Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Web-exclusive comment

Just say no to two-tiered TV

PETER RAYMONT

Special to Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 3:42 PM EDT 07/02/08

The fate of the Canadian Television Fund goes to the heart of what it means to be Canadian ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: >> The regulator is not deciding how much money the Canadian Television Fund puts into these programs, but how it's done. It matters a great deal and goes to the heart of what it means to be Canadian.

    The solution may be simpler than you think. Given how vital these productions are to the heart of what it means to be Canadian, perhaps people such as you could just donate your time. After all, it's not about the money, is it?
  2. Rollo Tomasi from Belgium writes: Just say no to television.
  3. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes:

    Television generally, is crap. Suscribers have no choice ... you have to pay for 4-5 Channels to get one Channel you want. In todays digital world, one should be able to get and pay for exactly what you want. They have a monopoly - it doesn't matter who the provider is, we do not have choice.
  4. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: 'The fate of the Canadian Television Fund goes to the heart of what it means to be Canadian.'

    Now there's an overstatement if I ever saw one. Like anyone would notice.
  5. Tom Gray from Canada writes: I find it instrucutive that I have never heard of several of the Canadian television progams that the article identifies as being popular and 'important to what it means to be Canadian' .

    Television has passed its prime and is not 'important to what it means to be a Canadian.'
  6. Robert Dryburgh from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada writes: Television programming should be like every other commodity. If it's good it will succeed and if not, falls by the wayside. In Canada however, we need the CRTC and the Canadian Television Fund to tell us the difference. Don't be too quick to blame the cable suppliers. They must strictly comply with CRTC regulations. I'm sure it would not be difficult for cable to be offered on an a la carte basis, but that would let the consumer make the choices. The CRTC would never hear of this. These dinosaur organizations shroud have long gone, along with the 13 channel television receiver. Remove these restrictions and allow the marketplace to decide.
  7. Bill M from Tillsonburg, Canada writes: Its time for the likes of Shaw and others in broadcasting to stop whining and snivelling about Canadian made TV production.

    They pay a tax for grabbing the TV signals out of the air they got a free ride until 1995 up to that point they didn't pay a nickel for using the Networks programs. You pay the tax Mr Shaw you don't get to decide how its spent.

    We need Canadian made production we live alongside a giant with a market 10 times our size. Producers need the CTF to help balance the huge difference in the marketplace.

    Bill
  8. Carmen Branje from Toronto, Canada writes: Downwiththecrtc crtc THANK YOU

    I'm not sure why Canada foster this socialist attitude towards its entertainment industry, and in fact I would argue that this is the sole reason why Canadian entertainment is generally totally irrelevant. I mean really, what was the last good 'Canadian' movie you've seen.

    This attitude is not limited to television, in a similar fashion The Songwriters Association of Canada are proposing a $5 levy on ALL Canadian internet connections to make up for all the file sharing of music. Check out my blog posting on the subject (http://carmenbranje.blogspot.com).

    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!

    We live in capitalist/socialist mixed society and how we mix this is very important, if you don't teach kids or heal people, why are your hands in my pockets. If you can't make it in the private free market then you don't deserve to exist, please find other work. I could see news like CBC being supported, as that is a necessary service, but CORNER GAS???? Why is my tax money going to CORNER GAS??? I though that show was a huge hit in the states, but still they get government handouts?? This is insanity.

    No wonder Canadians taxes are so high and yet our health care system generally sucks. All of our money is going into private hands as 'subsidies' and 'levies' rather then to public institutions that need it. Its time we label this despicable practice for what it is . . EXTORTION! . . . Tony Soprano style.

    -Carmen
  9. Dave Scott from Ottawa, Canada writes: This Canadian TV government money fund is just another form of fraud and corruption.
  10. I. Con O'Clast from Canada writes: Well, what does 'what it means to be Canadian' mean? I don't watch any of the stuff, but I love canada. I think my culture has been defined by a whole bunch of things - the food I eat, my tendency to improvise, my political outlook, my family, my education, my work, the climate, the land - the list is a long one. For the makers of Little Mosque and other junk to assume that they define the nation's culture is as ridiculous as it is stupidly presumptuous.
  11. enoch metatron from Canada writes: 'We have created a wonderfully successful public-private partnership in many fields.'

    This involuntary partnership is entirely funded by the public (taxpayers) for the benefit of Peter Raymont and his cronies. No wonder he thinks it is successful. I'd love to have direct access to public funds too.
  12. Adam Allouba from Montreal, Canada writes: 'It is a unique public-private partnership: Half its funds come from a tax on Canadian cable TV companies; the other half comes from Ottawa. '

    ... and THAT'S a partnership?? Half the money comes from one tax and half comes from other taxes. Under what definition of the word does that constitute a 'partnership'??

    In Montreal, where I live, you can't set up a food cart in the street. One of the reasons is that restaurants say it would be 'unfair competition,' meaning that carts would sell cheaper than sit down eateries. In other words, people might actually patronize them and our business would suffer - so, government, please ban the competition because we like getting money.

    This fund is no different. It boils down to a group of parasites who want money but can't get any without leaning on the coercive power of the state to forcibly extract it from taxpayers (and don't kid yourself, the money that the cable companies pay ultimately comes from you). At least I have the choice not to go to restaurants - I don't have the choice to stop paying the income taxes that fund 'Ottawa's half.'

    Mr. Raymont, just be honest. Tell us that you really like being able to steal our money and that it's just not fair that you might have to earn it instead.
  13. Axelrod Noseworthy from Canada writes: Quote. Half its funds come from a tax on Canadian cable TV companies; the other half comes from Ottawa. Unquote.
    Let's be sure about what this means. It means that half of the CTF's funds come from Canadian taxpayers via their cable TV subscriptions, and the other half comes from the Canadian taxpayers via the taxes they must render unto Ottawa.
    All this at the rate of 2.5 BILLION dollars over the last 13 years. That's over 192 MILLION per year, or about $6.50 per year for every man, woman, and child in the country. All for something that, even if it does exist, sure is well hidden.
    In the world of fiscal spillage, this rates right up there with the Adscam, bilingualism, and the Afghanistan boondoggle. We need to be shed of CTF, AND the CRTC!!
  14. Don Cafferty from Canada writes: In this case, I think the private-public partnership is doomed. As others have noted, the source of funds is ultimately the same entity - the taxpayer/subscriber/viewer, who has final authority. Television is losing its preeminent technology stature in the household. What is overlooked is the increasing competition among communication medium. In this battle, regardless of programming source, television is losing as the product has become significantly diluted and the subscriber/viewer is turning elsewhere for satisfaction. Instead of arguing for the continuation of an 'old' approach, attention should look forward to new approaches.
  15. Jared Dapena from Halifax, Canada writes: Actually, one of the things that is embarrassing about being Canadian is Canadian television. It makes me physically ill knowing that some of my tax dollars go toward funding some of the poorest production values, poorest acting, poorest writing, etc. to ever make airwaves on Planet Earth. In fact, the powers that be are so obsessed with keeping everything Canadian that I even get Canadian TV ads when I watch US networks. Pardon me, but when I pay my monthly cable or satellite bill, should I not see the content that I pay for - unblemished?

    If Canadian television was forced to fight for viewers to make ends meet, they'd either go under within a week...or be forced to start producing quality programming that the general public would appreciate. The CRTC and the CTF do not represent me!
  16. Adam Here from Canada writes: Im not quite sure which great successes that the ctf has produced. Sorry but Im still offended money was wasted for years on garbage like Train 48 (thank you leeches - aka canwest/global). Many programs funded by the ctf would never make the airwaves in other countries - simply because no one would watch them. And for those doubting this - simply look at what is produced by the BBC or Australian TV - enough said.

    The commentator seems to think Jim Shaw is some 'evil' person - but all he is really saying is that since the fund is directing capital to both public and private producers its simply better to force a chunk of the money towards ventures that larger proportions of the population are likely to watch.

    CBC for a very long time has produced little to nothing that most people under 40 would be interested in - excepting in the last year where they have inleast made the attempt.

    That said CTV, Global etc need to re-commit or lose their licenses - paying for crap or watching endless repeats of bad shows on every channel so they can meet their cancon requirements is simply stupid.
  17. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: Why is it that CBC receives so much of OUR tax money, airs pretty much the same crap as the other networks, and STILL shows as many commercials?

    Someone is getting ripped off...and it ain't them.
  18. Dave of the North from Yellowknife, Canada writes: There you go Peter
    Read the comments and see what Canadians really think.

    Life is two tiered
    Deal with it
  19. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: The Canadian Television Fund. A glorified welfare system for starving TV stars. If the shows that are produced were at least watchable it wouldn't seem like such a waste of money.
  20. A C from Albertario, Canada writes:
    Peter Raymont writes: Just say no to two-tiered TV.

    Note to Peter's editors:
    Borrowing cliches from Nancy Reagan's writing staff and the DEA might not be the best way to win friends and influence Canadian people.
    Think about it: the headline paraphrases the very pillars of culture that so threaten 'what it means to be Canadian.'
    If you must echo the United States of Advertising, next time you might want to start with some kind of mash-up, like 'We the people find Canadian television to be self-serving, er . . . self-evident . . . and that all Canadian content is created more equal than other content.'

    Much more punchy, effective, no? Just my own personal.

    By the way, . . . how is that war on drugs going, anyways?
    'Just saying no' is working, is it?

    .
  21. Thumb Sucker from Toronto, Canada writes: Great comments above, I agree that Canadian TV is terrible. Aptly, the best Canadian TV shows are all on showcase, a cable TV network - Trailor Park Boys and Kenny Vs. Spenny.
  22. Mike Veracity from GTA, Canada writes: Looks like not too many people are fooled that Ottawa is a big Santa Claus anymore. It's our money they are spending. The comment in the article about 'two solitudes' is particularly disingenuous. A real Canadian should know that this phrase, in Canada, has always referred to the English-French dichotomy. So what are we paying for this time?
  23. Wasabi Jones from Canada writes: It makes me sick that my hard earned tax dollars are spent on broadcasting a lousy, propaganda-filled show like Little Mosque on the Prairie.
  24. robert quinn from Japan writes: Excellent posts. So far, unanimous disdain for the CRTC and state-sanctioned extortion. The 'Friends of Canadian Broadcasting' claque will not be pleased. Prepare for the earnest counterattack. (And, like so much of what gets put on the air--HNIC excepted--it will be exceedingly earnest, plodding, steeped in treacly communitarian nationalism, parochial, narcoleptic, cringe-inducing, repetitive, obvious, amateurish and, most unforgiveable, boring.) There are quality shows, blind pigs stumble upon acorns, please stop trying to engineer cultural tastes. Leave us alone. We've been doing fine without you for years.
  25. Levap K from Burlington, Canada writes: 'We have created a wonderfully successful public-private partnership in many fields. By using the best of the British and U.S. models, we have created a third way of governance and productivity that, despite the need for constant vigilance and tweaking, works very well. Yes, it's imperfect, but our private-public health-care system is the envy of the world. Private-public partnerships finance our energy system, our highways, our education and our arts and culture.'
    How can anyone say something so stupid? We have created... Did you ever see BBC and what programming they have?
  26. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: Since when do we need to be taxed to tell us who we are? Is the Canadian identity so fragile that it will wither if not propped up by a bunch of ivory tower wiener buns telling us what our identity is?
    Weak.
  27. Leslie Tobias from Toronto, Canada writes: We have alot of channels. We have lousy programs. We have infomericals. We have infomericals. We have informericals. We have reality TV, We have reality TV, We have reality TV - all which distortes Reality. All which our young people are so easily influenced by. We have a lots of dectective, mystery, all the same different actors. I prefer American programs. Canadian programs use too much close-up shots. The movement of the filing & camera make a person dizzy. This I hear alot. American or Canadian good program is hard to find. We have basic cable and we have ultimate cable. Rogers continues with increases and we receive less programs in return. Television was entertainment. Now television is infomercials, infomericals and so many lanugages - that is OK as long as I don't have to pay for it. You want many languages TV - let them pay. We have channel 14 - that should be enough. I like the French channel, but I do not speak or understand French. It seems they have better programs. The other channels are Chinese, Hindu mostly more than any other language. That is OK - but I should not pay for these channels. etc. etc. etc. I would like to have entertainment - mystery, adventure, movies, movies the ultimate channel should be part of basic cable. Why should anybody pay for channels. We are paying to watch infomercials and commercials.
  28. Tim Cares from Canada writes: Can't we focus on things more important, like why I have to pay $2.99/month digital access fee and why I have to rent or buy a box to watch local HDTV stations on cable when my TV can handle the signal if it was unscrambled?
    These are pocket book issues that Canadians are probably much more interested in than this.
  29. Mike Mike from Canada writes: There is reason why nobody watches these shows, and that's cause they are absolute crap. Canadian television hasn't produced anything worth watching in... probabably ever. I totally believe that TV programming should go with the rest of the market products - if it's good it sells, if it's not then buh-bye. Hopefully soon it will be choose and pick lineup, cause quite frankly to get the 15 channels I want I have to pay for 200 now... which is ridiculous cause I never watch any of them.
  30. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: Why did the CBC choose to cover Kieth Martin's private member's bill on the Human Rights Commission as a story on a white supremist group?
    Was that the most pertinent part of the story of Martin's bill?
    No.
    Have they done their best to ignore the story of the travesty that the Human Right Commissions have become?
    Yes.
    How does this reflect Canadian values?
    It doesn't.
    It reflects the values of the morally handicapped CBC.
  31. Hoppy Camper from Canada writes: 'Half its funds come from a tax on Canadian cable TV companies; the other half comes from Ottawa'

    Meaning, half comes from Canadians who order cable and the other half come from Canadians who might not even have a TV.

    What's clear is that this article is a protectionist argument for programming that it not viable unless there's a writers strike. If it is viable, I want my money back from the syndication revenues. Hello Corner Gas & Little Mosque, I'm talking to you.

    What it means to be a Canadian indeed. Tax everyone to fund jobs that wouldn't be here without the subsidies. Grrr...
  32. Laureen Calgary from Calgary, Canada writes: I watch a lot of Canadian programs and love CBC. Without this program and funding we would not have the uniquely Canadian content. I think it would be a grave mistake to try and destroy what we have that is ours. I knew this upset would come (as long as Harperites are running the government) we will lose our identity to the U.S.A. which I find repulsive.
    Harper is slowly chipping away at our identity with the help of the lobbyists for big corporations! There is a huge difference between quality programs and the crap that they spew at us.
    Jim Shaw is a greedy, monopolistic mogul, you pay and pay for nothing but reruns of old cheap U.S. programs.
  33. Juan Acevedes from vancouver, Canada writes: Why should we impose taxes on anyone in the name of 'Canadian' TV? Why force one group of people pay for the TV viewing of another? If a program has merit, it stands on its own two feet commercially.

    Subsidies (for anything, anywhere) only encourage more of the stuff people weren't willing to pay up for in the first place. We could have lots of pineapple farms in Canada, too, with enough tax dollars thrown at the effort.

    And please spare us the sappy, nationalistic 'what-it-means-to-be-Canadian' talk. Canada is not a person, and it is not uniform. Yes, we share some basic values. But the country is made up of millions of individuals, and they don't all think alike.
  34. Mike Parker from Canada writes: If robbing Peter (cable subscribers) to pay Paul (the CBC and its film school drop-outs) is what it means to be Canadian, then I need to unsubscribe.

    If Peter Raymont is serious about his definition of being Canadian, let take this a step further. All profits from any dramas that get sold be it by the CBC (e.g. Heartland or The Border) must be plowed back into the CTF fund.

    Why should we pay in and never get anything out, but once they produce a show, they can turn around and sell it and keep the profits. If you wanna be a socialist with our funds, then go all the way and let's share in the profits.

    Recently the CBC is reported to have undersold its shows (produced by the CTF fund, if I ma add) to some overseas company without opening the process to the highest bidder. Why should our $$$ continue to go and support such stupidity? Well if it's free $$$, that is what you are going to get.
  35. Lowen Wrainger from Canada writes: Mommy & Daddy, what's a television?
  36. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: Laureen Calgary from Calgary, Canada writes: I watch a lot of Canadian programs and love CBC. Without this program and funding we would not have the uniquely Canadian content.----------------------------
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We wouldn't have this uniquely Canadian content because it is crap.
    However, if you wish to pay for this yourself, go ahead. Just don't force me to pay for it through my tax dollars.
    Why would anyone love the CBC? The CBC news is continually being busted for bias, in other words they are lying to us.
  37. Action Jackson from Canada writes: tv's for stupid people.
  38. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: Why did the CBC sell 700 hours of programming without tendering it?
    Why isn't the Fifth Estate doing an investigation on what really went on?
    Oh, wait...
  39. Prairie Boy from Canada writes: I stopped watching TV about three years ago. I watch the news from one chain only and the remains of the program before. I know that I miss the occasional good program but it just isn't worth the aggro of watching 9 minutes of commercials for every half hour of programming.

    I don't have cable or satellite because after you have seen the 'good' programs 3 or 4 times why bother.
  40. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes:

    The fundamental spirit of what it is to be Canadian, which the author wishes to maintain and enhance, is being taxed to death. The cable TV monopolies do not spend a nickel of their own money financing programs. All costs are passed on to subscribers.
  41. m a from Toronto, Canada writes: There are a lot of people working in the Canadian film and television industries who would be unable to find work elsewhere. What is 'unique' about our system is that our Canadian shows are apparently held to lower standards than anywhere else in the world. This is because there is a clique of untalented arts admin types who run these funds and produce these shows. It is a challenge to compete with the US shows that will always be better funded and promoted, but I think the standard has to be audience acclaim. Otherwise, you just get these lame duck, mediocre shows that no-one likes, but that they keep producing year after year when in any other country they would have been cancelled. This would mean though, that many of the talent free people currently working in TV today would lose their jobs.
  42. brokeback mountain from toronto, Canada writes: as taxpayer who subsidize canadian tv, i wonder how we can share the profits, if there is any..if they are not profitable, why waste our tax dollars in it.. we should forget about canadian tv and invest those money into our public transport system, which is a mess in toronto
  43. Sylvester McMonkey McBean from Ottawa, Canada writes: Canadian TV isn't a reflection of Canadian culture at all. It's a vision of what selected individuals wish Canadian culture was. I can't imagine anything more infuriating that some group of self-congratulatory elites foisting their ill-conceived political correctness upon me, unless perhaps they were extorting money from me with which to do it. Wait a minute...
  44. Sylvester McMonkey McBean from Ottawa, Canada writes: m a - yes, the production values tend to be poorer in Canadian shows. The real problem is the message behind the shows though - we are being preached to. I for one resent it.
  45. Garry Sugden from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: Canadian artists, technicians and entrepreneurs (i.e. actors like Kiefer Sutherland and Ellen Page, Directors like Cronenberg and Cameron, entrepreneurs like Astro Atlantis) owe a great deal of their formative training and future international success to those tax dollars Canadians paid to give Canadians a chance. That’s what it is to be a nation people; paying money to give each other a chance to prosper in life!

    The reason that private media funds earned in Canada must be applied by regulation to develop Canadian media product, is that private capital has illustrated its incompetence in understanding long term issues. All successes mentioned above are owed to regulation, why would Canadians not insist on continued success?
  46. Sal Gillespie from Canada writes: What a load! 'to the heart of what it means to be Canadian'. Who listens to this claptrap? Apart from our federal appartchik, that is. Hilarious that he points to the CTF's hand in the tremednous success of Cdn TV in the last 10 years. SAY WHAT??
    Also find it incredible that they can make the assumption that NONE of the shows that got CTF funding would have been made without it...

    Actually maybe he's right. Wasting taxpayers money so that our bureaacrats can try to engineer our society... that IS at the heart of being Canadian!
  47. Mhairi Kerr from Toronto, Canada writes: To Sylvester McMonkey McBean: Canadian production values are poorer because we don't have the millions to splash on a production as the Americans do. The BBC has a licence fee for every television in Britain and they have the population base to support it. This pays for most of their programming.

    To Adam Here and others: I have seen some lousy British television when living in Britian. The Brits are wise enough not to let it out of the country, thus most of us haven't seen their duds.

    Maybe we should tax every foreign production that enters this country and use that tax money to produce our own product. This applies to movies too. The Italians did it after WWII. Eighty-four days a year each theatre had to show Italian product. All foreign films coming into Italy were taxed and that money was used to fund the Italian productions. Taxpayers paid nothing toward protecting their culture - the 'forces' attacking the culture did.

    Keep in mind that we are the Scotland of North America. We have a cultural and financial juggernaut to the south. Unfortunately English Canada doesn't have a unique identity the way the Scots do, nor do we have a culture of storytelling the way most countries have. I always say I can make an animated movie with stick figures and it would be a hit as long as it has a good script.

    If Mr. Shaw and the other cable companies don't like shelling out, get out of the cable business. For the most part you have a monopoly in every market and the CTF contribution is the price you (or unfortunately your customers) pay to do business here.
  48. CD W from Canada writes: Okay , so a woman can choose to kill her child, but I cannot choose the school if it lives in which it could learn, unless it is a black child. I also cannot choose individual channels on my cable and I get stuck with Chinese news on the old CBS channel #4. Give me real choice for cable and satellite channels and you will soon see what will stick around and really deserve some extra cash for content, and dont preach to me about being canadian.
  49. Dan Farrell from Ottawa, Canada writes: The many negative comments about our public broadcasters reflect the success of unrelenting propaganda by business interests whose view of the world sees only dollar signs. Yes, the CBC produces some bad programs, but the excellent ones like 'Intelligence' and many documentaries that touch on subjects the business community would rather ignore more than make up for any shortcomings. How many Canadians are aware that the majority of messages they receive through the media are controlled by scarcely more than a trio of owners. If you wish to have Canadian information you should support Canadian public broadcasting.
  50. MJ M from Fort McMurray, Canada writes: 2 positive posts out of 49, one from Calgary and the other from Richmond Hill. I think this is the first thread I've read in recent memory that didn't divide up regionally. It appears Canadian's from all across the country feel the author is full of crap. The CBC and in general Canadian programming is just about impossible to watch it is so bad. The only thing of value that is actually part of being a Canadian that is produces and broadcast on the CBC is Hockey night in Canada. All over the world the CBC hockey producers and Camera men are lauded as the absolute best, can anything else this fund has produced make that claim? This fund is ridiculous and it irks me eveytime I flip through the channels on my TV that I am paying part of the cost of producing such garbage. An industry that uses Corner Gas and Little Mosque on the Prairie as reasons for it's subsidy is what it means to be Canadian. The little guy in the corner who keeps saying look at me, look at me, I am really good, I am really good, look at me, look at me. The problem is most of us stopped doing this when we were about 10 years old, because if we didn't we realized that the rest of the room would look at us first with disdain and then with sympathy. This is what we are reduced to being. Stop funding public broadcasting period, let the fees the cable companies pay go into general revenues where they can be used on things Canadian's actually care about and force these guys to either be good at what they do, or find something else to do.
  51. I. Con O'Clast from Canada writes: Not much support for the 'tax' on this forum! About the same as would be found in the population as a whole, I suspect. I think Sylvester McMonkey McBean from Ottawa said it best. If Canadian TV shows reflected Canadian culture rather than force-fed a politically correct version of it, the shows might not even require tax dollars.
  52. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: This article shows the pitfalls of arguing from a basis of self-interest. The author seems to believe the following:

    -that Canadians are inherently unable to produce a competitive product and therefore deserve government support without qualification

    -that Canadians believe television is art

    -that government can produce culture in much the same way it produces highways

    -that market conditions need not apply to Canadian 'entertainment' despite the millions of dollars spent to produce it

    In short the underlying assumption seems to be that to be Canadian is to support the fantastic.
  53. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: >> Dan Farrell from Ottawa, Canada writes: The many negative comments about our public broadcasters reflect the success of unrelenting propaganda by business interests whose view of the world sees only dollar signs.

    No, it might just be that we're being naughty and thinking for ourselves. I know we're not supposed to. That's the danger of letting the Canadian hoi polloi on the Internet; they forget their place I suppose.

    In my case, my thinking about where the money should go is actually probably further left than yours: my thinking is pretty small-town and basic -- if ever there is money is floating about, let's look after kids teeth. I think the nice-to-have's are nice-to-have, but only after the basics are covered for everybody. Now, I realize in this instance that you can't take TV money and use it on looking after working-class kid's teeth, but still.
  54. Sylvester McMonkey McBean from Ottawa, Canada writes: Mhairi Kerr - I would argue that production values are mostly irrelevant - many shows with hideous production values have been long-lasting commercial successes (the original Star Trek and Dr. Who for example). I believe the problem here is that funding subsidies are tied to the very prominent display of values which are considered 'Canadian' (whether or not they are is best left to a larger discussion). This causes the material to look very contrived, and places responsibility for culture in the hands of a few appointed individuals. I do not pretend to have your experience in and knowledge of the Canadian production scene. What I know for myself, and do not see seriously contradicted here, is that this stuff DOES NOT engage a lot of Canadians, and annoys the hell out of many of them.
  55. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Shaw made his megamillion dollar fortune in the cozy, monoplostic Canadian cable broadcasting sector. Now he's crying foul. He helped hollow out the Canadian TV industry by importing American product below cost; any Canadian income is just gravy to the US producers. The CTF fee he pays is not simply passed on to the consumer because cable rates are regulated; who thinks he'd refund them to us if he could, he's got no competition to force him to lower costs? Shaw is trying to weasel out of the obligations he undertook to the CRTC in order to get access to the cozy, monopolistic, Canadian cable broadcasting sector in the first place.
  56. George Hollinger from Calgary, Canada writes: After reading this article I felt the need to comment on this enormous waste of Canadian tax dollars. After reading the comments and seeing that about 95% of you agree it's an enormous waste of Canadian tax dollars is a big relief to me. I guess the big question to ask our political leaders is why do we still have these tax sucking organizations like the CTF, CRTC, CBC, and National Film Board??
  57. Susie Q from Canada writes: All I watch is Canadian television, and I hope any decision on the CTF doesn't affect the creation of quality Canadian programming, especially when it's finally coming into its own. That would be a shame.
  58. R. Finnyus P. Barnum, esq. from Canada writes: i always get the feeling when reading articles such as this that most canadians really don't give a damn whether we're canadian or whatever, just bring us some beer and a hockey game.
    talk radio used to be the bane of advertisers as the host usually attacked product, local politics, and any relevant topic - now it's an unending attack on things liberal and tax dollars spent 'on tv no one watches.'
    i like being canadian. we're slowly disappearing.
  59. Bald Sparrow from Montreal, Canada writes: How about adopting the British system ... a compulsory tax (they call it a licence) to own a television which is handed over to the independent public broadcaseter - the BBC - to produce high quality advertising-free programming, news, current affairs etc let the commercial broadcasters shift for themselves. It works.
  60. can I vote again from around-Kingston, Canada writes: G'day Peter Raymont, good article, good points. Unfortunately the majority of viewers (hence comments) can't see past the end of their respective noses, unless of course they're fed more US-based reality TV programming.

    The fact of nurturing a Canadian perspective, created by Canadians for Canadians is a tough sell in such a hostile environment.

    However, keep up the good work and fortunately for Canada the final decision on keeping the likes of Jim Shaw et. al at bay aren't dependent on arguments put forth by those frothing for more mindless dribble from the U.S.
  61. Mike M from Toronto, Canada writes: 3 quick points: 1) If watching tv is something that 'goes to the heart of what it means to be Canadian', then that is a very sad comment on what it means to be Canadian, 2) It is possible that this fund has created thousands of jobs, but for $2.5 billion I would sure hope it did. If job creation is the objective, this is not a prudent way to spend money; 3) the article notes that half of the money for the fund comes from the cable companies. This is not true - the cable company portion is just a pass through to cable subscribers, so it is in fact anyone who watches cable (and is a taxpayer) who pays the full fee. So if it is tv viewers who are paying for all this, why don't we just let them decide what they want to watch? If the shows are good, they will survive. If not, they will die. What could be more fair?
  62. Mhairi Kerr from Toronto, Canada writes: Bald Sparrow: We don't have the population base to support a licence fee. Not unless you want to pay about $500 per year per TV.
  63. Ken M from Calgary, Ab, Canada writes: Wow.

    A lot of offended people.

    I LIKE Corner Gas, though I'm certain it could be as popular on a cable channel.

    I'm sorry though, I just didn't enjoy Anne of Green Gables.
  64. Someone Canada from Canada writes: Again, the person writing the article is extremely bias, being he is a producer of Canadian content. I mean where is the article for the other side. Oh, yeah right this is the GW and they speak for everything socialist/wrong with this country.

    Bottom line is Canadian content sucks. Seriously, Train 48, Little Mosque on the Prairie (yes we know life is soo hard for Muslims coming to Canada, then don't come here), Air Farce, Rick Mercer Report, Corner Gas. Who watches these shows. Hardley, anyone that's who. I have never heard any one every say 'Hey, did you see last nights episode of ?'

    We waste our tax money on artificially supporting these industries. Much like the auto industry has been told by Ottawa, if you can't stand on your own two feet oh well. They should scrap all federal subsidies for failing industries, that are due to market decisions (ie farming is at the mercy of the climate)
  65. Bald Sparrow from Montreal, Canada writes: Mhairi Kerr from Toronto, Canada writes: Bald Sparrow: We don't have the population base to support a licence fee. Not unless you want to pay about $500 per year per TV.

    The UK has about double our size of population, that's true, but the BBC is many times larger than the CBC/Radio Canada so i would guess we would need less cash in the pot ... also the BBC makes a fortune selling quality programmes to North America - we could do that. UK licence is about $270 a year - I used to live there and it's a bargain -, anything is a bargain to get rid of those damned commercials. Yes, i'd pay $500 a year to actually have something worth watching ... at the moment I pay a small fortune a cable company to get the right to watch CBC Newsworld for an hour a night, there being literally nothing else on any station that interests me .... now THAT is expensive.
  66. old Curmudgeon From Ottawa from Ottawa, Canada writes: Personally, I want to be able to pick and chose which TV channel I want. I am sick of the dozens of sport channels I do not watch, the channels in russian, arabic, indi and whatever. If I wanted those, I would ask for them. Dont force-feed them to me!

    Then there are the multitudes of channels broadcasting the same programs... The end result of our 999 channel universe is that for most people, 20 channels maximum are worth watching (well, you know what I mean), while the rest is infomercial, multicultural pap, idiotic sitcoms, or the dregs of american cinema.

    I would gladly pay 1$ per channel, as long as I get to chose. I will pay 20$ a month for channels I want. At the moment, Rogers can try and sell me movies channels they want, but given that my cable is already costing me 60$ a month for channels I dont watch, I will be damned If I am going to pay any more! I prefer to save my money for DVD's I actually want to watch.

    Oh, while we are at it, what is the rational for having On-Demand programing where the cost of the movie is higher than the cost of renting the DVD at the store? I can rent the DVD in the format I want (Widescreen) and take a couple of days to watch it, and the specials on it. Using OnDemand, I get crummy picture quality in 4:3 format only, no specials, and I only get 24 hrs to watch it.

    I say, let us buy the channels we want. The good ones will survive, and the crap will go away. Gay channel, Muslim TV, Greek TVl! What the f*** do I need that garbage for!?
  67. Sylvester McMonkey McBean from Ottawa, Canada writes: Bald Sparrow - that's an excellent idea, and even better at $500 per set. Such a tax would hasten the move to delivery of video signal from the broadcast model, which is subject to the control of the CRTC, to an on-demand internet delivery, which is not. Or will they want to tax my computer monitor as well, since I might be able to watch whatever I like on it?
  68. John Smythe from Olds, Canada writes: Can we get rid of the CRTC and the CBC at the same time???
    John Smythe
  69. mcp m from Canada writes: Interesting.

    I submitted much earlier what I thought was an honest post that was reasonable and well thought out & written. Especially considering most of the posts here.

    Yes I may have been offended as I do not appreciate someone's voice being louder than mine based on their financial position. That's not democratic or fair.

    I suggest the moderator is biased & manipulative?

    Oh well, regards.
  70. Alchemical Methods from Ottawa, Canada writes: Part I There is no question of Mr. Raymont’s work being award winning, relevant and groundbreaking. With respect, there already exists a defacto two-tiered system of film financing in Canada (the haves and the have nots). While the CTF is a useful fund it maintains an inner circle which includes a very few and select group of production companies including Mr. Raymont’s White Pine Pictures. At the helm of Telefilm Canada (the body administering the CTF) sits the King of Canadian Film Insiders -- S. Wayne Clarkson (former Director/Co-founder of the Toronto International Film Festival and Director of the Canadian Film Centre). As consumers of popular media it is important to remember the average Canadian production house or filmmaker is operating on budgets of less than $100K. These productions DO NOT QUALIFY for the CTF. Their small size makes it difficult to gain access to partnerships with broadcasters who tend to fund the “devil they know.” In principle the CTF is a good fund. In the end, regardless of how funds are distributed between public and private broadcasters the cash goes to the same filmmakers with a mere handful of new filmmakers introduced each year. The end result is the same generic Canadian content devoid of ingenuity being commissioned – programming like When the Women Left. If we have decided reality programming is content worthy of public funding, then we should consider that Paperny Films, the prodco responsible for this new CBC series were once the creators of such gems as The Broadcast Tapes of Dr. Peter. For those unfamiliar with this series it captured the hearts of Canadians, educated the public about AIDS and changed the way we viewed living with this illness. In order to survive, however, prodcos must “get in bed” with broadcasters like the CBC, CTV and Global. Editorial control is contractually mandated and has thus reduced the originality and authenticity of Canada’s film/TV market.
  71. Alchemical Methods from Ottawa, Canada writes: Part II Ironically Mr. Raymont makes note of the documentary feature The Corporation. The Corporation is an example of a groundbreaking film which might NOT have been completed if it had relied on a partnership with a large broadcast corp. This film made the rounds at funding forums. The producers dutifully submitted their research treatments and funding proposals to the Canadian Broadcasters -- repeatedly. The bigger broadcasters viewed it as a funding risk and too one sided for a public broadcaster to commission. The only completion funding and broadcast support The Corporation received prior to its first broadcast was from TVO, a broadcaster used to taking risks with emerging talent. A better fund than the CTF and one practiced in other markets assumes a percentage of feature film ticket prices purchased at the box office or license fees (UK). These taxes or license fees work out to about 1% of ticket or cable/satellite costs. This cash is then diverted to a fund which supports the feature film and TV industries, related apprenticeship programs, prodco start ups AND new media initiatives which are fast outpacing old, cumbersome and costly methods of film production. Unless an overhaul of current funding is seriously explored, new and emerging production talent will use their skills to render broadcasters irrelevant by blurring the boundaries of film and TV with new media, and finding online channels for distribution. The time is soon upon us and it would be wise for the old guard to take note.
  72. Peter Lucas from Canada writes: Again, the left-leaning bias of someone who feeds from the public trough. The author implies producers who are financed by foreign capital will be biased in favor of his foreign investors. Exactly my chief complaint about the CBC. Since it's financed by taxpayer money obtained and allocated by government, the CBC is beholden to government. Hence the never ending shows bashing America and praising socialistic ideals.
  73. Bald Sparrow from Montreal, Canada writes: Peter Lucas from Canada writes: , the CBC is beholden to government. Hence the never ending shows bashing America and praising socialistic ideals.

    Huh ... the fawning over the military typified by Mansbridge et al is 'bashing America and praising socialistic ideals. ' Nah.
  74. Shawn McGrath from Regina, Canada writes: So if the person that suggested that it costs every Canadian $6.50 a year to fund Canadian TV, and if the stats that Peter Raymont note are correct, that means we get almost 2000 hours of Canadian programming a year. Even if 90% of it is 'crap' (as a number of people have so eloquently put it), that means you still get 200 hours of solid programming for less than the cost of a popcorn/drink combo at the movie or a gallon of gas. And you call Peter Raymont a whiner. Seriously pathetic.
  75. Chris Carter from Canada writes: The film industry needs government support for several reasons. Number one, if you produce a film or documentary in Canada, try to get it into a theatre anywhere in the country. Most theatres belong to the American chains, there is only a handful of independent theatres across the land that could show it and they are struggling to stay alive, so the run would be short at best, needing to get back to showing another expensive star ladened American film. How can a Canadian produced film or documentary expect to recover costs without a places to make back the investment? Number two, to try to establish a sense of being Canadian with the great barrage of images and sounds that flow over our border is difficult. We are different and proud to be so. In order to struggle against the loss of our identity we need to have government support to counter balance the volume breaching our borders. We produce some great documentaries but we don't get the support to show them on television or in theatres. The cable companies in Canada have been stealing the signals and selling it to us, and what do we get, American claptrap. They are the highest cash flow business in the country, every home paying them gobs of money to watch an unending salvo of drivel. Perhaps with the financial support from the CTF and other funds, and more film houses to show the work, Canadian producers will be able to break through and start showing us great Canadian drama and more excellent documentaries.
  76. Diane Ferguson from Owen Sound, Canada writes: CBC and TVO are the only channels I watch. I can't be bothered paying for all those channels of garbage. We use our high-tech rabbit ears and get five channels, but only watch two. I hope they're never taken away.
  77. KEN CAMPBELL from Canada writes: Television has made millions for many people, Rogers and Shaw in particular wher monopoly obtained through various practices has done the trick in spades. Regardless what you see on TV make no mistake the taxpayer paid for it and as time goes by what we get is pretty bad. Every day a few more seconds are added to advertising to a point there is more ads than show or news. Make no mistake we are held to ransom by a few who make sure real competition is non existent. As for the CRTC think hard and you will come up with an answer.
  78. Kathleen Degelder from AberdeenUSA, Canada writes: Cable TV is cheaper in the USA.
  79. Alex Yaxmos from Canada writes: Most of the content is very hard to watch and doesn't speak to a broad enough audicience. THe money can be better spent on things people want to watch. It doesn't have to be about Canada, just made in Canada.
  80. Thomas Toronto from Toronto, Canada writes: What a whopping pile of self serving, disengenuous rubbish! 'two tier', 'two solitudes' and equating this government ransom redistribution gravy train with our 'whole class health care system' is simply most gagging non sense I've read in this space in weeks.

    Get a real job Peter and after you've had your output pillaged by yet another government redistribution racket come back to these pages with more thoughtful metaphors than a bureaucratic triage system disguised as health care.
  81. ELM now from Toronto, Canada writes: As a Brit expat, I like Canadian tv. It just has a habit of being a bit slow and has too many commericals. I find there are the odd US show that I like (ie. Lost, Battlestar Galactica). But again, too many commercials and too much repetitive crap. There should be an apology when you show a rerun. So many commercials I dropped cable shortly after moving here because I couldn't remember what I was watching after too many ads.
    I put TVO kids on regularly for my kids while I make dinner. I think it's excellent. And Big Idea's, The Agenda. At least they're interesting. One more cheap sit com and I think I might just go brain dead.
  82. Jon Luft from Canada writes: Gee....another CBC hack telling us what it means to be 'Canadian'. I'm getting just a little more than sick of clowns like this telling me what is 'Canadian' and what isn't.

    If you can't hack it in the real world get your bloody hand out of my pocket, you arrogant CBC sycophant.
  83. Denise Taylor from Toronto, Canada writes: I agree that changes need to be made to the CTF and that Canadian television should not be as highly subsidized as it is now. There is a different solution to paying high cable fees. We shut off our cable tv at home as we were tired of paying for channels we didn't watch. Now we have a computer hooked up to our tv and watch internet tv for free! Everyone can do this, just buy an 'S-video' cable and hook up your laptop or computer to your tv. Free tv and no commercials, a tv revolution is coming.
  84. Henry Wysmulek from Winnipeg, writes: Well now we know there is at least one person in Canada that watches the garbage that the CBC produces.
  85. andrew munger from Canada writes: I don't think I've ever read a more ill-informed, hateful (and poorly written) collection of comments before.
    Just to clarify a few things.
    Competition - The cable companies don't want competition. They wish to remain protected from foreign competition.They are a protected industry. The last thing they want is to have to compete with international media congomerates like TimeWarner or News International.

    Subsidies. Do you idiots who complained about subsidizing the creation of Canadian jobs have any idea about the subsidies received by the oil industry (at a time of record high prices), the auto industry (check McGuinty's auto fund) and aerospace (100's of millions to Bombardier and others). The 'subsidy' media companies receive are a pittance compared to what other industries receive.

    Public Airwaves - Guess what? The airwaves belong to the public and it's the job of the CRTC (a dysfunctional agency, agreed) to ensure that the Canadian public receives some benefit from their use. Like maybe, CANADIAN PROGRAMMING. People are entitled to their opinions but there are plenty of great Canadian programs. No one is denying you your right to watch American Gladiators and NASCAR Races, but don't deny us the right to watch The Rick Mercer Report, Trailer Park Boys or DaVinci's Inquest.