To reply, I could come back to what I told the member earlier when I began to talk about the BBC and I stopped. The BBC remains a model of public television because it does not have any advertising. Let's compare France and Great Britain. In France, ads appear on public television. Frequent criticism of French public television is similar to criticism of Canadian television, in other words, French public television is overly similar to private French television.
In Great Britain, the BBC is completely different. Other than the will to have public television, one of the main reasons for this difference is the absence of advertising. There is an interesting document from 2004, published by the BBC, regarding the notion of public value. This document explains, just as private television stations must ensure an economic return for shareholders, how to define the notion of public value as a foundation of public television.
Clearly, if public television is not providing different choices or doing something that private television is not, what is the point of having a publicly-funded commercial television station? There is no point. We could better use these funds if it makes no difference. It has to provide an alternative.
Before answering your question regarding policy, I want to add my comments to what Renaud said about Internet advertising. It is true that advertising is quickly moving to the Internet, which could cause a serious crisis for newspapers. They are the main source of information, not only in Canada, but throughout the world. As a result, if there's a sharp drop in the number of newspapers, caused by the quick movement of advertising to the Internet—I don't know; no one does—newspapers would no longer be able to play the informational role they currently do. The Canadian Press could no longer play the informational role that it currently plays in Canada. Perhaps the CBC or the State should pick up the slack here, but that is another problem.
We have long said that public broadcasters should have an Internet presence to prevent the Internet from becoming completely commercial. However, if the CBC has as many Internet ads as private media sites, the same logic holds true. What is the point of CBC having a web presence if ultimately the results are identical to what La Presse or the Toronto Star or I don't know who else is doing?
With regard to the policy part of your question, our Task Force on Broadcasting Policy had suggested in 1986 that the board appoint the CEO of CBC, to ensure, at the very least, a separation between the political branch and those managing the corporation on a daily basis. Clearly, this is not the panacea.
What else? Again, at the BBC, there is a 10-year charter. Renaud mentioned it too, when you are appointed for five years, you feel as if you have a bit more freedom. I think that the political branch, no matter who's in power, would not like this solution, but should Parliament not play a more important role with regard to the appointment, as is the case with the Quebec ombudsman, for example? The entire National Assembly must approve that individual's appointment. With regard to the President of CBC, one can imagine that this is such an important appointment that it should be approved not only by the Prime Minister, but by Parliament as well.