Poilievre's Attack on the CBC Mirrors Dangerous Tactics of Authoritarian Dictators

In the current political climate, accusations of authoritarianism are frequently levelled against leaders who attack the press, vilify institutions of democracy, or undermine public trust in essential government functions. Authoritarian leaders such as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Joseph Stalin targeted the media to consolidate power, control the narrative, and ultimately, erode democracy. In the United States, former President Donald Trump has earned widespread condemnation for his repeated attacks on the media, calling journalists "enemies of the people" and vilifying the so-called "deep state." His rhetoric raised alarms among defenders of free speech and democratic values, as it echoed tactics used by authoritarian regimes to delegitimize independent press and sow division.

Now, in Canada, a similar rhetoric is emerging. Pierre Poilievre, the leader of Canada’s Conservative Party, has taken aim at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the country’s long-standing, publicly funded national broadcaster. Poilievre’s campaign to defund and dismantle the CBC raises important questions: Why does a leader running for the highest office in Canada target a trusted news outlet? And why, despite this, has he avoided being labelled as authoritarian in the same way figures like Trump have been?

Poilievre's Challenge to the CBC: A Call for Defunding

Pierre Poilievre has long been a vocal critic of the CBC, accusing the network of being biased, too closely aligned with the political establishment, and out of touch with the views of ordinary Canadians. His rhetoric has escalated in recent months, with promises to defund the CBC and significantly reduce its role in Canadian media. In his speeches, Poilievre often invokes claims that the CBC's content is left-leaning and that taxpayers should not be forced to fund an outlet that, in his view, serves a particular political agenda.

"Why should Canadians be forced to pay for a news network that is more interested in promoting the agenda of the Liberal government than serving the needs of the people?" Poilievre asked during a rally earlier this year. He has called for the CBC to be "held accountable" for its supposed biases, going so far as to suggest that government funding should be redirected to other priorities, like healthcare or tax relief.

In Poilievre's view, this is a matter of fiscal responsibility. He argues that public funding for the CBC could be better spent elsewhere and that Canadian media should be driven by the free market, with more competition and fewer government handouts. For Poilievre, the CBC represents a bloated, inefficient institution that has outlived its usefulness.

Attacks on the Media as Authoritarian Tactics: The Authoritarian Parallel 

History has shown that authoritarian regimes thrive when they control the flow of information. Hitler’s Nazi regime, for example, used the power of state-controlled media to manipulate public opinion, spread propaganda, and stifle dissent. The infamous Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, headed by Joseph Goebbels, took charge of all media outlets to ensure they adhered to the ideology of the Nazi Party. Likewise, Mussolini’s Fascist Italy tightly controlled the press, using it to glorify the regime and suppress any criticism. Stalin, too, understood that the media was a tool to enforce totalitarian control, with Soviet propaganda outlets shaping the perception of the Communist Party and quashing opposing voices.

In more recent history, former U.S. President Donald Trump became notorious for his ongoing attacks on the media. He regularly referred to journalists as “enemies of the people,” labelling reputable news organizations like The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post as “fake news.” Trump’s rhetoric was designed not only to discredit the press but also to create a narrative that only his voice—through social media and friendly media outlets—represented the “truth.” By undermining the credibility of the media, he sought to delegitimize any criticism of his policies or actions, a strategy frequently used by autocratic leaders to stay in power.

Why Don’t We Call Poilievre an Authoritarian?

In the global context, leaders like Trump, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary are frequently labelled as authoritarian because they reflect the history of authoritarian dictators who have undermined democratic institutions, vilified the media, and consolidated power by creating a narrative that the press is corrupt or hostile to the public. These attacks typically set the stage for undermining press freedom and silencing critical voices. So why isn’t Poilievre, who similarly targets a key pillar of Canada’s democratic infrastructure, being called an authoritarian?

One explanation may lie in Canada's political culture and the perception of political conservatism. In Canada, criticism of the CBC has long been a feature of the conservative movement. For years, many Conservative leaders have framed the CBC as a liberal-leaning institution that requires reform, and Poilievre’s rhetoric may simply be seen as an extension of this tradition. Unlike Trump, Poilievre hasn’t made outright attacks on free speech or threatened to imprison journalists. Instead, his focus is on the CBC's budget and its role in the media ecosystem.

Additionally, Canadian political discourse has tended to be more civil than in some other countries, especially the U.S. This cultural difference might explain why Poilievre’s campaign against the CBC is often framed as a political stance rather than an authoritarian overreach. Canadians may also view the CBC, despite its public funding, as a national treasure—essentially a public service—and therefore do not see calls for its defunding as an existential threat to democracy.

However, it’s important to consider whether this framing is too lenient. In calling for the dismantling of an institution that is central to the dissemination of information in Canada, Poilievre is asking for a significant alteration to the media landscape that could limit Canadians' access to diverse viewpoints. His position risks undermining the role of public service journalism in a democratic society, which is dangerous even if it doesn’t involve outright censorship.

A Dangerous Path Towards Dictatorship

If Poilievre were to succeed in his goal of defunding the CBC, it could set a dangerous precedent. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, despite its flaws, remains an important pillar of Canadian democracy, providing a counterbalance to private media and ensuring that Canadians in remote and rural areas have access to news. The CBC also plays a crucial role in fostering national unity and offering diverse perspectives on issues ranging from politics to culture.

While Poilievre's critics may not yet label him an authoritarian, his attacks on the CBC raise important concerns about the erosion of democratic norms in Canada. In the era of disinformation and media fragmentation, undermining public broadcasters in favour of privatized, profit-driven media outlets could lead to a more polarized, less informed society—one where the power to shape the narrative is concentrated in the hands of a few corporate entities, rather than being shared among a free and independent press.

As the 2025 federal election approaches, Canadians must consider the implications of Poilievre’s rhetoric. Defunding the CBC may seem like a fiscally sound idea to some, but the long-term effects on Canadian democracy—both in terms of media independence and the broader health of the nation’s democratic institutions—should not be underestimated. What begins as a critique of a single news outlet could, in the end, be part of a much larger effort to reshape the balance of power in Canada’s political system. And in this context, the line between democratic debate and authoritarianism becomes dangerously thin.

A Call to Defend Democracy 

It is crucial that Canadians understand the stakes involved in Poilievre’s attack on the CBC. While it may seem like a simple budgetary decision or an ideological disagreement over media bias, the implications are far greater. By targeting the CBC, Poilievre is following in the footsteps of autocratic leaders who sought to control the narrative and silence dissent. This is not just about one broadcaster—it’s about the health of democracy itself.

As Canadians, we must remain vigilant in defending our democratic institutions and the independent media that holds power to account. Attacks on the media—whether in Canada or elsewhere—are never just about one issue or one organization; they are part of a broader strategy to undermine democratic values and freedoms. The time to raise our voices in defense of the CBC, and the principles of a free press, is now.