Tom Mulcair: Why all the fuss about Twitter's description of CBC?

Why all the fuss about Twitter describing the CBC as “government-funded media”? The CBC is government-funded media. It matters little if it’s 69 per cent or 70 per cent It’s a simple fact that it is majority government funded.

It doesn’t mean it’s bad quality media. It doesn’t mean that its journalists are incompetent (some of the best journalists I’ve met in my long career work for the CBC). It doesn’t mean that all of its shows are lousy. It doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t continue. It just means that it’s a government-owned creation of Parliament, not a private outfit.

The Canadian government provides our state-owned broadcaster over $1 billion a year in subsidies that were voted by Parliament. These are not public subscriptions, they’re government grants. The public pays its taxes and the government funds the CBC from those taxes. The public doesn’t otherwise have anything to do with it or a word to say about it.

Justin Trudeau was in full rhetorical flight Monday as he gave one of his overwrought drama teacher performances in defence of the CBC. The social media giant had decided to mention this government funding on CBC’s Twitter account, at the request of opposition leader Pierre Poilievre. An OMG moment Trudeau wasn’t going to squander. He even accused Poilievre of being in league with American billionaires. Take THAT you sellout!

• Capital Dispatch: Sign up for in-depth political coverage of Parliament Hill

There have been nuances in the past from Twitter. The BBC received a similar “government-funded media” moniker, which Twitter later changed to “publicly funded media.” Maybe something similar will be worked out for the CBC, which finds its appellation offensive because it lumps them in with state-controlled media in undemocratic regimes.

It would be a wasted opportunity if this issue were to be reduced to a Trudeau soliloquy versus a Poilievre grin. There is a substantive issue here that deserves to be aired, not dismissed. It’s very real and not a figment of the opposition leader’s imagination.

As someone who represented a different party, the CBC’s treatment of the Liberals is something I’ve witnessed up close. In the run-up to the 2015 campaign, in which I’d be facing off against Stephen Harper and Trudeau, it was frustrating to say the least. Some of our best communications folks cautioned me (correctly) that it was a mug’s game to complain. You can’t beat the house! I’d have to put up and shut up.

Poilievre is apparently not willing to just take it. He’s fighting back but his methods and threats to defund can be so off-putting that any chance of discussing the matter serenely may be lost. Despite Trudeau’s chewing the scenery, there is something serious to discuss here and doing so could help Canadians get a better CBC.

I understand Poilievre’s frustrations because I’ve experienced them first-hand. I just don’t share his methods. I don’t think the CBC should be defunded but I do think it could be improved. If this whole exercise opens up that possibility, Canadians could be the big winners.

I have searing memories of interventions by a small number of CBC/Radio-Canada reporters during the campaign, several of whom went on to become Liberal staffers.

Sour grapes? Nope, for me it’s long past. Real concern? Yep, because if it continues, the CBC could be on the chopping block and I believe that would be a great loss for our country.

When CBC President Catherine Tait decided to descend into the partisan political arena, targeting Poilievre personally, Trudeau should’ve called her in to explain that she couldn’t continue in her job.

Think about that for a second. The same person who worked himself into a lather defending the CBC as an incorruptible, independant monument to fairness did nothing when the head of the CBC decided she was a politician and singled out the opposition leader.

In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Tait had had this to say:

“There is a lot of CBC bashing going on, somewhat stoked by the leader of the Opposition (Pierre Poilievre).”

Of course Poilievre reacted. He accused her of being partisan and he was completely right. It was blatantly partisan. She had no business whatsoever engaging in politics. Period.

If anyone on a CBC pundit panel criticized Tait, I must’ve missed it.

Both the government and the CBC should use this debate as an opportunity to hit “refresh.”

A “business as usual” approach would help perpetuate a problem for politicians who aren’t Liberal. More importantly, it affects the fairness of our electoral process. It is government money, after all.

Twitter has taken to answering all questions from the media by sending an emoji of a little pile of poo. It’s first year high school humour that says a lot about owner Elon Musk’s understanding of the importance of a free press. Musk has all the money in the world and the influence to go along with it. He also fails to understand that dictatorships from Moscow to Tehran, from Beijing to Pyongyang are cheering him on for a reason.

Defending a free press is essential in a world where democratic ideals and human rights are under greater pressure than at any time in nearly a century. Those assaults on democracy and liberty shouldn’t be enabled by someone whose success and fortune have been gained thanks to a free economy and freedom of speech.

That’s a debate worth having. Trudeau’s opportunistic emoting in defence of the CBC shouldn’t spare us a good hard look at this worthwhile Canadian institution. Destroying the CBC, as Poilievre has promised to do, would only deprive Canadians and the world of one more quality source of information at a time when hotheads and zealots already have too much sway.

Let’s defend the CBC while at the same time cleaning house and putting it on a more balanced footing. Canadians deserve no less.

Tom Mulcair was the leader of the federal New Democratic Party of Canada between 2012 and 2017.