segnosaur

Not necessarily... There are options that can allow a mix of private/public options without increasing the need for MDs... - We could allow doctors to charge for private service only as "overtime". (Something along the lines of "You can charge 40hours/week to the government. Anything else you can bill directly".) Doctors work longer hours, but we get more effort out of them - Much of the delay in our health care system involves things like MRIs. Such facilities do not necessarily require a doctor to be involved. (Granted, an MD will be required to actually interpret the results, but rather than waiting 6 months for an MRI and another 6 months to see a doctor, the MRI could be done at a private clinic, so the doctor can get the results and act on them sooner.) Of course there's also the possibility that if doctors can charge more under a private system, or have the greater flexibility that a combined private/public system offers, it may actually attract more medical professionals to Canada (or, alternatively, slow down any "brain drain" to the U.S.)

It's the thin end of the wedge. Ummm.... why are you assuming that? The previous poster is right... pretty much every other country in the world successfully mixes private and public health care in some way (although many differ in the way they handle it). If others can have some private involvement, why can't Canada? Are we somehow inferior? Will we magically slip into an all-private system? Quebec had been allowing certain services to be delivered privately for years (e.g. MRI services). Yet they never pushed to completely eliminate the Canada health act.

Feel free to point out some blatant liberal bias in recent CBC products. Just out of curiosity, is indication of "liberal bias" really that important? Some of us would feel the same way (that the CBC should be privatized/eliminated/etc.) regardless of any 'bias' that they may show. And frankly, trying to pick examples of 'bias' is an exercise in cherry picking which is idiotic. Why? A network can post 99 out of 100 news articles with absolutely no bias, but if someone happens to find the one example that IS biased, they may shout "look how unfair they are!" even though the overwhelming number of cases do not point that way. That said, I myself can identify a few cases where the CBC may have exhibited some amount of bias: - When the RCMP released a report on the 'success' of the long gun registry, the CBC basically became a parrot, echoing the 'good' in the report. However, even a cursory analysis showed many flaws with its report. A competent investigation would have at least mentioned those. (Note: I have to admit, the CBC was not alone in this regards; the same lack of analysis extended to other media outlets as well. However, your request was to "show liberal bias", not "show where the CBC was alone in its bias". - When Ann Coulter had her speech at the University of Ottawa cancelled, a CBC blogger did some "investigation" which claimed the organizers were 'wrong' in some of their claims (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2010/03/ann-coulters-adventures-in-ottawa-so-what-really-happened-last-night.html) . However, that blogger made many mistakes... she claimed the organizers were 'lying' about police claims, yet later reports showed that indeed the police were quite involved in the decision to cancel the event. Again, even a cursory analysis would have found enough holes to drive a truck through (including claims on travel time to the university, etc.) Again, those are not necessarily examples of an "overall" liberal bias... They are, however, examples of shoddy journalism that yours and my tax money went to pay for.

True. The issue though is that if senators are appointed, then whatever 'review' that is done in the Senate should be done in a non-partisan way. Since this doesn't always appear to happen, the senate gets a bad reputation. Its certainly an issue in the U.S. (where the house of representatives and presidency are tied much more strongly to popular vote.) Its not quite as significant in Canada, since our rural regions already seem to have greater representation than urban regions (due to riding distribution). Not that I'm totally disagreeing with you... simply calling the senate 'crap' is unproductive, and in certain circumstances it can be beneficial.

You're of course assuming that people will always vote rationally, taking all factors into consideration. I suspect what would happen is gridlock, as the government regularly votes down any possible tax increases, yet votes for popular spending increases, then wonders why their debt is going up. People want to have their cake and eat it too. Mmmmmm..... cake. Not only that, many bills passed by the government are extremely complex, even the regular day-to-day ones. Do we really expect everyone to be willing/able to educate themselves on each and every proposed bill? Then there's the little issue of human rights.... there's no guarantee that the population will consider things like free speech when there is any sort of mass panic.

You have a fucked up notion of what constitutes culture. Not anywhere near as messed up as yours. Completely beside the point. Nope, that's not beside the point at all. Once again, you are considering the content you deem superior as being worthy of government (and ultimately taxpayer) support, yet you fail to give the same consideration to other material. Yet there is no objective way to make such a measurement. Nope. There's lots of arts programming, for example, that I'd like to see on the CBC in which I would have no personal interest. See, unlike you, my first and last thought isn't "what's in it for me?" Irrelevant argument. Even though you yourself may not watch every program on a "fully funded CBC", you are still benefiting more than someone who has absolutely NO interest in watching content provided by the CBC. Museums provide services that provide social/scientific benefit to society as a whole. (Same goes to certain areas of pure scientific research, for whatever that is worth.) Edited to add: I could also point out that in the case of Museums, they provide services which are unique in society for which there is often no private alternative. I'm not necessarily a fan of using public money for (for example) sports stadiums. (Unless of course it can be shown that the improved infrastructure provides side benefits outweighing the costs, and even then I'd be hesitant.)

So it's always better to have less information? Why are you assuming there would be less information? If the CBC has an audience that differs from those who CTV, Global, etc., then its quite possible that those fans would support a commercial version of a network with the same editorial policy/slant, with the sole difference that their network would be supported through ad revenue.

So what's the threshold? How many people need to "like" something Facebook-style before you deem it worthy of inclusion in the cultural canon? The "threshold" is whatever people are willing to actually pay for themselves (either directly through sales or indirectly through ad revenue.) If you yourself are not willing to pay for your own "quality entertainment" and cannot convince enough like-minded people that it is worth supporting with your own money, then it is not a significant part of the culture. As you said, there are plenty of avenues for people to slake their hunger for pap. Yup... and guess what? Those "other avenues" are ones that people are actually willing to pay for themselves. They are not telling other people "Hey, subsidize my concert ticket to see Justin Bieber" or "pay my cable bill so I can watch Jersey Shore"... Nope. But nice try. Its such a nice try that I actually it the nail on the head. That is pretty much what you're saying. Over and over again you've condemned shows like American Idol, and you've talked about common culture "Pap". You appear to feel that CBC can do "better" and that those who actually watch American Idol and other garbage shows should be willing to pay for it. So, yeah. you did basically say you want the government to pay for your entertainment choices. Nope, instead, I will take my own hard earned dollars and use it towards supporting entertainment that I feel is worth my time. Believe it or not, there is a huge array of entertainment and information content out there, even for those who dislike the junk of reality shows. Hopefully more people will follow my lead. If not, there are still enough like-minded individuals that I'm never without at least some decent shows to watch. Once again, why should I pay for your entertainment choices?

So CBC listeners don't pay taxes? For CBC listeners/viewers, the amount of enjoyment they get out of the CBC exceeds the costs (i.e. the amount of tax from an individual dedicated to the CBC.) For the remainder of the population, there is little or no benefit, and the costs exceed the benefits. While it may be simplistic to claim CBC fans are getting "something for nothing", the overall concept is valid. They are in fact getting MOST of something for nothing. An analogy would be me spending $2 to buy a movie ticket with the government paying the rest of the $10 cost. Yes, I'm not getting it totally for "free" because of the $2 I'm putting in, but I am getting the remaining $8 "for free".

Nonsense. You're confusing mass culture with culture. Nope, not confusing it at all. Once again, the CBC mandate specifically talks about how it is to "reflect Canada". Reflecting the population IS dealing with mass culture. If its something that appeals only to a tiny segment of the population, its no longer "reflecting Canada", regardless of how "cultural" it is. I do not see anywhere in the CBC mandate where they are to "convince the knuckle-dragging mass population how they're wrong for liking pop culture". Basically your argument comes down to "I think what I like is best so the government should support my entertainment preferences". Because your preferences are based on something that is completely subjective. I personally think American Idol and Jersey Shore are junk. But there is no objective way to measure what is actually "better" and what is "worse". By your logic, these shows are the only true barometers of our culture. Sadly yes they are.

Ah yes, cherry-picking examples that fit your view. Sorry, I don't really find such hand-picked examples very convincing. Note that I never claimed that all media sources will publish each and every story, but that the story will be available from private sources. If you want to 'cherry pick' examples, I can also point to claims from documentary film makers that claim the CBC was uninterested in airing their films on the Afghanistan war. Oh, and since you seem to be so convince that "Fox bowed to corporate demands", maybe you should do some research: - When the Monsanto/Fox/milk hormone controversy began, Fox didn't even own the station (http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-strange-case-of-steve-wils) - The hormone has been declared safe by the FDA, AMA, WHO and others. (See: https://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/FN-250_6.pdf) - The journalists in question have a reputation for "ambush" film making and other such practices Given those facts, its possible that any "story" that the journalists generated was of poor quality. But then, I guess that doesn't sound as good as "OMG! Mega-corp squashes the truth". Ron Paul is being ignored because he's batsh*t crazy. (Although that description seems to apply to most of the republican contenders.)

Well, its a questionable statement (after all, there are now options such as satellite radio, shortwave, etc). But even if CBC is the "only radio" in some places, why do they also need to broadcast it in places like Toronto or Montreal (where multiple private options already exist)? And if the goal is to provide service to remote areas, why bother building an entire broadcast network? The government could (in theory) ask to relay content of the nearest private broadcaster. (Heck, they could offer multiple broadcasters to get a wide range of content.)

That isn't really true. CBC Radio is always near of at the top in terms of listener numbers in most markets across the country. It may be true that CBC Radio is near the top of listening numbers, but its a deceptive statistic. There are a large number of radio stations in most cities, which divides the market. This makes it possible to be #1 (or near #1) even if "few are listening". (The fact is, usually few are listening to any single station, private or public.) According to the CBC bloc, CBC Radio one/two reach roughly 4.3 million listeners. (http://www.insidethecbc.com/cbc-radio-achieves-record-ratingsratingsrecord/). That's less than 13% of our population. The remaining 87% of the population sees their tax money go to something they never use. (And that 13% isn't even their "ratings", since it may include people who listen to multiple stations but only tuned in once to the CBC in that period.)

Ummm.... In this day and age, we have competing television broadcast and cable networks networks (CTV/Global), Daily newspapers with biases towards various parts of the political spectrum (e.g. the 'Right Wing' Sun media chain, and the 'Left Wing' Toronto star, dozens of specialty newspapers and news magazines (e.g. the free X-Press newspaper which is very left-wing in its opinions), Radio stations (we have 2 "all news" stations in my city), not to mention the vast capabilities of the Internet, where pretty much anyone can start a website/blog preaching almost any political opinions they like. All these are supported very well by the "private corporations". Simply put, if there is a political viewpoint out there, you can likely find a media source which caters to it. You appear to be assuming corporations will "surpress" things they don't like. But the fact is, companies are in the business of making money. That means catering to your audience so you can sell ad revenue, even if its pushing stories that the owners aren't happy with.

So, in addition to all your amazing magical abilities to determine what is respectable entertainment, you have the ability to mind read, to look into the brains of those running CTV/Global/etc. and determine "Oh, these people will never produce Canadian content otherwise". With this magical mind-reading ability, why aren't you rich? The TV show Corner Gas (about as Canadian as they come) managed to pull in almost 3 million viewers for its finale (See: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/618324). This matches (and in some case beats) typical ratings for such American shows as American Idol and House. Hmmm (See: http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=61462)... gotta wonder why all those TV executives would bother with a show that, you know, has plenty of viewers. The other issue is that there are limits to what the Canadian entertainment industry can do as a whole... CBC has done well with shows like Mercer Report, but CBC's tighter content rules may be distorting the ability of other networks to obtain what Canadian talent there is.

In the past I have had my opinions changed, when a compelling argument has been provided to do so. You, on the other hand, have not provided any sort of argument that is convincing in the very least to change my viewpoint. Good for you. Except you've never really pointed to any sort of reason to justify your position, or indicate why you should be taking money out of my pocket to support your entertainment preferences. And once again... CBC ratings are usually low. If few people are watching/listening to something, then it isn't really indicative of "Canadian Culture". Its what the CBC thinks/wants Canadian culture to be, which is something different. And that is a value judgement which does nothing more than indicate a certain amount of snobishness. I have never watched American Idol. I think "So you can Dance" is an idiotic concept. I hope the cast of Jersey Shore gets struck by Flesh Eating Disease. But it is not my place to decide (with other people's money) whether any of those shows should be watched. If its a 'quality' Canadian show or other entertainment product, it will attract viewers. This should allow it to survive via ad revenue. If people don't care enough to support it (regardless of how "culturally lofty" it is, then its not really reflective of Canadian society and I see no reason to see my tax money taken so that the minority of people who do have an interest can watch/listen to what they like for free.

Funny, I don't see anything about popularity in its mandate. No, but if a station is not popular/has few viewers, then its not really reflecting Canada. The CBC may be presenting what it thinks Canadians want/should be, but its not "reflecting Canada". And how do you measure that? From what I can see, CFMT is primarily syndicated dreck like Two and Half Men and ethnic programming. And CBC television shows American shows like Ghost Whisperer and Wheel of Fortune. Not exactly a step up. And while CFMT shows syndicated U.S. programs, they also have blocks of programming dedicated to various ethnic groups, often in their native languages. (See: http://www.omnitv.ca/ontario/tv/) Yet pols continue to show a healthy majority of Canadians would rather keep the CBC. Yes they do... but the fact that "Canadians want funding of the CBC" does not mean its actually contributing to national identity. Oh, and by the way, the fact that a majority want funding to continue does not necessarily mean that they are right. There have been a wide range of areas where the minority has expressed an opinion which has spread to become the dominant one over time. Yup, its also a cable news station (which of course competes with private news networks), radio stations (which compete with private broadcasters who don't get the same subsidies), web sites, heck, even costume makers. All of which can be done by the private sector. Yup. "So You Think You Can Dance" for example. If people want to watch dreck like "So you think you can dance" on CTV they should have the right. It does not affect me. On the other hand, I do not think I should be forced to subsidize other people viewing Wheel of Fortune on CBC, because that does affect me... it requires money to be taken from my pocket. You're misreading this one completely. It's not about serving ethnic communities. No, not really misreading it. Providing news/entertainment from other cultures is reflecting the multicultural nature of Canada.

Yup there is... But the government making a bad spending decision in one area doesn't mean that we should ignore all areas where government is spending money foolishly. Nope, what makes eliminating government subsidies of the CBC a good rationale it simply doesn't need to be spending that money, regardless of whether there are other areas of government waste. Edited to Add... Ummm, so? That's $75 (I assume its per taxpayer) out of my pocket to subsidize a radio station I never listen to, and a television station I think I've watched 3 times in the past year. Instead of that $75 being taken from my pocket to subsidize the CBC, I could have used it to go to the movies 7 times (thus providing jobs to the ushers at the local movie theater). I could have gone to several concerts featuring local musical talents. I could have gone out to dinner at least 3 times, providing jobs to my local restaurant industry. The fact that other countries take more money from the average taxpayer to subsidize their national broadcaster does not subsidize our subsidies to the CBC, any more than the fact that Pol Pot's genocide doesn't justify me beating up old ladies on the street corner. Wrong is wrong.

Never heard that quote before, although I have to admit it is a good one. However, part of that quote involves the phrase "When they should"... There truly are injustices in the world where people should rise up. The question is whether demanding "Wall street get democratized" is one of them. Not sure what exactly they hope to accomplish.... replace the free market/capitalist system with a communist one? And while its easy to criticize the "greedy capitalist system", ultimately the free market system (and Wallstreet) is based on freedom... people have the option to buy/sell stocks, purchase products from companies, and even if that freedom is based on something as 'crass' as money, you'll still need a good reason to curtail that freedom.

That's not the purpose of the CBC. That may not be the stated mandate of the CBC, but it is a purpose. Another poster has already posted a copy of the mandate. (You can see it here: http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/mandate.shtml). A point by point analysis: ...be predominantly and distinctively Canadian, reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions, Yes it has a high degree of Canadian content. But it also tends to have very low ratings. Few are watching. Its a part of the mandate which is, for the most part irrelevant. ...actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression, And such things are done through private media as well. Heck, CFMT (a private Ontario broadcaster) does a better job at contributing to cultural expression than the CBC does. ...be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities... ...strive to be of equivalent quality in English and French, Ummm... OK, so they're in English and French. That's an operating practice, not a purpose. ...contribute to shared national consciousness and identity, If their ratings are low, then few people are watching them. As such, they contribute little to 'national identity'. ...be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose Again, other private media sources are available throughout Canada. Their claim of 'efficient means' is dubious, since private sources can typically do a much better job at targeting their content at those who have an interest. ...reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada." Again, there are private sources for those interested in other cultures, including private broadcasters (such as CFMT), foreign language newspapers, the internet, etc.

Because at this point in time it is simply not necessary. There are a multitude of private media outlets that an individual can use to get their information and entertainment, even in remote areas of the country. I see no need, as a taxpayer, to fund the news/entertainment choices of people who choose to use the CBC.

Minor little point.... You are right in that Duceppe's salary as an MP came largely from Quebec taxpayers. However, overall, Quebec is a have-not province. They receive more from the federal government (in equalization payments, EI insurance, etc.) than they pay. As such, his salary as an MP WAS partly paid for by those outside the province. Of course, I also believe that MPs should have the right to hold any opinion they want on Quebec separation, even if that opinion is idiotic.

Yes, because for some reason, no party has the political will to actually remove the subsidy and/or privatize the CBC.

That is not required. ... Then re-read bubble-boy's statement. Note that this thread refers to a specific organization and not "HRCs" and even if it did, he is still somewhat way off the mark. Actually, yes it is required. Thorn made a comment that the fairness of human rights commissions are negatively affected by government assistance provided to only one side of the debate. That issue applies to both the Canadian human rights commission (as I pointed out in the reference I provided), and to the provincial counterparts. It was to that posting that you claimed that it was not "supportive of reality". If you have any proof that he's "off the mark", then where is your proof? Its not my job to mind read; its your job to provide your arguments in a clear manner and provide evidence to back up your claims.

Do they get anywhere approaching 1.1 billion? No, but why does that matter? Its a question of degree. Yes, private companies in the entertainment field can and do enjoy certain benefits from the government, either in terms of subsidies or tax benefits (something that not everyone agrees with), but those benefits are minor when compared to the subsidies received by the CBC. If those private companies did not receive the benefits it does, it would still likely continue to function. If it did not receive its >$1 billion subsidy, the CBC would likely not survive in the form that it does now. Its like pointing out a hangnail, when an individual is missing an arm and a leg.