What's wrong with "subjective" political programming in Canada?

I am ashamed at the apparent pedigree of the editors and producers, the executives and owners of both public and private radio and television in Canada. Their collective, (if not individual) demonstration of what they might deem "objectivity" in their presentation of the public affairs and news on Canadian radio and television is both depressing and tragic.
There is little doubt that I disagree with every word, syllable and gesture of one Ezra Levant, currently holding forth on Sun TV in Canada, coming as he does from the "right of attila the hun" version of Canadian politics.
However, his opportunity to declare his political opinions is neither matched nor encouraged and fostered by those responsible for political coverage across the country, with the possible exception of the resident "radio talk show" hosts....and there is no comparable outlet on public or private national television.
Why?
Are Canadian advertisers so frightened of sponsorship of "controversial" political opinions?
Are Canadian executives, as representatives of what is considered in former sociology texts the "establishment," unable to cough up cheques unless they are doing it to all political parties who might attain power?
Are those executives so "small-minded" that they are unable to take the risk of  sponsorship of political coverage that actually "has an opinion" as expressed by the host, and also by the parade of guests that could and would appear?
CBC clearly is happy to tweek the nose of the Harper government through such incisive and comedic voices as both Rick Mercer and Ron James, both of whom pick their fingers in the eyes of whatever political stupidity and hypocrisy that grabs their attention. However, under the "cover" of humour is not the sole, or the necessarily best, vehicle for exposing the political culture of the various governments across the country.
"22 minutes" is also a revived vehicle for political satire, once again under the guise of comedy.
So, Canadians are prepared to laugh at ourselves, and to fork over the sponsorships that underwrite that comedic entertainment.
Why is there, however, such a dirth of political commentary, espousing both right and left political views, on separate and individual and unique political conversations?
Failing the acquisition of sponsorships for political conversation/debate shows like Chris Matthews' Hardball on MSNBC, or Rachel Maddow or Melissa Harris-Perry, both of whom are breaking new ground in their in-depth exposure of social, historic and cultural oppression, racism, sexism, ageism, and corporateism, why does the Canadian Labour Congress not move toward the acquisition and sponsorship of a uniquely "left" of centre television channel, where Canadians can learn "the other side" of the political argument to that being spewed from both the private and public broadcasters, on  behalf of the Harper conservatives?
A humble nomination for Executive Producer on such a proposed channel, Jim Sanford, current economist for the CAW, one of the most articulate, informed and authentic voices anywhere on Canadian television, radio and in print for the "left".