of Bill C-17. Maybe $25 million is a lot of money, maybe it is not. But as long as the borrowing is consistent with the means, that is the budget the CBC has, I do not see the concern, as long as it fits in with the budget. Why is that concern there? It is not adding to the budget; it is just one more expense item with respect to the budget.