CBC, VIA Rail considered for auction block: Documents

M.Dancer · June 2, 2009

Dancer, wouldn't you agree, that if these businesses aren't doing well, then the ministers who are responsible for them aren't doing his/her job? All Moore says is that the Tories are givng more money and Baird says we are getting the job done! I say NOT!

VIA Rail has never done well. Google the Turbo....the Rapido....

Smallc · June 2, 2009

I was merely responding to the other poster saying I was picking on CBC in a time when all stations are having problems breaking even. Like I said, CBC has always been unprofitable. It's always been unprofitable because it's always been unpopular.
Check your logic on that one. If CBC was as popular as you say it is, it wouldn't be in the red every year. They earn revenue from advertising just like any station.

They do earn revenue like any other station...but they have to provide commerical free radio and they have to produce almost all of their own programming. The other networks get to carry popular American dramas.

VAST AND OVERWHELMING majority of Canadians who don't watch the CBC to have to subsidize other people's entertainment.

And yet, the vast majoriy of Canadians support funding the CBC to at least the current level. I know you'll never agree on this though, so I don't see a point in arguing any further.

noahbody · June 2, 2009

From the article:
Under the Financial Administration Act, Parliament would have to approve the privatization of any Crown corporation. "It's hard to believe that some of these sales would go forward in a minority Parliament," said Vining.

Since there was an uproar when the Conservatives attempted to cut funding to the band Holy Fuck, I'd say he's right.

daniel · June 2, 2009

Nowhere was there any claim that the public sector runs things better than the private sector.

But there are claims everywhere that the private sector can run things better than the public sector, which - we have seen in not only in this past year, but decade after decade - is false.

Moonbox · June 2, 2009

Nowhere was there any claim that the public sector runs things better than the private sector.
But there are claims everywhere that the private sector can run things better than the public sector, which - we have seen in not only in this past year, but decade after decade - is false.

The sub-prime fiasco happened with a LOT of help from the government. It wasn't a purely private-sector mess up.

I'm not saying everything should be privatized. I'm saying that on average, over the long term, it has proven throughout the world to be more efficient because (generally) it doesn't back losing causes.

Smallc · June 2, 2009

Many would argue that it's the job of government to provide things that the private sector doesn't consider to be 'winning causes'.

segnosaur · June 2, 2009

BTW, according to some numbers from the CBC and the government that were talked about during the job cuts, at least 20M people use some form of the CBC weekly.

I'd be rather skeptical about using such 'figures'.

First of all, how do you define 'using the CBC'? I never watch CBC programs (there's nothing o them I find interesting). I never listen to CBC radio (again, nothing I find interesting). Yet I have posted links to various articles on the CBC website. Does that make me a 'CBC user'? After all, most of those times I refer to the CBC articles just because it might have been the first one to come up in a google search (and in many cases articles from the CTV, Globe and Mail, or Canoe would have provided the same content.)

Secondly, keep in mind that there is some content that is exclusive to CBC, but does not need to be. I'm sure CTV would be quite happy broadcasting the NHL playoffs, but don't because CBC has the broadcast rights. However, in this case there's nothing the CBC does that actually adds any value to the viewing experience itself...

The problem with VIA is that it's expensive. I'd love to take a ride if it weren't.

The nice thing about via is if one of their trains flips over, their logo still says 'via'.

They do earn revenue like any other station...but they have to provide commerical free radio and they have to produce almost all of their own programming.

First question... why do they have to provide 'commercial free' radio? Do you think Canada will be seriously harmed if listeners hear fast food ads in the middle of their CBC Jazz music review?

Secondly, as others have asked, why do I, as a non-CBC listener/viewer, have to subsidize the entertainment habits of others?

And yet, the vast majoriy of Canadians support funding the CBC to at least the current level.

I've seen you make the same argument before (you've even posted references to opinion polls about it.)

Here are the problems with that argument:

- Even if the 'vast majority' of people think that the CBC should be maintained, that does NOT mean it is the correct decision. Remember, at one point the majority of people were against gay marriage.

- Ever here of the phrase "tyranny of the masses"? Even if the 'majority' of people hold some belief, it is usually not considered a 'good thing' for those masses to impose their will on those who disagree. If the 'Masses' of people want to support the CBC, let THEM pay for it; don't let the majority take away the rights of the minority, in this case by forcing them to fund something that they disagree with. (And before you jump in and point to other things that the government spends money on that you might disagree with, I want to preemptively say that yes indeed the government wastes money, and I'm sure there are plenty of other things that can be cut as well.)

- Most importantly, I wonder just how such "support" questions were asked. Its real easy for people to say "yes" when they are just asked "do you support the CBC"? However, if exact terms were layed out, people's opinions would change. I wonder how many people would have said "yes" if the exact question was "Given the fact that the CBC takes between $25-30 out of your pocket anually, do you favour continued funding?"

Smallc · June 2, 2009

"Given the fact that the CBC takes between $25-30 out of your pocket anually, do you favour continued funding?"

First, a great deal of your post is rather silly. Comparing funding the CBC to gay marriage? Come on.

The question in the poll was.

Do you:

a) want to hold CBC funding at $33 per Canadian

B ) raise funding to $40 per Canadian, or

c) lower funding.

47% answered b and over 30% answered a.

Funding the CBC is important, and despite that fact that you don't use it, many people do (especially CBC.ca and CBC Radio 1). Also, no other news agency in Canada has the same content and newsgathering ability aside from maybe the Canadian Press.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Smallc

Moonbox · June 2, 2009

They do earn revenue like any other station...but they have to provide commerical free radio and they have to produce almost all of their own programming. The other networks get to carry popular American dramas.

The CBC carries plenty of foreign programming. Commercial free radio is a pretty dubious proposition. I don't think Canadians are exactly going to die if there are commercials from time to time.

And yet, the vast majoriy of Canadians support funding the CBC to at least the current level. I know you'll never agree on this though, so I don't see a point in arguing any further.

Vast majority is pretty misleading. As I recall in March 50% of people polled supported its funding. Factor in standard deviation and that 50% can give a majority to either side. Strangely enough, most of the support for the CBC comes from the left. Actually that's not strange at all given the CBC ombudsman recently admitted a left bias. :blink:

Is it surprising that left of centre voters support a state-sponsered left of centre media outlet? Not really. If you were taxed to support Harper friendly media, you'd likely be uspet too.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Moonbox

ToadBrother · June 2, 2009

- Even if the 'vast majority' of people think that the CBC should be maintained, that does NOT mean it is the correct decision. Remember, at one point the majority of people were against gay marriage.

One issue is a funding of a public corporation, the other is civil liberties. They don't belong in the same sentence. In a democracy, the majority are allowed to declare whether they want to fund the CBC or not, and the CBC haters just have to live with it.

Smallc · June 2, 2009

The CBC carries plenty of foreign programming.

Not very much at all...a couple of hours a day maybe.

Actually that's not strange at all given the CBC ombudsman recently admitted a left bias.

The poll support was higher than you remember, (its is a thread in the media section) and :rolleyes: this again. Read his findings. There was left bias in some aspects....not the news certainly...and many of the problems were easily fixable.

Anyway, I already said I'm not about to change your mind. I don't see a point in arguing over it.

segnosaur · June 2, 2009

First, a great deal of your post is rather silly.

Why was it silly, because you disagree with it?

Hey, guess what, not all of us see the need for some publically funded broadcaster.

Comparing funding the CBC to gay marriage? Come on.

The point I was making was that "the majority is not always right". I could have also pointed to U.S. public support over the invasion of Iraq in 2002, or that most Americans support the death penalty.

Why exactly do you think that if the majority thinks something is right, then it automatically is?

The question in the poll was.
Do you:

a) want to hold CBC funding at $33 per Canadian

B ) raise funding to $40 per Canadian, or

c) lower funding.

47% answered b and over 30% answered a.

Ok, perhaps that was the question in which case one of my points was dealt with. However, you have pretty much ignored all the other points. (And note that simply labelling something as 'silly' is not really dealing with the issue.)

Funding the CBC is important,

Ummm... Why?

and despite that fact that you don't use it, many people do (especially CBC.ca and CBC Radio 1).

Once again, why should I be forced to subsidze your entertainment.

Also, no other news agency in Canada has the same content...

And if individuals desire to access that content, then why should they not be prepared to do so.

... and newsgathering ability aside from maybe the Canadian Press.

First of all, you're admitting that there are organizations with comparible "newsgathering abilities". (Although why that should be a good thing is questionable.... look at the number of people who complain about monolithic media organizations in the U.S., and here you're supporting just another 'big' organzation.)

Secondly, even if the CBC is the 'biggest' news organzation, we also have CTV, private radio broadcasters, major private newspaper chains, and a host of smaller dailies, not to mention foreign news services such as CNN, the BBC, Reuters, etc. If there is a news issue of importance, it will likely be covered/discussed in one of the many other news outlets in the country or in the world.. Significant news stories get broken on a regular basis by private broadcasters.

Smallc · June 2, 2009

I'd happliy pay for the CBC if the funding model was shifted, but CBC is an important national institution, whether or not you see the value. It's a symbol of this country, just like any other. We should (and will) keep it.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Smallc

madmax · June 2, 2009

You could also take a look at the USSR, Korea/China and see how well the economies run there.
The reason why the private sector runs things better than the public is that the private sector doesn't sustain losers. The smarter and better run companies survive.

Not exactly. The Economy of the USSR was in collapse (Look at the US today) and they made a painful choice to revert to capitalism. However, most people know that Military Spending in trying to keep up to the USA Miltary Spending Machine was behind the fall of Communism in the USSR or it might have continued (Limped along)on to this very day. If the USSR hadn't collapsed, the USA would not have chosen to invest so heavily in Communist China these past 20 years.

Regardless, USSR Companies exist today as they did in the past, many mafia driven from the underground economy of the coldware era, and many profited from Government corruption and contracts. Those very companies in Steel and other resource industries and Russian owned are thriving very well in a capitalist environment.

IIRC Privately run Electricity is nothing short of a pyramid scheme tied to a blackout. NICE!!!!

As for smarter and better run companies??? I have seen some really smart and well run companies purchased and destroyed, liquidated, you name it, in the name of short term profit or eliminating competition, by less well run and slightly dumber corporations.

I believe you believe that smart companies survive and dumb ones don't.

My view is that a sucker is born everyminute, and the fact that Nortel has been destroyed as a functioning company ever since John Roth took it over and turned it into a corruption machine and jumped ship with a fortune in stocks. Now this company has been milking the capital system for a good 10 years.

What we do recognise is that everything changes, and many things must come to an end.

There are certain elements of the public sector that if left to the private sector result in such greed and abuse it was be scarey to think of.

Todays corporate elites have been the worst of the worst that I have ever seen in the past decade. I cannot recall a time when so much greed caused so much harm on the economy.

Edited June 2, 2009 by madmax

segnosaur · June 2, 2009

- Even if the 'vast majority' of people think that the CBC should be maintained, that does NOT mean it is the correct decision. Remember, at one point the majority of people were against gay marriage.

One issue is a funding of a public corporation, the other is civil liberties. They don't belong in the same sentence.

Once again... I brought the issue of gay marriage up as an example of how the majority is not always right.

You know, you'd figure being a fan of CBC would make you smart, but its amazing how brain-damaged people are by totally missing the point... I'm not dealing with the issue of liberties, I'm dealing with the issue of automatically assuming the majority is somehow always right.

Of course, I could also point out that by funding the CBC the government is depriving me of my property rights (i.e. taking money away from me for activities that I will not be using.) Granted it is nowhere near as serious as the issue of gay marriage, but its a question of degree.

In a democracy, the majority are allowed to declare whether they want to fund the CBC or not, and the CBC haters just have to live with it.

And the majority doing so deprives me of my right to property.

Granted, we live in Canada, where they never actually bothered putting property rights into the constitution, but most people still think they should have some right to their actual property.

segnosaur · June 2, 2009

I'd happliy pay for the CBC if the funding model was shifted, but CBC is an important national institution,

Ummm... why?

Pro-cbc peole keep crowing on about how important it is, but I've never seen anyone make any real logical argument about why it is. They just keep repeating the same empty-headed statements over and over again.

... whether or not you see the value.

Perhaps I don't see the value because there is none.

It's a symbol of this country, just like any other.

Another empty-headed statement.

A country can survive without meaningless symbols. Any Canadian content that is popular can be carried by other sources, so people craving 'Canadianna' will not be left empty.

Oh, and once again, since you seem to consider yourself such a smart CBC fan,

Why should I be forced to subsidize your entertainment

Smallc · June 2, 2009

but most people still think they should have some right to their actual property.

The majority isn't always right...remember?

segnosaur · June 2, 2009

but most people still think they should have some right to their actual property.

The majority isn't always right...remember?

I, however, always am.

By the way, I notice you still haven't answered the question...

Why should I be forced to subsidize your entertainment??

Come on, you're a CBC fan, you should have a huge massive brain capable of answering that question.

fellowtraveller · June 2, 2009

Oh, I've heard people find fault with it before. It doesn't matter to some that it is the largest news gathering organization in the world and the one with perhaps the most comprehensive and balanced reporting.

Baloney. The BBC is savagely biased and have been strongly censured for same, repeatedly.

They are mainly funded by a large fee that every television owner must pay.

It does not matter if you never watch them, if you own a TV, you pay an annual fee to support the BBC. A colour TV runs about $260, black and white about $100. The World Servuice we get is partially funded by govt.

fellowtraveller · June 2, 2009

CBC used to be a tool for national unity, those days are gone. Other media are now far more effective in informing us, the Internet for example.

It could be argued that the CBC (and let us not forget the content and existence of RDS) is now a tool for national disunity. You could use this thread as an example.

Smallc · June 2, 2009

Baloney. The BBC is savagely biased and have been strongly censured for same, repeatedly.

See, see /\ \/

Smallc · June 2, 2009

And Seg, why should you have to pay for anything anyone else gets then? This country is one of national institutions that we all pay for, from the CBC to Universal healthcare (well, ok, that's provincial).

segnosaur · June 2, 2009

And Seg, why should you have to pay for anything anyone else gets then? This country is one of national institutions that we all pay for, from the CBC to Universal healthcare (well, ok, that's provincial).

There are some items (infractructure items, national defence, police force) where such expenditures are necessary for society to exist (e.g. we require a military to prevent invasion and maintain our way of life), or which form a natural monopoly (e.g. it is impractical to have privately owned roads.)

The CBC is neither required for society to continue to exist (it is, after all, just a media source, and its elimination will not result in the deaths of any individuals), nor is it a natural monopoly (since other sources can and do exist).

And yes, there are other items that we all pay for that not everyone makes use of (e.g. I'm thinking of a case a while ago where the government funded a book about blonde jokes) that are not critical nor do they get universal use. But guess what? Those things can probably be cut as well. The fact that the government is wasting money in ONE area doesn't necessarily mean it is acceptable to waste money in OTHER areas too.

ToadBrother · June 2, 2009

CBC used to be a tool for national unity, those days are gone. Other media are now far more effective in informing us, the Internet for example.

News doesn't just magically appear on the Internet.

It could be argued that the CBC (and let us not forget the content and existence of RDS) is now a tool for national disunity. You could use this thread as an example.

It could be argued that having multiple parties running for elections is a tool for national disunity. Just because a minority don't like the CBC doesn't mean that the CBC is a tool of disunity, any more than multiparty elections could be considered a tool for disunity.

ToadBrother · June 2, 2009

One issue is a funding of a public corporation, the other is civil liberties. They don't belong in the same sentence.
Once again... I brought the issue of gay marriage up as an example of how the majority is not always right.

But in the case of funding a public corporation, right or wrong, it's the majority that decides.

You know, you'd figure being a fan of CBC would make you smart, but its amazing how brain-damaged people are by totally missing the point... I'm not dealing with the issue of liberties, I'm dealing with the issue of automatically assuming the majority is somehow always right.

I'm sorry, was there some relevance to this?

Of course, I could also point out that by funding the CBC the government is depriving me of my property rights (i.e. taking money away from me for activities that I will not be using.) Granted it is nowhere near as serious as the issue of gay marriage, but its a question of degree.
And the majority doing so deprives me of my right to property.

Granted, we live in Canada, where they never actually bothered putting property rights into the constitution, but most people still think they should have some right to their actual property.

You could argue that, but it's a moronic argument, so about all you'd accomplish is to make yourself look like a moron. You do not have absolute control over where your tax dollars are spent. Period. Want to change how they're spent, get someone elected who will change it.

Tell you what, though. Don't like paying taxes for some things you don't like, move to Somalia. That's a Libertarians dream, methinks.