GIESBRECHT: Subsidized media is turning Canada into a one-party state

Canada’s Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) is commonly referred to as the Natural Governing Party of Canada. It has governed Canada for 70% of the 20th century.After John A. and confederation, the Conservatives had a good run, but once the smooth, Carney-like Wilfred Laurier, and his Liberals eased their way into power, the LPC never really never looked back. In fact, Canada came close to being a one party state.Laurier was prime minister from 1896–1911, then Mackenzie King, the longest-serving prime minister in Canadian history, from 1921–1930, and again from 1935–1948. He was succeeded by Louis St. Laurent, who continued the Liberal streak until 1957. Effectively, the LPC governed Canada from 1935 to 1957. Lester Pearson governed from 1963–68, Pierre Trudeau, 1968–79 and again from 1980–1984, Jean Chretien, 1993–2003, with a record three straight majority governments (1993, 1997, and 2000). There were brief Conservative interregnums, when the likes of Diefenbaker and Mulroney found opportunities to temporarily interrupt LPC rule, but the 20th century was basically owned by the slick Liberals..In the present century, Paul Martin served one term, from 2003-2006, when Stephen Harper’s Conservatives finally broke the Liberals’ streak. But that ended when the now infamous Justin Trudeau led the Liberals to victory in 2015. Mark Carney will now take over where Trudeau left off.The Liberals almost always find a way of outflanking the hapless Conservatives. Like Lucy in Peanuts putting her finger on the football — inviting Charlie Brown to kick it, then pulling her finger away at the last minute — the LPC always finds a last minute trick to trip up the Conservatives, and stay in power. In the 2021 election campaign they used the fear of the COVID virus, by stoking hatred towards “anti-vaxxers” — meaning anyone opposing their extreme lockdown policies. This time they used the fear of the ogre, Donald Trump..But this election might be the last time the Liberals will be referred to as the “natural governing party”.Instead, from now on they might be referred to as the only party. Because this is the first election where the full effect of full-scale subsidization of the mainstream media has kicked in. It is no longer just CBC that employs taxpayer-paid “journalists”. Now, all mainstream media journalists are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. And these subsidies — originally proposed as a temporary measure — now appear to be permanent.The LPC are fine with this. They find no contradiction in paying journalists and expecting them to be non-political. The fact that all mainstream Canadian journalists largely depend on the LPC to remain in power to continuing to receive their paycheques doesn’t trouble them at all. The LPC are also fully aware that media subsidization is their ultimate trick that could keep them in power indefinitely.The Conservatives, on the other hand, oppose a government-subsidized or government-paid media. They believe that paying journalists is something that shouldn’t happen in a liberal democracy, and inevitably leads to a politicized media, and one party rule..Mainstream journalists are fully aware that a Conservative victory would mean that the journalists’ paycheques will be drastically reduced, or eliminated altogether.This puts even the most principled journalist in a box. How does he or she write objectively when they know that a Conservative win could mean the end of their job, or at the very least a reduction of their salary?The unwritten message to Canadian journalists is this: “If you choose to write for a government subsidized publication, or share information on CBC or any other government subsidized media outlet, you can write or say whatever you want to. However, be aware that if the Conservatives are ever elected they will end or drastically reeducate subsidies, and your job will be in jeopardy”. How can we expect journalists to be objective when they have that hanging over their heads?.Andrew Coyne is one Canadian journalist who has consistently opposed the government subsidization of media. He recognizes clearly how it can only end badly, and he cogently sets out all of the reasons why subsidizing the media, and expecting it to remain independent, doesn’t make sense.Coyne, and many other journalists and writers who have taken this position, are absolutely right. Of course having a government in power paying journalists will corrupt any liberal democracy.But there’s the rub: These distinguished journalists oppose media subsidization in theory, but then continue to take the money. They “talk the talk,” but don’t “walk the walk.” They continue to take money from the government, while pretending that they are independent.Coyne, for instance, continues to write for a subsidized newspaper, and regularly appears on CBC — which is so heavily government-supported that some refer to it as “state media”..And very strangely, these same journalists, who have their salaries heavily subsidized- or even completely paid by taxpayers — look down their noses at alternative media, like Western Standard and Rebel News, who don’t receive one cent from taxpayers. The tax-payer paid journalists insist that the independent media, which includes Substacks, Western Standard —outlets that take no money from the government — are not “real” journalists.A recent example of this is the well publicized dispute between Rosemary Barton of CBC and Drea Humphrey of Rebel News. Barton accused Humphrey of lying, when Humphrey claimed that no bodies had been found following the May 27, 2021 Kamloops claim that 215 indigenous children had been secretly buried on the residential school grounds.CBC had to issue a retraction, because Drea Humphrey had been giving Canadians accurate information, while it was Barton who was spreading misinformation. But even with that, the taxpayer-subsidized journalists chose to take swipes at reader-supported media as being illegitimate..So we have a situation where the LPC and the mainstream media sees no real problem with the only media they regard as legitimate being subsidized, while independent media, like Western Standard and Substack writers who depend on their readers and not taxpayers for support are regarded as illegitimate. This seems odd, to say the least. But I digress.Because the even bigger problem with media subsidization is that the LPC is quite happy to keep it going forever, while the Conservatives are philosophically opposed to the very concept of paying supposedly objective journalists.(Although Poilievre has recently suggested a plan to fund independent media, this was more a desperation play than a serious proposal.)As mentioned earlier, that’s the elephant in the room: Journalists know that one party, LPC, will pay them, while the Conservatives will not.The fact is that subsidizing the very media we depend on to preserve our liberal democracy is contrary to conservative principles. It is contrary to common sense as well. Even in the United States, with a media sharply divided between progressive media and conservative media, the very notion of allowing the government to subsidize the media would be a non-starter. The First Amendment would immediately shut down any such proposal. The Americans realize, even in that sharply divided country, that a liberal democracy cannot survive a government-paid media. That is what Xi and Putin have. America will not allow it.But that is what we have allowed to happen in Canada. And it appears to be permanent.And will that allow the LPC to move from being the “natural governing party” to being the only governing party where the Conservatives will act out the part of being a real alternative party, knowing it is just pantomime? Have media subsidies turned the LPC into a party more like the CCP?The problem of Canada becoming a one party state is obvious: The West almost always votes Conservative, while the East almost always votes Liberal. The West relies largely on conservative independent media, which favours the Conservatives. The East relies much more on the taxpayer-funded mainstream mediaI that favours the LPC. This is a formula for the LPC effectively to become the only governing party. The West cannot win if it continues. This is also a formula for the eventual breakup of the country.Canada, as we know it, cannot survive as a functioning liberal democracy if journalists are dependent for their daily bread on one particular political party monopolizing political power.Subsidized journalism has to go if there is any chance that Canada can stay together.But media subsidies are just one item in what is a fairly long list of Western grievances that might — or might not — be solvable. With the re-election of the LPC, Eastern Canada may have sent a message to Western Canada that they have no interest in solving those problems.Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

GIESBRECHT: Subsidized media is turning Canada into a one-party state

Related Stories