The World Needs More Canada. Maybe the CBC Should Bring It to Them.

Pierre Poilievre wants to defund our public broadcaster. We should be asking why we have never allowed it to become a truly global one.

Pierre Poilievre has spent years calling for the defunding of the CBC.

I think we should do the opposite.

I think we should invest in it, expand it and begin treating it as something more important than a domestic television network that occasionally produces a show people watch while folding laundry.

Not because the CBC is perfect.

It is a massive public institution, which means it is almost certainly bloated in places, inefficient in others and capable of spending more money to accomplish less than some of its private competitors. Those criticisms should not be dismissed. Its budgets should be scrutinized. Its executives should be held accountable. Its programming should be judged honestly.

But those are arguments for making the CBC better.

They are not arguments for destroying it.

That distinction matters, especially when wealthy private interests are buying, consolidating and influencing more of the media we consume.

We have watched much of the American information landscape come off the rails over the last decade. News has become less about informing the public and more about reinforcing whatever version of reality keeps a particular audience frightened, angry and watching.

Private media does not necessarily provide the information people need. It provides the information advertisers can sell around.

There is a difference.

When a handful of extremely wealthy people control the platforms through which millions understand the world, their economic and political interests inevitably shape the conversation. That does not require a secret meeting in a dark room. It is simply what happens when news becomes a product and the people producing it know who signs their cheques.

Canada is hardly immune. Researchers have spent decades documenting concentration within the Canadian media and communications industries. A 2025 Carleton University-led report examined 40 years of ownership, consolidation and upheaval across the country’s network-media economy.

But the CBC remains different in one essential way.

We own it.

It does not ultimately exist to enrich a billionaire, satisfy shareholders or protect the interests of a corporate parent. Its mandate is public service.

That does not magically make every story balanced. Journalists are human. Editors make choices. Institutions develop blind spots. The CBC can be criticized, and it should be.

But the popular accusation that it is simply the propaganda department of the Liberal Party has never been supported by much evidence.

In 2010, CBC released the results of an extensive news-balance study that it had commissioned from the independent research firm ERIN Research. The firm examined roughly 15,900 television, radio and online stories broadcast or published between October 2009 and May 2010, alongside a public-opinion study conducted by Ipsos Reid. Reported findings indicated that The National treated the governing Conservatives more positively than the national newscasts on CTV and Global and gave Conservative politicians substantial airtime.

That study is old and should not be treated as proof that every CBC broadcast today is perfectly impartial. It does, however, complicate the claim that the network has always functioned as a Liberal cheering section.

Apparently the propaganda becomes reliable journalism whenever a Conservative politician wants to cite it.

But preserving trustworthy news is only part of the reason we should invest more in the CBC.

The larger opportunity is cultural.

For much of our history, Canadian television appeared embarrassed by its own Canadian identity. Toronto pretended to be New York. Vancouver played Seattle. Canadian characters lived in unnamed North American cities where nobody mentioned universal healthcare, ordered a double-double or wore a toque.

We acted as though Canadian stories could travel only if we scrubbed the Canada out of them.

Then something changed.

Murdoch Mysteries, Schitt’s Creek, Kim’s Convenience, Workin’ Moms, Heartland and other Canadian productions found audiences outside this country without disguising where they came from.

They did not succeed despite being Canadian.

Their Canadian character became part of the appeal.

Kim’s Convenience presented a Korean-Canadian family running a Toronto convenience store. Workin’ Moms was unmistakably set within the rhythms and contradictions of life in Toronto. Schitt’s Creek never needed to wave a flag in the background because its humour, humanity and lack of cynicism felt Canadian without becoming a government heritage commercial.

These shows travelled because specificity travels.

Audiences do not need every story to resemble their own lives. They need stories that feel honest enough to invite them inside.

Canadian productions supported by our broadcasting and cultural-funding ecosystem have already demonstrated real export potential. Canadian Media Fund-backed television projects generated hundreds of millions of dollars in international presales over a five-year period, showing that Canadian storytelling can be both culturally valuable and commercially viable.

So why are we still talking about the CBC like it is merely a domestic expense?

Why are we asking how small it can become instead of how far it can reach?

The BBC has understood this for generations.

Britain did not build the BBC World Service out of charity. It understood that journalism and culture create influence. They introduce a country to people who may never visit it. They establish familiarity, credibility and trust long before a diplomat enters the room or a company considers an investment.

In 2024–25, the BBC reported a global weekly reach of approximately 453 million people across BBC News and BBC Studios. Its international news services alone reached 418 million people each week, while the World Service reached about 313 million. The BBC also reported that international business decision-makers who use its services were more likely to consider investing in the United Kingdom.

That is not simply broadcasting.

That is soft power.

Canada should have the same ambition.

We find ourselves in an unusual moment. The United States, for generations the dominant cultural and political voice in our hemisphere, is increasingly perceived as polarized, unpredictable and hostile to outsiders. Its institutions appear less stable. Its alliances seem more conditional. Its politics spill across its borders whether the rest of us invite them or not.

Canada can offer a different story.

Not a perfect country. Not a morally superior country. Not a country that has solved racism, inequality, reconciliation or immigration.

A functioning country.

A country whose institutions remain broadly stable. A country where regulations can be followed and contracts can be trusted. A country where people from different cultures can retain their identities while participating in a shared national life.

Canada’s political and economic stability is already presented as a competitive advantage when attracting international investment. Statistics Canada also recognizes that a country’s reputation and soft power can strengthen trade relationships, attract visitors, talent and investment, and increase its ability to influence international standards.

Media is part of that reputation.

Every successful Canadian drama, comedy, documentary, podcast and news program becomes a small introduction to this country.

It shows people what our cities look like.

It lets them hear our accents.

It introduces them to our artists, communities, Indigenous voices, immigrant families, political arguments and strange collection of regional identities.

It can demonstrate what a multicultural nation is capable of without pretending multiculturalism is effortless or complete.

There is economic value in that.

Culture attracts tourism. Reputation attracts talent. Familiarity helps create markets. Trust encourages investment. A country that successfully tells its own story is more likely to be understood on its own terms.

If we truly believe the world needs more Canada, do we not have some obligation to bring Canada to the world?

Not to dominate it.

Not to lecture everyone else about how civilized we are.

And certainly not to turn the CBC into a government propaganda service projecting maple leaves onto every available surface.

The value of public broadcasting lies in its independence. A global CBC would be useful only if it retained the freedom to criticize Canada, expose our failures and tell the truth about who we are.

Soft power does not have to mean propaganda.

It can mean being honest about ourselves while still believing that what we are building is worth sharing.

Imagine a properly funded international CBC service distributing Canadian journalism, documentaries, comedy and drama around the world. Imagine partnerships with broadcasters throughout Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America. Imagine reporting available in multiple languages, not merely explaining the world to Canadians but helping the world understand Canada.

CBC/Radio-Canada becoming a full member of the European Broadcasting Union in June 2026 demonstrates that deeper international collaboration is not some impossible fantasy.

The infrastructure already exists.

The talent already exists.

The stories already exist.

What appears to be missing is ambition.

Pierre Poilievre looks at the CBC and sees an institution to cut.

I look at it and see an institution we have never fully allowed to become what it could be.

Reform it. Audit it. Modernize it. Make its leadership more accountable. Strengthen its political independence and demand that it serve Canadians in every region, not merely those living close to Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa.

But then give it a larger mission.

Let it become a global home for Canadian journalism and culture.

Let it create opportunities for Canadian writers, actors, filmmakers, musicians and journalists.

Let it tell stories that private broadcasters will never consider sufficiently profitable.

Let it become a trusted voice in a world where trustworthy voices are becoming harder to find.

The world does not need Canada to become another empire.

It may simply need Canada to stop whispering.