Canadian Heritage Committee on April 17th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Good morning, everyone. It's a lot nicer morning this morning than yesterday, so I'm glad to see so many smiling faces back here in Ottawa at our committee meetings. Thank you to those who went to Winnipeg. I thought we had a great session in Winnipeg.

Again, welcome to our witnesses this morning. This is the 49th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we continue with a full investigation of the role of a public broadcaster in the 21st century.

This morning we have with us, from the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Peter Murdoch, Diane Goulet, and Monica Auer. Thank you very much for attending this morning. I apologize for being just a little tardy and getting started a little late, but we will run to about five minutes to 10 and then we'll be taking a break.

So who is going to make the presentation? Mr. Murdoch.

[Peter Murdoch, Vice-President, Media, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada]

Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone. If you're asking me questions at some point later on, I have to warn you that my allergies are bothering me, so my sinuses are a bit plugged, but anyway....

I'm vice-president of media for the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. We have about 150,000 members, and 25,000 of those members are in the media. They're at Canada's largest and most prestigious newspapers, such as the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun, and the Vancouver Province, a whole variety of those, as well as Canada's private broadcasters and some public broadcasters, like TVO, CTV, CHUM, Global, etc. So we have a very good understanding and a deep interest in the media in this country, of which, of course, a prime player is our public broadcaster, the CBC.

Let me begin, and I'm going to be quite brief here because I don't think the issue is all that complicated, but maybe some of the surrounding context is.

First of all, generally, I have no problem with the mandate the way it is written now. I don't think the problem is with the mandate. I applaud the CBC for doing its best to fulfill that mandate under ever-decreasing resources. We have a big country. Monica was pointing out to me that everybody stands up and claps hands about the BBC, but of course there are 60 million people in a country the size of Nova Scotia, and we have 30 million people here, at least two languages to be served, probably many more than that, a hugely multicultural and complex society, and a wide geography and climate to serve. Given all those challenges and given the decreasing resources, I applaud the CBC for the work they're trying to do.

I guess for you folks the larger question is, is the CBC meeting the mandate and will it be able to meet this mandate in the future? Let me say that others will have provided the data and documents to you to demonstrate the erosion of funding for the CBC. That's clear, and a lot of the data, audience, and financial picture, etc., is not going to come from this union. It will come from the CBC itself, from the CRTC, and a whole variety of other sources, which I'm sure you have at hand, so I'm not going to duplicate that.

But the erosion is clear and unequivocal at a time when the country has grown and issues are more complex and the population more diverse. Even if the CBC had wanted to continue its programming agenda from, let's say, 20 years ago, it would not be able to meet the challenges of a growing country. In this way, even if they'd wanted to continue the mandate as such from 20 years ago, because of the erosion of funding, they couldn't even do that at a time when of course the country was growing and the issues and faces became more complex. I can assure you, in broadcasting, less is not more.

It is important for us to place the CBC in the landscape of the Canadian broadcasting system, which has diversified in platforms, if not in programming. I won't be touching much on the new media, but I will say this: I can assure you, to my knowledge, there has not been one broadcaster, not one publisher, that has figured out yet what the new media is going to mean in the landscape media. I think everybody at this point is whistling in the dark.

However, when looking at the big picture, the essential question that is asked time and again is, should a publicly funded CBC compete with the private sector? I think this underlies a lot of the questions you have asked in your document. I don't think it can help but compete with the private sector. There's just absolutely no way, because the key to broadcasting is audience. Were Hockey Night in Canada out there on a Thursday night without any commercials--all those commercials are now somewhere at CTV and Global--but getting the audience for, say, the Habs and the Leafs, the private sector would still be yelling because that audience that would generate that money in the private sector would now be at the public sector watching Hockey Night in Canada commercial-free.

Because it's a game of audience share, there is absolutely no way that the public sector does not compete with the private sector. They're always competing for viewers. I think if you're asking whether a publicly funded CBC should compete with the private sector, you're asking the wrong question. Instead, we should be asking what a public service broadcaster should do and what the role of a public service broadcaster is.

With the exception that it is in two languages and it needs to reach all Canadians, much of the CBC mandate actually parallels conditions of licence for the private sector. The conditions of licence for the private sector ask for diversity, cultural expression, local programming, etc. However, the fact is that the private broadcasters have an abysmal track record on a number of these key areas, which should and does, I believe, put even greater emphasis on the need for a vibrant and robust public service broadcaster, but this requires funding.

The private sector has all but abandoned local reflection, and you will see this. There used to be—and I'm sure it was the case in all your communities—everything from cooking shows to local historical documentaries, tiny talent times, etc. Those shows gave local communities a view of themselves, a view of their history, a view of the diversity and multiculturalism. Those shows are no longer on air in the private sector in Canada. By the way, they are decreasing within the public service broadcaster as well, again for lack of funding.

The mandate is quite clear. On private sector television, and increasingly so on public sector television, Canadians are not viewing themselves as they live. They have a right to do that. They have a right to see that, and not only do they have a right, but I think it's important, for any sense that we have of the identity of this country, that they do see that.

Let me say that in the private sector even local news is being jeopardized. We had local news programs axed this past summer by CHUM in western Canada. We had the CEO, Leonard Asper, of the Global television network warning the CRTC that they might have to axe some local news shows because, he claimed, they weren't profitable. All of this puts very much in jeopardy--with the concentrated ownership--the ability of Canadians to see themselves, to understand their community, and to get the vital information that is required.

It is left to the CBC to fulfill its mandate and to fill a void, but of course this requires funding. Even as the private sector has decreased its role in news information, local programming, and, by the way, the areas of prime time drama and a variety of other cultural programming, even as the private sector has abandoned that playing field, the public sector has had to cut back--the CBC has had to cut back--because of funding.

In the area of news, we believe a public broadcaster has a key role in the country to be the most reliable news outlet in the entire media landscape. A public broadcaster should not fall, and does not fall, under the restraint of corporate ideology or shareholder influence. The public broadcaster, at arm's length from government, should be the watchdog of the nation.

I made a comment. At some point you were asking how the CBC fulfills its mandate, given the votes and the funding, and my comment was that I don't know what votes have to do with this. A public broadcaster should be there simply giving the news in the most objective and responsible way it can regardless of what the government of the day is. That's what a public broadcaster is, and that's what protects our democracy. It can't be at the whim of the current government.

In our view, funding cuts and the threat of further cuts have put a muzzle on this critical role, and the increasing dependence on advertising revenue dulls the eye when looking at the world of corporate behaviour and priorities. Public service broadcasting is in the interest of the Canadian public, not Canadian corporate shareholders. One only has to look at the environment and health to understand how these two interests can be at a very costly and dangerous variance. It's clear that despite the best intentions that corporations have for their shareholders' bottom line and return on investment, the fact is—and the environment is a good example—the public interest will come in conflict with that. That's why we have a public broadcaster, to ensure that this public interest is viewed, is heard, is understood. It is up to the public broadcaster to raise the alarm in the interests of the public. That is public service broadcasting.

As I mentioned in our submission, in this country we tend to refer to public broadcasting. We forget to include public service broadcasting. That service is key to public broadcasting.

In our view, Canada has a sound foundation and an important opportunity to provide a world-class news service, not only to Canadians but also to the Americas. Our view is that we see no reason, with proper funding, that the CBC shouldn't be the BBC of the Americas and have that kind of reliability and credibility throughout the world. When people want to turn to news about the Americas, they would turn to the CBC.

In a world of polarizing politics, reliable information will be critical, and we should build on our strength, but this too requires funding. Along with local reflection news and information, of course, are the areas of sports and entertainment, which includes prime time drama. CEP believes the public broadcaster has an important role in these areas, particularly on the cultural stage, but this too requires funding.

Finally, and perhaps most germane to your inquiry, is the need for the public service broadcaster to be assured of stable funding for long periods of time. The health of such a critical institution cannot be seen to be at the whim of the government of the day. Most supporters of the CBC may argue that the current federal government is not a supporter of our public broadcaster. I don't think they have to be, as long as they give the broadcaster the tools to do the jobs in the interests of the nation.

Some of you may prefer The Sopranos to Corner Gas; some of you may watch CNN rather than Newsworld. I say fair enough, but what you have to ensure is that the choice is there and that it is allowed to exist on a financial playing field that makes the choice one of taste, not of quality. But this, too, costs money.

On the issue of money, we would prefer to see the CBC commercial-free, funded by the government, with some added help perhaps from one or two other revenue tools.

We believe the corporate governance of the CBC should change. Appointments need a test for competency in the broadcasting world, they need to be transparent, they need to better reflect the country, and the board of the CBC need to be given more power, including the selection and dismissal of the CEO.

I do not believe that parliamentarians, with all due respect, should be deciding on programming and schedules. We should be leaving that to the experts. If we give the CBC the tools and they hire the right people, they're going to get the job done.

There is every indication that the CBC has got the job done in the past, and if it is failing now—and in some areas it is failing badly, particularly in television, in my view—it is because of the lack of resources.

The answer for the CBC is that it needs some financial blood. It's hemorrhaging, and it has been for decades. Canadians want a top-quality public service broadcaster, and it's up to Parliament to ensure they get it.

Parliament, over the past few years, has rightfully put a lot of money into the environment. It's going to put more into the environment; it's going to put more money into health care. It has reinvigorated our national defence. It's done a lot of things. But the key is the messenger to the Canadian public. You could do all of those things, but if you don't have a reliable messenger to tell Canadians about what it is you're doing and why it is you're doing it and allow them a choice that is sitting around this table, then we're in serious trouble. The CBC is one of those key messengers, and it requires more funding to get the job done.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, and welcome. I appreciate your opening statements.

We're hearing about the resource issue from everyone, and I think it's fair to say that, generally speaking, there's a recognition that we expect too much for too little. I think in order to make the case, we need to know clearly what it is that we would ask the government to provide those resources for. Each of us, I think individually, has ideas about that. I'm sure you do. I think collectively we have to come together on that so there's a particular general vision for the CBC that would then be the basis around which significant resource commitments could be made.

What does the CBC look like in five years? What do you see? We'll compare notes. We all have in our minds what we think it looks like. We need to know what you think it looks like. You didn't speak too much about new media.

I accept the fact that no one has definitive answers, but I think if we're going to ask for those resources, it would be irresponsible for us to do so without addressing that issue. Other than direct support from the government by way of budgetary items, are there other ideas you have as to how resources could flow? I see your position on advertising, and that's shared by many. Are there any other creative ideas? I think there are some references here. I'd like you to elaborate a little bit on that. Could you maybe answer those first?

[Peter Murdoch]

The issues where the private sector has fallen down on the job--and I think the public broadcaster has as well--are areas that need to be reinvigorated: primarily local reflection, regional reflection. Canadians need to see themselves more. Not only do they need to see themselves more, but they need to see such quality that when a show is done out of St. John's or Gander or Grand Falls, somebody in Lethbridge is interested in seeing it. I mean, that's the important part. It's not just, here's something for the folks in Grand Falls, but here's something for the folks in Lethbridge to be able to understand the breadth of this country and what these communities are about. We believe local programming is very important.

I've touched on news. With local programming is news. I think a reliable, broad, and very deep news service is the key to a public broadcaster. That's where Canadians look when they need news that is credible and reliable. By the way, that is the history of the CBC. When there is a crisis, people turn on the CBC.

I would also like to touch on drama, because the private sector is relinquishing its commitments and obligations on the drama side. Once again, it becomes the public broadcaster's duty to step up to the plate. I know this is not your role here, but part of the problem, of course, is that the CRTC is not fulfilling its mandate to demand of the private sector that it step up to the plate on some of these issues.

Let me touch a bit on the money. I don't really know how much money is needed, and I don't think many people in this room or a lot of the experts know. What we do know is that it's significantly more. I notice that the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting has suggested $100 million a year, over five years, to reach a $500 million increment that would be sustained over the life of the CBC. That makes sense to me. But I'm not a manager; I'm a union representative, so I can't tell you precisely how much is required. That makes sense to me only because I understand how much may be lost in terms of advertising revenue.

We're talking about a significant amount of money. But it's not significant if you look at the importance, as I say, of the public broadcaster in terms of relaying the message to Canadians. I might get to some other funding mechanisms for the CBC as well.

On the issue of the new media, right now new media is unregulated. It is a neutral platform, in some ways. I don't think anybody has sorted out how to make money from it yet. I can assure you that The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star get lots of hits on their site, but nobody's making a great deal of money out of it. Not only that, but most of the time it's an adjunct to the service that is provided by the conventional newsrooms.

A lot of cbc.ca, for instance, would be news that is coming out of their conventional newsrooms and is then reworked by their Internet folks. Well, if we don't have funding for that conventional newsroom, the Internet stuff becomes very sloppy and unreliable.

Do people turn to the Internet? Yes. Do they use it? Yes, they do. What makes it tick? It's conventional newsroom operations, and that's true for newspapers and broadcasters across this country. Nobody is pumping an awful lot of money into the Internet right now. They are relying on their employees from other platforms to fill that void.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

That's it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes. We've gone over a bit here.

Mr. Kotto.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Murdoch, I understand from your presentation that you don't have any problem with the existing mandate of the SRC and the CBC, even with the budgetary cuts. You even said bravo. But if there were among us cynical people's representatives, they could say that if they could manage with those cuts, there is no problem, they can keep going in the same direction. On the other hand, you also say that the audiovisual landscape has changed, that audiences are fragmented, that new platforms appear and that an increased financing is needed, because of all of that.

You also say that the SRC cannot compete with the private sector but in reality that's what happens. Why? Because of this race for advertising revenues to compensate for the loss of parliamentary votes. So we are back to financing.

From your point of view, is the funding granted to the SRC adequately used?

[Peter Murdoch]

Let me just go back to a couple of the earlier points.

I think the mandate is general and broad enough that a well-funded CBC could meet that mandate and Canadians would be well served. Of course, as I say, it does compete with the private sector, because it's competing for eyeballs. That's the idea. You want to get people watching your show, whether it's a show on the nightlife of the beaver or whether it's Desperate Housewives.

On the question of whether they are using their funding appropriately, there are shows that I as an average Canadian would like to see that I don't see on the CBC. But you know what? There are a lot of shows that lots of people watch that I don't watch. So it's not really up to me to make those kinds of programming choices. I think that's what you're talking about.

What I do see is this. Because there's a need to compete for advertising revenue, sometimes the CBC is put in a position where it is producing programs that are more like the private sector than perhaps should be available for a public sector broadcaster. But there again, as I say, I'm not sure. There are lots of things.

Even while on a number of stations across this country perhaps audience share is a bit abysmal, that's true for a lot of private sector programming as well. So it's not as though CBC television has gone downhill and everybody else has just soared. One just has to look at the track record of Global television to tell you that there are some questions about their choices as well.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

You have insisted on the fact that the public interest should come first as far as services offered by a public broadcaster are concerned and I quite agree with that. You have spoken about the necessary rejection of corporate influence on the public broadcaster et you said it was a watch dog for the country. If I understand you correctly, a public broadcaster should not act under the influence of the government of the day nor of its shareholders.

In the present situation, what is your diagnostic about what is happening right now today? Is the public broadcaster sufficiently independent? Does he reflect objectively, in information programs especially, the whole diversity of point of views?

[Peter Murdoch]

Let me just say a couple of things off the top, just in terms of my view as a consumer.

I'm not phoning up CBC every day and asking journalists there, but if I had my funding cut regularly and was assailed.... I think we're starting to get a polarized media, much like they have in the United States. If you listen to what I would consider to be right-wing shock jocks, as they call them, on the radio, you'll hear attacks on the CBC regularly. Some of these attacks come from very powerful media institutions, and I'd be a little bowed by that. I'd be a little nervous about that, particularly given that there's a lot of power there.

Where do I see that influence? I see it in programming cuts, in news and information cuts, and in a less aggressive position on some news items. So, yes, I think there is a change in the CBC because of the funding cuts and because of the environment.

The fact that we're looking at this now is partly, I hope, because there's concern about the health of the CBC. But there's also well-voiced opposition to the CBC, period, and believe me, management of the CBC is aware of that.

Monica has made the point to me that, indeed, we have a whole variety of ways of looking at programming content. The CRTC is there to make sure we're paying attention to the licences and the minister is there to make sure CBC is fulfilling its mandate. There is a complaint mechanism, and Canadians have a variety of ways, through government regulatory agencies and public complaint, to try to ensure that the CBC is fulfilling its mandate. I know of no company, though, let alone a public broadcaster, that wouldn't start feeling a bit jittery when it has continually had its public funding decreased. At the same time it has had these decreases, there has been an attack on its very existence, and it has been a never-ending attack for at least the past decade.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I want to follow up on the discussion of a polarized media. We've been looking at the issue of public broadcasting, what it does well and where there is a challenge in private broadcasting. We talk about drama a lot of the time, but I'm interested in the issue of news media.

If you look at CBC, CTV, or Global, you're going to see a fairly high standard of journalistic integrity that I think people trust. Yet in watching a fair amount of TV lately, I've watched American networks. There has been a phenomenal change there in the quality of news reporting in the last twenty years, from a very high standard to something that's basically similar to a carnival atmosphere right now.

We only have to look at what's happened in the last few years. They have a President who was able to perpetuate a fraud on the American people, based on the fact that the media went along with every crazy, crackpot thing he came out with on Iraq. There was no objective media presence in the U.S. on major television networks to challenge that, unlike in Canada, where we still maintained an objective sense.

I'm looking at three areas where I think Canada's strengths would be right now. I don't think they have anything to do with us being innately more highbrow than our American neighbours, but we have maintained a strong public broadcaster that I think sets a benchmark for other media, we've had a CRTC that has maintained some teeth, and we've had a diversity of competition in the marketplace. I would suggest that all three areas are fairly challenged right now.

Given your experience representing workers in newsrooms across the country, how would you see this polarization of the media in both the private and public spheres?

[Peter Murdoch]

A few nights ago I was listening to Fox radio. I listen to radio at night. This was Fox shock talk, which referred to CNN as the communist news network. It's this kind of polarizing, which is there in the United States, that I worry about here. It serves to polarize the country, and it may serve to get an audience, but in the long run you end up with not very thoughtful news and information.

In terms of the news source, let me for the fun of it give you an example. This is true in broadcasting as well, but it might be more easily demonstrated in print.

In Vancouver, The Vancouver Sun, Vancouver's largest newspaper, used to have, I think, four people covering the legislature in Victoria. Now I think it has one columnist and uses the sister paper, the Victoria Times Colonist.

In Alberta, the Edmonton Journal and the Calgary Herald used to have two reporters each and were very competitive with each other. Now, I understand, they have one reporter each and share news back and forth, so there's that kind of competition.

In this province, The Windsor Star, The Hamilton Spectator, The London Free Press, and The Kitchener-Waterloo Record all used to have reporters covering the provincial legislature. Now none of them has. Three of those papers had reporters up on the Hill, and none of them has.

That's in the newspapers. But I can assure you that particularly in medium and small-sized broadcasting markets the same thing is going on. There is a withdrawal of coverage in news and information.

I'm just receiving a note here. Monica is just letting me know—and this is true—that the CRTC unfortunately has dropped its regulations regarding news programming from radio and television. It used to demand that when people had their licence they would be expected and obligated to have so much news and local programming. Now that's not true.

All I'm saying, I guess, is that in this polarized atmosphere the idea of having a strong, independent public service broadcaster becomes more and more important for the health of the country; there's no question. Those folks who criticize the CBC because they see it as left-wing, or liberal, or communist, or socialist, or God knows what all, are making a large mistake, and making a mistake that's bad for the country. I think the CBC strives to be a strong, independent broadcaster in the service of Canadians. That's the difference here: in the service of Canadians—the breadth of Canadians, not simply shareholders.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I just want to follow up on that one more time. You talked about the political attacks on the CBC and how they affect the confidence to cover stories.

We had a recent example with Tom Flanagan, good soulmate of our present Prime Minister, who went running to his blog site when he got cut from a story and saw that as an example of the perfidity of the socialist media. I get cut from stories all the time. I just figure they've run out of space, or maybe they've heard my line before. I might set myself up as a blogger to lick my wounds publicly.

What do you think it means, on the eve of, say, a CBC mandate review, when you have a friend of the Prime Minister coming out and saying, “I wasn't in a story; this is an example of the CBC failing its mandate”—that kind of micromanaging of what would be part of a normal news room network?

[Peter Murdoch]

I'm not surprised that politicians want to get their names in the paper, or that you want get your face on air, and I'm not surprised if the Prime Minister wants to do it as well. The problem I have, particularly with the Prime Minister doing it, is that it sends a chill across the CBC. The CBC, of course, relies on government funding, to some degree, so it's a huge problem. I don't think it's his role to be in any way criticizing the public broadcaster. It's intimidating.

By the way, we all struggle for our little bit of fame on the media. The idea that people complain about it.... Well, yes, they do. I have some deep concerns about a lot of our conventional media in their policies and direction. But for the Prime Minister to be commenting on the public broadcaster I think is a grave mistake, because it puts a chill on a newsroom that perhaps more than any other demands freedom to do its job.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Brown.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. There were some interesting points.

I went through your brief, and you came right to the point. You said there are central questions for Canadian public broadcasting, and we'll go through them one by one.

Does the CBC have the resources to fulfill its mandate? This is something I asked Mr. Rabinovitch, first of all, in the last Parliament and again when he was before the committee on this study.

You talked about the cuts. The government recently put $60 million more into the CBC.

My question is this. What is the optimum for the CBC? What would it look like and how much money is it going to cost, especially from your perspective as the representative of the workers?

Here's your chance.

[Peter Murdoch]

Yes, everybody gets a 50% wage increase.

No, it's really hard for me to say. If you want to, you can go to the Cadillac level and think, boy, we would like to be the BBC of the Americas. As I said, it's going to cost a significant amount. How much? You'll have to ask them.

I could come here and tell you we need another billion dollars for the CBC, but I don't have documents supporting that. I haven't done studies to support it. If somebody's going to make a decision about the need, all I can tell you is that when I look at the programming out there, the audience reception out there, and the cuts that have happened to the CBC over the past decade, it is clear to me that more money is required to do this. But you're going to need to hear from the public broadcaster itself on the money we need and what we're going to do with it.

I think it's fair for this committee to say, we've heard from a lot of people and we agree that one of the things you should be doing with this new money is local reflection, or one of the things you should be doing with this money is prime time drama.

It's up to the people who know the business to come to you and say, we hear you. Here's what you say our mandate is. Here's how much money it's going to cost us to get it done.

But it has to be stable funding. That's the other thing. It can't be from day to day.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Okay. Can you quickly give us a little background on the impact of the cuts? How did it affect things on the ground for the viewers and for your workers?

[Peter Murdoch]

What was the impact of the cuts?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Yes, quickly give us the background, for a minute or two.

[Peter Murdoch]

Well, some stations were actually closed.

I think the disastrous decision that was being proposed by Mr. Rabinovitch to end the supper-hour news shows, which was turned back and ended up being half an hour but still cost the CBC an enormous amount in terms of audience and trust, was a direct result of trying to deal with funding cuts.

We've seen everything at the CBC, from public relations to the ability to build sets and designs. By the way, let me make one quick point here. I'm very sad to see the CBC completely abandon the in-house production of drama.

There's a culture that comes within public broadcasting that is different from private broadcasting. That culture can sometimes generate wonderful programming, and it is unique and different. It can sometimes generate some terrible stuff. Do you know what? The good and the bad are not different from the private sector. But if you get rid of it, we won't have a choice anymore.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Okay. Going back to your comments and questions, has the CBC the appropriate management team in place to ensure mandate obligations are met? Do you think the appropriate management team is in place?