On your first question, I think it's crazy to assume that CBC will not need ad revenue; there's just no feasible way the public broadcaster can survive without ad revenue. In the best of all possible worlds, yes, it would be a great idea, but it's not realistic. I think what we're trying to grapple with is making the CBC better within the confines of what is possible, so ad revenue is essential.
Hockey Night in Canada is absolutely essential. I'm from a small northern town. I was up there visiting my family, and what do you do on a Saturday night? You watch the hockey game. That drives people to the CBC, where they might see an ad for Little Mosque on the Prairie on a Tuesday night and then think, I might watch that. I was really quite alarmed when there was the possibility that the CBC wouldn't be able to afford Hockey Night in Canada, because I just thought that would be the end of the public broadcaster.
So we have to ensure that the public broadcaster has enough money to properly bid on cornerstone pieces of the schedule. They have to be allowed to be competitive, and to do that we have to ensure that the parliamentary appropriation is appropriate.
In terms of getting out of the area of Internet news, etc, I would say no. That would just decimate their entire regional base, and it could in no way be a good idea for the public broadcaster. We understand where the privates are coming from, but they serve a very different audience, and an audience that our members like to write for as well. I don't understand the pettiness of why they deny that the CBC must have ad revenue. You know, the privates do very well; CTV now has the Olympics. There's enough for everybody to share. We think it's just essential that the CBC has a mix of programming in order to attract and retain an audience.
In terms of the privates and their obligations, there's one point I want to make today, because we heard this so many times from Mr. Manera when he was with the CBC. We obviously watched his presentation as well, and dissected it. This whole notion that the CBC could be the only home of Canadian content is just the kiss of death for the creative community, and I think for Canadian audiences and our industry. I can't say that strongly enough. I can come up with monetary reasons, and we will do that for you, but not today.
Charlie, you've hit some figures.
But in terms of creative ability—and Rebecca has already spoken to this—you cannot have a viable industry where there is one broadcaster, one channel, for all of our industry to pitch. If you know how the CBC works, you know they have production executives, development executives. It's not a big pool; there are about four people working at the CBC who make all of the creative decisions. That means that four people in this country determine what Canadian content goes on air. That's not acceptable to me as a citizen, and I can't imagine it would be acceptable to many others.
Also, private broadcasters bring other things to the game. As CTV has told us many times, the big tent approach is what they're looking for. Our members want to work for CTV; they want to work for Global. It's a different type of programming. The ladies at Global have told us they want to make programs for the youth demographic. Falcon Beach is written by our writers.
That allows the talent pool to write different things, with different voices, and it ensures there is enough opportunity out there to grow a small talent pool. We're not looking at a large pool; we're not a huge industry, but we do need diversity. And right now, there really are only three broadcasters to pitch. If the CTVglobemedia acquisition of CHUM goes forward, it will be another broadcaster we have lost. Space has done a lot of original programming, using screenwriters, directors, performers, producers. Again, it may not be to your taste, but it is out there and it's available.
I just can't say strongly enough what a crazy idea this is, and I really hope we don't put any energy into pursuing that.