Elitist TV?

Liberal MP Roger Gallaway admits to setting a cat among CBC pigeons deliberately last week with his suggestion the "elites" who watch the publicly funded television network should pay for it themselves.

But he did it for good reason. In what is to be an 18-month study on the state of broadcasting in this nation, the Commons heritage committee is obliged to consider whether Canada still needs CBC-TV and, if so, whether taxpayers should continue to support it to the tune of at least $850 million a year.

These are questions few Liberals want to face. Jim Abbott, the Canadian Alliance heritage critic who also is on the review committee, long has advocated scrapping support for the English-language TV service. But CBC continues to be treated with kid gloves as if it's a culture-defining national icon like medicare.

Well, new Health Minister Anne McLellan has said everything about health care is on the table; Heritage Minister Sheila Copps should follow her lead and ensure her committee considers all options in its review of broadcasting.

The founding principle behind the publicly funded television network was to ensure that Canadian programs were available to all citizens. In the antenna world of the 1950s and '60s, the CBC provided a reach beyond that of private broadcasters. With today's 300-channel universe of cable, satellite and Internet, access is no longer an issue. A myriad of networks and cable channels such as Newsworld, Bravo and Showcase offer Canadian content without having to raid the public purse.

In addition, the federal government funds the production of Canadian shows through grants to Telefilm Canada, the Canadian Television Fund and the National Film Board. Canadian networks are required by CRTC rules to broadcast at least eight hours a week of Canadian content during prime time.

Granted, viewers still get the giant share of their Canadian programs on CBC. In a poll of 1998 viewing habits done for the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, COMPAS found that 86 per cent of CBC's prime-time viewing audience was watching Canadian programs, as compared to less than 20 per cent for other networks.

But, at any moment in time, only about five per cent of viewers are tuned to CBC, a 40 per cent drop in recent years. Does this mean Canadians are less Canadian? We don't think so. And, even if it were important to have Canadian-made choices, is federal funding of the CBC the only way to go? Of course not.

1. CBC could go the way of PBS in the United States, supported through corporate and individual donors. Gallaway suggests, however, that since CBC doesn't provide nearly the quality of PBS, it would be unable to attract the donations it would need.

2. The CBC could be privatized and forced to compete on a level playing field with other broadcasters. The Friends say that option would result in far few Canadian programs on the air because CBC would have to give viewers what they want – U.S. shows.

3. CBC could go completely non-commercial and free up about $350 million a year in advertising for private broadcasters, such as this newspaper's owner, CanWest Global. One of the knocks on the current system is that taxpayer dollars are used to compete for ad revenue with private networks, an unfair advantage.

4. CBC Newsworld and RDI require no government funds but rely on a 50-cent cable charge and ad revenues. Some suggest CBC-TV operate the same way, as a specialty channel, or be folded in with Newsworld. The Friends' Ian Morrison says cable fees won't come close to paying for expensive drama and comedy programs. Others argue that since Canadian news and public affairs are watched at far higher rates, the focus should be on them anyway.

These ideas aren't new, but they've never seen the light of day.

The COMPAS poll done in 1999 for the Friends showed 89 per cent of respondents (85 per cent in Alberta) think government funding for the CBC should be maintained at current levels or increased. But, given that so few watch it, the numbers also suggest most view the CBC akin to eating one's peas – something you think you should do, but don't.

The debate comes down to this: Should Canadian taxpayers continue to support something they don't watch? Is the CBC's raison d'etre hopelessly out of date?

We think these questions must be part of the heritage committee's work. Early signs are discouraging, however. Sarmite Bulte, parliamentary secretary to Copps, states CBC is absolutely necessary and vital. "Through this study, we want to engage Canadians to tell us that (the CBC) is important," she says. Notice it is not "whether" the CBC is important, but that it is.

All the more reason for MPs such as Jim Abbott and Roger Gallaway to keep the pressure on for a real debate on the CBC, instead of another whitewash of a sacred cow.

© Calgary Herald