Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 7 - Evidence, June 11, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 11, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 6:45 p.m. to examine the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications.
Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to order.
[English]
Today, we are returning to our study into the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications. Our witness for today is Mr. Tony Manera. He is former CBC President and CEO from 1993 to 1995. After leaving the organization, he published A Dream Betrayed: The Battle for the CBC in 1996.
I invite Mr. Manera to make his presentation.
[Translation]
Tony Manera, as an individual: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to share with you some ideas that are pertinent to your mandate. I hope that you will find my remarks useful and interesting.
[English]
Since I'm appearing as an individual and not as a representative of any organization, perhaps you should know something about me.
I am Italian by birth but Canadian by choice. All of my university studies were completed in the United States of America. I worked there initially as an electronics engineer in the American defence industry and later as a professor of engineering and mathematics. When I returned to Canada, I continued my career as an educator, teaching at Ryerson in Toronto, and then throughout the community college system in Ontario and British Columbia.
I served as a community college president for 13 years, 6 in Ontario and 7 in British Columbia; and then I joined the CBC, initially as a vice-president of human resources.
A year later, I was appointed senior vice-president, and eventually I was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer, as the chair indicated, and for a brief period I also served as chairman of the board.
I am the only president named from inside the CBC in 50 years and the only president to have come to Canada as an immigrant. I'm also the only one who has written a book about it, as the chair has indicated, and I'm the only one who worked for the CBC for more than 10 years in various capacities. I'm also the oldest living president of the CBC, which I'm sure you will have noted by now.
My deep attachment to the CBC flows from my deep commitment to Canada, my country. I've lived and worked for several years in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, and I've travelled throughout every province as well as the North.
As a result of these experiences, I am convinced more than ever that Canada needs a national institution such as the CBC to bind us together because we're a very diverse country; we're a very large country.
One of the factors that prompted me to leave the academic world for the CBC was the mandate to inform and to enlighten, which is in the Broadcasting Act, which struck me as very much in line with my role as an educator.
[Translation]
My presentation today draws its inspiration from a recent program on the Réseau de l'information, the Radio-Canada channel that was launched when I was president. I obtained the licence for the Réseau de l'information. The program was about the historical events going on when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister of Canada.
[English]
Free trade, the GST, the fight against apartheid in South Africa, the acid rain treaty with the U.S., Canada's admission to the G7 club, the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords — these were all pivotal issues that took place during those turbulent years. Then I asked myself: How many Canadians voting for the first time in the next federal election know about these events?
You know, very few recent high school graduates would because history is not compulsory in grades 11 and 12. New Canadians who have come to Canada since those years wouldn't know about these events, either, and immigrants will represent the largest component of Canada's increasing population over the next 50 years, because we're not producing enough babies in Canada.
Therefore, you need some means to ensure that these people who will be voting for the first time have some understanding of the history, the recent history of Canada, because these issues, like free trade and the environment, are still with us in different forms, different ways, but they haven't gone away. Having a sense of the historical background is extremely important to these people, and this is where the enlightening and informing part of the CBC mandate comes in.
In fact, when you think about it, the CBC is the only federal institution that has a mandate that can be characterized as educational, and the provinces may not like that, because in Canada education is a provincial jurisdiction, but the feds in their wisdom found a way around that.
There's another interesting CBC program that inspired me, and that's not in the same category; it's show business. It's a detective show called Murdoch Mysteries. In fact, it wasn't even a CBC program to start with. It was on a private broadcaster, and I said to myself, "This program belongs on the CBC," and sure enough I guess the CBC must have read my mind because the next season it was on the CBC.
If you watch the program, it's entertaining, you learn about detectives and so on so forth, somebody gets murdered and, you know, the detective investigates. I'm sure Senator White must know about all of this, and you find out that in the early part of the 20th century it was all right for the police to beat a confession out of a suspect.
Senator White: The good ol' days.
The Chair: I would like to remind the members that we are televised.
Mr. Manera: That's right. It was also impossible for a Roman Catholic to be promoted above the rank of detective. Why? Because Toronto was a Protestant town, and I'm sure Senator Eggleton knows a little bit about that, although I'm not suggesting that he's that old or anything like that. Because I'm sure that under his leadership things changed in Toronto for the better.
Senator Eggleton: I was the first Roman Catholic mayor in 1980. It took that long.
Mr. Manera: You see? You broke new ground, senator.
These are just two examples, Mr. Chairman, of how the CBC fulfills its mandate to inform, enlighten and entertain. We know from the act that CBC programming must be distinctively Canadian and contribute to national consciousness and identity.
And that leads me to the nation building role played by Radio-Canada in fostering the French language and culture, not just in Quebec but throughout the rest of Canada.
[Translation]
English-speaking Canadians do not want to be assimilated by the culture of our neighbours to the south. Radio-Canada is a very effective vehicle with which to deal with those interests and concerns; it seems to me to be a very good, indirect way to promote Canadian unity.
[English]
And yet, we still hear voices questioning the value of taxpayer support for the CBC.
The parliamentary committee on Canadian Heritage has heard from the public, and I'm sure Senator Verner remembers those public hearings in 2007. It heard from individuals and groups from all aspects of Canadian society, the cultural community, the motion picture industry, various educational institutions, government agencies, commercial media organizations, francophone and Aboriginal associations, they all were heard. The breadth and depth of support for the CBC was clearly demonstrated. And what was the result? Well, in its report — and the title of the report was Defining Distinctiveness in the Changing Media Landscape — there is nothing new here, you know, this has been looked at before. The parliamentary committee confirmed without dissent the CBC's role as an institution at the centre of cultural, political, social and economic life in Canada. These are important words, and words that come out of the Parliament of Canada should have — must have significance. They must carry weight.
In order to meet its mandate, I think we all realize that CBC must have sufficient funding, and that same parliamentary committee recommended a formula, $40 per capita per annum. That's what they recommended, $40 per capita per annum. What is it today? It's about $29 per capita. What is it among the Western democracies that have a public broadcasting system? The average is $87, so we're well below the average.
The CBC is now more efficient than ever, I can attest to that because I will agree that 30 years ago, when the government of Brian Mulroney came in, there were inefficiencies at the CBC. I saw them with my own eyes and I can attest to them. Those inefficiencies have long gone.
So the cuts that have been made since have cut into the bone. There are fewer programs of high production value. The talent pool has shrunk. There are more repeats. There's more commercial advertising. And when commercial advertising takes up 20 per cent of your schedule, which is what it does now, 20 per cent, there's no way that that is not going to have some influence on your programming. It's bound to.
And no matter how you look at it, just look at radio with no advertising and you can see the distinctiveness of it. Television is becoming more and more like its commercial counterparts, and one of the factors is that in order to get that advertising revenue you have to have the kind of programming that draws mass audiences. I will be happy to get into more detail on that at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman.
Now you're looking at a rapidly changing environment, and there's no question that the CBC of the future will not look like the CBC of the present. It's going to have to evolve. Technological change is amazing. This is nothing new, of course. At one time CBC was just radio, then it was black and white TV, then it was colour TV, on and on and on. It's always changed with technology. That's nothing new. Parliament recognized that. It stipulates right in the Broadcasting Act that the Canadian broadcasting system should be readily adaptable to scientific and technological change, so that's always going to be with us.
New business models will have to evolve, not just for the CBC but for all broadcasters because people are going to want programming wherever, whenever and however is most convenient for them, and we have the technology that's capable of doing that. You know, we're all dazzled by technology. We all have iPhones and iPads and all of that, and as an engineer, I love technology. I can't have enough of it, you know, but in the final analysis, technology is a means to an end; it's not an end in itself. What counts is the content. And so we shouldn't get caught up with the technology as if it's the be-all and end-all. It's just a way of reaching people, and in order to reach people you've got to have content that is relevant, that is high quality and that is Canadian. Let's not forget that — Canadian.
The Chair: Mr. Manera, I'm sorry to interrupt. I've just been informed that we have a vote at 8:00. We can continue for about 25 minutes.
Mr. Manera: I've got maybe five minutes.
The Chair: I'll ask the senators to be short in their questions. I have five names on the list and I think everybody can get a few minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Manera: The cornerstone of a public broadcaster is its information and public affairs service. To maintain its credibility, Radio-Canada must operate independently of the government of the day. The system in place today is inadequate to guarantee that independence. Let me emphasize that.
[English]
The system in place today is inadequate to guarantee the independence of the CBC. Changes are necessary, both in governance and funding methodology.
The fundamental challenge is how to reconcile the need for independence with the equally important need for accountability. You need both. You cannot be independent and not be accountable. You've got to be accountable. There are many ways in which this can be done, but currently it's not adequate. Accountability is not adequate either.
My suggestion — and it's strictly a suggestion for debate; other people would have to be consulted — would be to take a really hard look at the accountability process that's in place now and start from scratch.
It is my opinion that the CRTC could be modified to assume an evaluation role whereby it would examine what the CBC is doing in terms of its service to the public, give an opinion on how well it is performing, and make a recommendation to Parliament on the level of funding that the CBC should receive.
I believe the CRTC has the expertise, the knowledge, and it operates sufficiently independently of government to have credibility. However, having said that, there may be other ways in which the same objective can be achieved. I simply make that suggestion.
My suggestion is supported by an opinion given by the Auditor General of Canada in 2000 when this question was addressed. He did not specifically suggest that the CRTC be given this mandate, but he recommended that something along the lines of what I have just told you be done. We are now in 2014 and nothing has been done. So the time to act is now.
My own belief is that unless the CBC can be funded at a level of $50 per capita per annum, it cannot do its job effectively.
With that, Mr. Chair, I close my remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Housakos: Thank you, Mr. Manera, for being with us this evening. I'm going to make some comments and I have some questions. I will roll them together and allow you to comment on them. I will start going backwards from your exposé to us.
For starters, your comment that there has to be essentially a doubling of CBC's operating budget in order for the CBC to survive I hope is not the case. I hope the CBC can, in 2014, become a lot more innovative than that, because I think successive governments over the last decade, both Conservatives and Liberals, have clearly shown that there is no appetite in Parliament or amongst the public for doubling financing to CBC/Radio-Canada.
Having said that, I want to comment on your perspective that the CRTC can somehow serve as a better mechanism than Parliament as an accountability arm. I think that that is misguided to believe the taxpayers' dollars are going to be managed and the accountability to taxpayers' dollars will be carried out by a regulatory body whose job is specific in licensing broadcasters across the country. I can assure you, until such time as the CRTC puts their name on the billboard and a ballot in this country, the people that are accountable to taxpayers are those that every three or four years go to the people and ask for a mandate, and that's the Parliament of Canada collectively with all the elected members, and of course the Senate serving its role as sober second thought.
As a committee we have seen in the last few months the difficulties we've had in terms of accountability from the CBC in getting simple answers to very simple questions in conducting a study which we are doing in good faith in order to overcome some of the challenges and difficulties that the CBC is facing. Yet, in the middle of our study we have the President of CBC/Radio-Canada calling for a public discourse on the future of CBC/Radio-Canada, instead of actually coming to this committee and working with us in that process of a public discourse, in coming to some kind of solution, because we're looking for solutions.
I've listened attentively to your perspective, and it's amazing how many times you used the words that the CBC/ Radio-Canada's role is to inform and to enlighten. I come from the business world where my job as CEO of a company was to attract as many clients to my company, to my product as possible. I can assure you that the first thing I did when I developed a sales strategy, I never had "enlighten and inform" at the top of my salesman's manual. I always had: Focus, listen, observe, take notes.
I feel CBC/Radio-Canada should focus a lot more on providing services that the Canadian public really wants, and my question to you is the following: What gauge are you going to use in terms of success when it comes to informing and enlightening your clientele when, if we look at successive ratings through the years, the CBC ratings have gone down at a faster pace? Their advertising revenue in the past few years has gone down at a faster pace than government funding has.
Mr. Manera: Mr. Chair, I'm not here to engage in a debate, but I would be happy to do so if the venue was such, but that's not my role here. It's to answer questions.
First of all, the analogy with the business world with "enlighten and inform" is not appropriate. I didn't put those words in the law; Parliament did. As long as Parliament has placed those things in the law, then I think it is up to Parliament to ensure that its will is carried out. It's not the CBC that has decided that its mandate is to inform and enlighten; it's the Parliament of Canada that's decided that. So if Parliament at some point decides that's not what it wants the CBC to do, then it has the power to do it.
But it's in there, I believe it belongs there, and I gave an example of a program which I thought was quite entertaining because of the colourful personalities involved, but also served the purpose of enlightening and informing.
In terms of how to measure audience, there are two ways. One is share, the other is reach. "Share" is what percentage of the audience you are attracting at any given time, and that has declined. I don't think that you can divorce the budget cuts that have taken place from that decline, because when you keep repeating the same program over and over again, of course you're going to have a lower audience. And you cannot divorce it from the fact that there are now 500 channels, or what have you, whereas in the past there were only two or three. So that is part of the explanation.
The other measure, which is "reach," is how many Canadians make use of the CBC service during any given period of time. I don't think that has gone down that much, if at all. I think it's still over 20 million.
In terms of what percentage of the population the CBC reaches, I think it's still well over 20 million people. I don't want to enter into a debate with you, senator, because that is not my role here. I am not going to try to explain the actions of Mr. Lacroix or the CBC because I have been away for 20 years. I'm here as a simple citizen.
I can tell you that when I speak with my friends and colleagues from all walks of life, from all political stripes, they all say, "Yes, they could do better here or they could do better there but, by God, we need it." It can be improved, should be improved and must be improved, but it's so fundamental, it's so important to try to bind this diverse country. When you go from Newfoundland to British Columbia to the North, you've got tremendous diversity of people. You have the francophones, the anglophones, the Aboriginals, the new immigrants; it's very difficult to keep a country like this together. You need as much as possible.
Senator Housakos: I will ask a supplementary question. I have heard your testimony so far and, unlike the vast majority of other proponents of the CBC who have come here, you're giving the impression that everything there is done perfectly well and the only thing that is really required is more funding. Are there elements that the CBC in your opinion can do better?
Mr. Manera: Yes.
Senator Housakos: What would they be?
Mr. Manera: Governance. Governance of the CBC is inadequate.
The first problem with the governance is that the board of directors doesn't have the power to hire and fire the president. As you know from your experience in the private sector, if a board of directors can't hire and fire the president, it doesn't really have much control over what is going on. That is the first thing: The board should have the power to hire and fire the president. It doesn't have that. In fact, it's almost impossible to fire the CBC president. Please don't interpret this to suggest that I think the current CBC president should be fired. I am not dealing with personalities here, only with the system. That's the first thing.
If the board can't fire the president, then it can't carry out its fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, which is the public in the final analysis. That is the first change.
Senator Eggleton: Let me go to the funding issue, if I might.
Senator Housakos says there is not much of an appetite for a big increase because you said it should go to $50 per capita, and it seems quite rational considering where other countries are and what the aim of that previous report was.
If it isn't going to be provided directly through the government, what other avenues are there? For example, there is the way the Brits do it, the licensing fee kind of thing. We also had one person here — I can't remember his name — who suggested that maybe we should have a special tax on the communications companies, all the ones that are making big profits and paying their CEOs lots of money. Maybe we should have a special tax on them that goes into a pool that could be used both for the CBC as well as for Canadian production in general, the Canadian film thing or whatever.
You say that it needs to be accountable but it should be independent at the same time. Taking it off the budget cycle each and every year, because I think the case you are making and the case I would certainly support is that it needs long-term, stable funding and cannot be subject to the vagaries of the budget each year in and out. Getting it off of the budget, is there a formula that you think might work?
Mr. Manera: I think you have identified the three or four possibilities, all of which can be looked at. Each of them has pluses and minuses, like everything else. The licence fee idea used to be in place in Canada until 1952 and then Parliament decided to abolish it. Canadians are not used to the idea of a licence fee as they are in Great Britain or in Italy. I'm not sure about France, but I know in Great Britain and in Italy there is a licence fee. In Canada we're not used to that, and I think the public would not be very receptive to it. That is why Parliament eliminated it in 1952.
The other possibility, of having some sort of contribution from the private sector because of the many benefits that private broadcasters currently receive directly and indirectly, either through subsidies or through preferential tax treatment under section 19 of the Income Tax Act or through the simultaneous substitution, these are real benefits with real dollar value. That is an option that could be considered and would have to be examined in detail by people who have more expertise in that than I do, frankly, but it is a possibility.
If there is a willingness to fund the CBC adequately, with stable, long-term funding, you get the experts in a room and you give them that assignment, they can look at all of these options and maybe even others and come up with a formula that would provide that kind of stability.
Senator Eggleton: One other question on the financial side of things: Advertising commercials on the CBC — some advocate there shouldn't be any; some are not very optimistic about where that is going anyway, because of the soon-to-be loss of the hockey revenue. Some are even suggesting that the revenues are going to get so low that the costs might not even properly cover them, so is it worth staying in the advertising business? How do you see that?
Mr. Manera: This is somewhat subjective, but based on experience. Don't forget I was there for 10 years. I went to bed every night thinking about these kinds of issues and losing sleep over them.
My belief — and others may disagree — is that on television, four minutes per hour would be about the limit. Beyond that, I think what tends to happen is that your programming strategy starts being compromised or driven by the need to raise that commercial revenue. The CBC was not created by Parliament to be a commercial broadcaster. If that was the intent, then that could simply be left to the private sector; that is what they are there for. It was created to provide a public service. Currently, it is 12 minutes; that is 20 per cent of the time. When 20 per cent of your time is spent advertising, you are no longer a public service; you've crossed the line. Four minutes in my opinion is the limit.
There are so-called "purists" who say no advertising at all because any amount of advertising compromises the content. I don't share that view. I think with four minutes you can still have a good public broadcasting service.
Senator Plett: I'm sorry that we don't have more time because this is indeed something that we would all like to spend a fair amount of time on. I will try to be brief.
I very much believe that we, as parliamentarians here, as we study this, need to be very cognizant of what Canadians want. I believe Canadians want to watch the television shows and listen to the radio channels that they want to watch. They don't want to pay for ones that they don't want to watch.
Senator Housakos mentioned that CBC's polling numbers are low. Radio-Canada, in Quebec at least, I think is running neck and neck with two other stations there, and that's fine, but in English Canada they are well behind CTV and Global. For us to continue to fund at the rate you are suggesting now, to double it, I think Canadians would have our heads if we did that.
I would like to know, what did CBC do that CTV did not do to enlighten people about Meech Lake, about Charlottetown, about detectives not being able to be promoted because of their religion, about police beating people? CBC wasn't the only radio or television station that broadcast this. What did CTV do that they didn't do and is it not up to us to educate ourselves or is it up to us to have a public broadcaster give us our education? That is my first question.
Mr. Manera: With regard to the ratings, I would simply ask the senator, when he compares the ratings of the CBC to CTV and Global, to look at the content. If CTV and Global are broadcasting Canadian and American content, I would suggest to you that, in prime time, a lot of that content is American content.
Senator Plett: It is content that people want to watch.
Mr. Manera: Yes, I agree. No one is suggesting that they be denied the right to watch that American content. However, Parliament, in its wisdom, many years ago, decided that it wanted a Canadian broadcasting system because the Americans would have been quite happy — and I am sure, if you ask them, they will be quite happy — to broadcast their programs into Canada with American commercials, and we wouldn't need CTV or Global. The only reason CTV and Global exist is because of the simulcasting rules that enable them to insert their commercials into American shows, which are produced with budgets that are many, many times greater than those available to the CBC.
No one, in a free society, will deny Canadians the right to watch American shows. Absolutely not. Parliament — and this is not me and not the CBC — decided that it wasn't good enough to simply be exposed to American programming, no matter how much we like the Americans. Don't forget, my whole university education was American. My whole philosophy of life was developed in the U.S., but I came back to Canada. I love Canada. The Parliament of Canada said, "We like the Americans. They are our best neighbours, but we want to be different. We want to have something on the air that reflects our reality, not the American reality." The Americans know all about the first amendment. When I was growing up in Montreal, I used to go to the movies, and I thought John Wayne won World War II because the only films available in Montreal were American films. If you only have CTV and Global, that is the kind of reality that Canadians will have, that Canada had nothing to do with World War II.
Senator Plett: When you grew up, sir, we didn't have CTV and Global. You were watching American channels and CBC.
Mr. Manera: No, I was watching movies.
Senator Plett: You suggest that Parliament made these decisions. I beg to differ. Canadians made the decision because it is Canadians who allow parliamentarians to be here in Ottawa and make decisions, and, if they make the wrong decisions, they will be voted out. So it is Canadians who made that decision.
My last quick question here is: You talk about four minutes out of an hour being acceptable advertising time; 12 minutes is too much. What percentage do other television stations have?
Mr. Manera: Way more.
Senator Plett: What percentage?
Mr. Manera: They go as high as 18 per cent. Some actually have 100 per cent. Some stations carry a full half hour of nothing but commercials.
Senator Plett: Yet, their viewership is higher than CBC's. I think the proof is in the pudding. Thank you.
Senator Mercer: I don't know where he is getting his ideas from. Anyway, I will not be argumentative tonight because I really appreciate you being here and appreciate your history with the corporation.
Back when you were with CBC, of course the Web was still a relatively new phenomenon, and, of course, we are now in 2014. Private broadcasting and telecommunications has converged with companies such as Rogers and is able to distribute content over their own Internet and wireless services. CBC-Radio Canada is a pure broadcaster. Does the CBC now face a disadvantage with respect to the private broadcasters, and in your opinion, how, if at all, should CBC-Radio Canada react to convergence?
Mr. Manera: I wish I could give you a more informed answer, but, given that I have been away from the actual broadcasting environment for a number of years, I can only speak as an ordinary citizen, plus my knowledge of the technology.
I think the Internet offers challenges but also opportunities, including for the CBC.
I believe the CRTC has decided that it cannot regulate the Internet, if I am correct. I understand that it is virtually impossible to do so. It would seem to me that the CBC has opportunities, and it is attempting to explore these opportunities to make use of the Internet as a vehicle for disseminating its programming. Precisely where that will end up, I don't think anybody has the answer, frankly. I think both private and public broadcasters are all experimenting with different models. Some will fail; some will succeed. The jury is out on that.
Yes, the CBC does have a disadvantage in that it is not vertically integrated, as are the private broadcasters who own both the content as well as the means of distribution, but, if the content that it offers is of high quality, if it is deemed desirable by Canadians, then I think that there will be an audience there. I am simply suggesting that — and here I am responding indirectly to the question that Senator Plett posed — it is the Parliament of Canada, again, that has decided that it wants a Canadian broadcasting system, which includes both the private sector as well as the public sector. It is not just the CBC. When Parliament decided they wanted a Canadian broadcasting system, if you look at the Broadcasting Act, it doesn't just say CBC. It also covers the private broadcasters. All parts of the system should work collaboratively to give Canadians, in total, what Canadians want. The CBC, because it receives a public subsidy, has additional responsibilities and more specific responsibilities, and rightly so.
I think there are opportunities, and I think it is an exciting time but also an uncertain time. There has to be room for experimentation.
Senator Mercer: I have lots more questions, but I recognize that time is valuable.
Senator White: Thank you for being here today, Mr. Manera. I'd watch you on CBC tonight, listening to you talk, to be fair.
My question surrounds the word you used earlier, "accountability." I also connect the words transparency and openness with accountability as well. I appreciate the fact that you used it because — and I am not asking you to speak to the president or his comments — we had him in front of us here a while ago, and he refused to divulge the salaries of a number of senior employees of the CBC and refused to divulge his own bonus, even though it was $70,000-plus at a time when he laid off 700-and-some people and actually paid back $30,000 that he was not supposed to take.
How can Canadians have faith in the leadership of an organization that behaves in such a manner? I ask it of you as someone who has led two colleges. If you were to lay off 70 professors at either Vancouver or Niagara Community College, you wouldn't be paying yourself a 20 per cent bonus that year, and you wouldn't be paying some senior executives a 50 per cent bonus.
From an accountability perspective, if you were in charge of CBC I would tend to think that the response would be different than we had a few weeks ago, but I have to say that it makes it difficult to support such an agency publicly when they behave in such a manner. I ask for your opinion with respect to that.
Mr. Manera: I cannot answer for CBC. I can only tell you that, when I was president, my compensation was set by the cabinet.
Senator White: And it was public?
Mr. Manera: Absolutely.
Senator White: Thank you very much. That is good enough.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I want to remind the audience tonight that we were examining the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications.
Unfortunately, we have to cut this meeting short due to the bells ringing in the Senate and democracy calling, but I'd like to thank our witness, Tony Manera, for being with us this evening.
(The committee adjourned.)