The Conservative war on the CBC has escalated. It is no longer enough for Pierre Poilievre’s party to vow to stop funding the public broadcaster, in the hope that it will then close down. The Conservative leader is now blaming the CBC for all undemocratic ills, in order to galvanize his most loyal supporters. But in doing so, he runs the risk of repelling the voters he must nevertheless convince if he wants to hope for an electoral victory. And this, especially in Quebec.
Let’s first clarify the choice of words. The CBC network has been given the label of “government funded media” by Twitter. Which is not wrong. But the social network also stipulates, in its definition of this wording, that these media have “editorial content likely to be influenced to varying degrees by this government”. Which is wrong.
By asking Elon Musk to act in this direction, Pierre Poilievre argued that he had to “protect Canadians against misinformation and manipulation by state media”. After the tag was affixed, he tweeted that, “Now people know this is pro-Trudeau propaganda, not news.” As if the CBC were the equivalent of a news organization under an authoritarian state. Which, again, is false.
The Conservative Party has long promised to slash the budget of the English public broadcaster. Some actions taken by CBC management did not help his cause. But between proposing to review the financing of a public network and taxing it with partisan propaganda, there is a step that has never been taken so far. Before the appearance of Pierre Poilievre.
I am very worried if ever [la fin du financement de la CBC] had to happen, because we will necessarily weaken the contribution of the public service, of information and, above all, of international journalism and programs like Investigation
Finally, the leader claims to only attack the CBC and wants to spare Radio-Canada. His charges are all carefully spoken and written in English only. But both CBC and Radio-Canada have ceased their activities on Twitter, the French-language network feeling its credibility undermined by the label demanded by the Conservative leader.
Pierre Poilievre tried in vain to spare Quebec — and its Quebec elected officials — but reality quickly caught up with him. And the unease within his Quebec caucus bears witness to this.
Quebec, a distinct electorate
The elected Conservatives of Quebec have been discreet for a week, in particular the former journalists Gérard Deltell and Dominique Vien. We understand from this silence that in the eyes of the nine elected officials, attacking the CBC is not the priority to regain the reins of government.
Pollster David Coletto noted on Twitter that only 22% of Canadians consult this platform on a daily basis. Few of them will therefore realize that the CBC and Radio-Canada have disappeared.
However, a study by Maru Public Opinion revealed last fall that more than 80% of Canadians consume information on a daily basis. A significant number of potential voters who will therefore see the conservative leader associate the public broadcaster with a Russian or Chinese propaganda organ. And who will see Justin Trudeau, like his Bloc and New Democrat counterparts, accuse Mr. Poilievre of attacking “culture, identity, independent journalism” and “local information”.
Because whatever Mr. Poilievre says, cutting CBC’s funding would not be without consequences for Radio-Canada. The two public broadcasters share a lot of resources (real estate, material, journalism). Mr. Poilievre is not helping himself by refusing to explain how he would go about stopping funding one while continuing to fund the other.
Alain Saulnier agrees that, “theoretically”, Radio-Canada could survive on its own, but would “lose a lot”. When he was chief information officer there, the French service received 40% of the federal funds, and the English service the remaining 60%. This federal funding represented approximately 60% of the broadcaster’s funds, in addition to advertising and commercial revenues.
“I am very worried if ever [la fin du financement de la CBC] had to happen, because we will necessarily weaken the contribution of the public service, of information and, above all, of international journalism and programs like Investigation “, laments Mr. Saulnier.
Pierre Poilievre should remember that his former boss Stephen Harper denigrated artists in 2008, complaining about cuts of $45 million by his government. His comments, in english only also, had nevertheless cost him his majority.
Mr. Saulnier notes that public broadcasters pay the price of political parties in several Western countries. He deplores that in Canada, Pierre Poilievre has gone further, with a “Trumpist, libertarian discourse”, alleging that the public service is necessarily favorable to the government, and must therefore be closed. A “low partisan” strategy that Mr. Saulnier considers “odious”.
The Conservative leader is also making a strategic mistake, in the opinion of former strategist Rodolphe Husny. “He cashes in an immediate victory, by showing his militants that he delivers the goods. But he has just pushed back some voters in the center, who would be likely to vote for him, because tired of Justin Trudeau. By making headlines about CBC and Twitter, Mr. Poilievre also eclipsed for a few days the file of Chinese interference which had nevertheless haunted the Liberal government for weeks. “He diverts the spotlight”, is surprised Mr. Husny.
This obsession with CBC is not without its contradictions. Pierre Poilievre and his troops spent question period on Tuesday accusing Justin Trudeau of having lacked sensitivity by spending the Christmas holidays with a wealthy friend in Jamaica – without ever mentioning that the news was revealed… by Radio-Canada and CBC.
The Conservatives predict that they have few votes to lose by attacking the public broadcaster, which is not as appreciated in English Canada as its French-speaking leanings. It remains to be seen whether the verbal puffiness of their leader – who called Justin Trudeau a traitor in the pay of China, before qualifying the CBC as a “liberal party propaganda weapon” – will also be considered secondary. Or if Pierre Poilievre begins to go a little too far in the eyes of voters that he badly needs to broaden his base of believers.