The old idea that publicly funded corporations are inefficiently run by definition is a fiscal-conservative trope based on Reagan-era economic theories that doesn't bear out in reality.

Here's the way I see it:

We have, as broadcasting models, two major influences to draw from. To the south is the American model; the vast majority of their content is created by privately funded corporations. PBS does put out some good stuff (and is one of the few things I genuinely miss about cable) but it's influence on the US cultural landscape doesn't even approach what the CBC does here, let alone our other market to consider.

The other option is demonstrated in the UK, where the BBC is hugely influential. The BBC is very well funded and produces top-notch content as a result. Dr. Who, Top Gear, Monty Python's Flying Circus, A Bit Of Fry And Laurie, Being Human, Life On Mars, The Office are all examples of the sort of content a well-funded public broadcaster is able to produce. Many of these programs are unlike anything produced in the private sector, because the BBC doesn't have to be concerned about profit margins -- they're free to experiment with different formats and concepts without worrying about enriching their board of directors, and thus aren't bound to produce things in well-trodden channels of proven profitability (crime dramas, three-camera sitcoms, etc). The downside to this model, of course, is that as a public broadcaster increases influence it becomes more difficult to compete with, and that in turn results in a much poorer selection in terms of privately produced content. Many US shows make it to the UK one or two seasons behind, for example, if they make it there at all.

So far here in Canada, we've been able to strike a balance. We have a well-funded public broadcaster that produces quite a bit of good content. Shows like The Hour, Rick Mercer Report, This Hour Has 22 Minutes, Republic of Doyle and The Nature of Things are examples of good Canadian content produced by the CBC. Not to be discounted either is their news programming; aside from the political satire (a genre we got going long before The Daily Show and The Colbert Report came along) we have The National and The Fifth Estate, along with local news content that simply wouldn't exist in our many small communities if the CBC weren't around. This stuff isn't just frivolity, here -- it's essential in shaping our cultural identity, which would otherwise be at serious risk of being subsumed due to the tidal wave of American content crossing the border. And all of this isn't even touching on CBC Radio; we're only talking about television so far.

On the other hand, our national broadcaster does not carry so much weight that it's able to monopolize the market. There's still a lot of room for privately funded broadcasters as well, and we have networks like City TV, Omni, Global and CTV as a result. These networks are able to import some of the best international content (primarily but not exclusively from the US market) and, thanks to the sometimes-controversial CanCon regulations have even produced a few homegrown gems as well. The ever popular Trailer Park Boys was picked up by Showcase, and CTV brought us Corner Gas and Elvis Costello's severely underrated Spectacle.

It's my opinion that we should work as a nation to maintain this balance. Honestly, I think the CBC could do with a bit more funding, but I don't think we need to turn it into a clone of the BBC. I certainly think that cutting it's funding (or worse, doing away with it entirely) puts our cultural identity at serious risk, and is a very dangerous proposition. If anything, I'd love it if we could see a few more Canadian-produced programs created that are of sufficient quality (and are marketed well enough) that they would see export to international markets; I think it would be a great way to increase the Canadian "brand" and help combat the idea that we're simply USA, Jr.

So short answer: yes, the government should absolutely support the CBC, and you should, too.