Opinion: Radio-Canada Silences, Ridicules Green Party Leader

I’m writing this carefully, weighing every word. 

I hesitated — a lot. Because I’m a both a freelancer and a mother, because I know that in this industry, taking a stand can cost you gigs and columns, often without due explanation. I’m fully aware that speaking up may marginalize me in return. But I’d rather take that risk than stay silent in the face of what I believe is a democratic injustice.

Last Thursday, April 3, I watched the interview broadcast as part of 5 chefs, une élection on Radio-Canada, and I haven’t been able to shake what I saw: a dismissive, mocking treatment of Jonathan Pedneault.

Pedneault is the co-spokesperson of the Green Party of Canada. He was interrupted, belittled, and ridiculed — live, during prime time. Hundreds of thousands of citizens watched that segment.

He presented clear, structured proposals: lowering income taxes for low earners, and increasing taxation where the real money is — among the ultra-wealthy and multinational corporations. He wasn’t even given time to complete his sentences. Near the end of the interview, he was abruptly cut off, as though his perspective didn’t matter.

Near the end of the interview, co-host and journalist Céline Galipeau stated: “You’re proposing tax cuts that would deprive the public treasury of $50 billion — is that really realistic?”

That claim is inaccurate. Jonathan Pedneault never said anything of the sort at any point in the exchange. What he described was a fairer redistribution of the tax burden — lowering taxes for people with modest incomes, yes, but funding that with increased taxation on corporations and the wealthiest Canadians. Lower taxes at the bottom, higher at the top — this is not a net loss for the public treasury, but a balancing proposal. The question, delivered with a confrontational tone, was based on a false premise — which undermines him. That kind of framing shapes how viewers perceive things, and associates a reasonable policy with fiscal chaos.

Support Local Journalism!

The anchor laughed while asking her questions — twice — a laughter that minimized and mocked. At one point, she concluded: “You know a lot of people are going to think this isn’t very serious.”

That wasn’t a follow up. It was a condemnation from someone whose job it is to be a neutral arbiter.

What saddens me — because yes, there are obviously emotions involved — is that Ms. Galipeau is a seasoned journalist whose work I deeply admire. She has covered international conflicts with both rigour and empathy. She has often shown a genuine sensitivity to social issues, especially regarding domestic violence. It’s precisely because I hold her work in such high regard that this disconnect is so jarring.

This wasn’t just a tonal imbalance — it served a serious failure from our public broadcaster, especially in the context of an election.

I can’t help but ask:

If Mark Carney, Jagmeet Singh or Pierre Poilievre had been treated this way — interrupted, mocked, prevented from articulating an idea — would we, as viewers, have let it slide?

Of course not. There would have been an uproar. Editorials, open letters — like this very one — and demands for apologies.

So why the double standard? We should be careful not to start treating anchors and hosts as untouchable. Having a long-standing reputation doesn’t exempt anyone from the responsibility to act with fairness, care and integrity. On the contrary — it should heighten that responsibility.

We also need to name the fact that proposals like Pedneault’s often make people uncomfortable precisely because they challenge a certain class comfort. That comfort — deeply entrenched in many media institutions — inevitably affects how some political ideas are received.

Often relegated to the background and overshadowed by major parties in the media, the Green Party remains one of the few to propose a truly fair taxation of multinational corporations. In a political landscape where most parties avoid confronting wealth and inequality, this position deserves to be acknowledged — a rare reminder that empathy and fiscal justice can still coexist in politics.

I know that criticism is hard to hear — especially when it comes from within. But we need to normalize criticism, even toward respected media figures. Critique doesn’t erase someone’s talent or their career. It’s necessary to move forward. We cannot evolve collectively if we can’t say, within our own institutions, when something is wrong.

I write this with as much respect as I do seriousness: journalists must present a range of viewpoints fairly, especially in electoral debates. Favouring or discrediting a candidate unjustly can distort public perception and harm democratic discourse.

I don’t know who I’m going to vote for just yet. I just know I would have liked to hear what Jonathan Pedneault had to say — in full — on national television.

I’ll add this: true journalistic integrity also means being able to step back from one’s own assumptions — from habits shaped by class, power, and status. Within a public broadcaster, that expectation should be even stronger. In a media institution funded by the public, fairness should be championed. 

Pluralism and real impartiality are not optional — they are the foundation of public trust in the media. And that trust is something we can’t afford to keep weakening.

I hope this conversation can happen — not from a place of judgment but one of curiosity and intellectual rigour. Because we can still do better.