Opinion
CBC on Trial: CBC CEO Catherine Tait Faces Brutal Takedown in Canadian Heritage Committee Hearing

Catherine Tait defends executive bonuses, taxpayer funding, and the CBC’s relevance as MPs demand accountability and question its future.
Monday’s session of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage was nothing short of a political brawl, as Catherine Tait, President and CEO of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, came under relentless fire for her management of the public broadcaster. It was a hearing that stripped away the thin veneer of CBC’s claims to be a unifying institution and exposed it for what it truly is—a bloated, taxpayer-funded bureaucracy that’s out of touch with the very Canadians it’s supposed to serve.
From the outset, this was a fight Tait couldn’t win. She walked into the committee room, 197 Sparks Street in Ottawa, armed with prepared talking points about digital growth and Canadian culture. But those defenses crumbled under the weight of hard-hitting questions from Conservative MPs who weren’t interested in excuses.
MP Damien Kurek opened the proceedings with a scathing indictment of CBC’s financial priorities, taking aim at the $18 million in executive bonuses awarded during a period of layoffs and budget shortfalls.
“Last time the CBC asked for taxpayer money, it went to bonuses,” Kurek declared. “At a time when people are being laid off, will you categorically reject any bonus offered to you as your tenure comes to a close?”
Tait’s response? Pure bureaucratic double-speak. She claimed the bonuses were a “contractual obligation” and part of normal payroll operations, as if that somehow justified lining executive pockets with taxpayer dollars while ordinary Canadians struggle. “Performance pay is part of the annual salary calculation,” Tait said, skirting the core issue of accountability.
But Kurek wasn’t alone. Andrew Scheer, former Conservative leader, delivered perhaps the most devastating blows later in the hearing. With his characteristic precision, Scheer called out CBC’s declining public trust, sagging viewership, and mismanagement of taxpayer funds.
“You talk about digital growth, but that doesn’t change the fact that more and more Canadians want the CBC defunded. What does that tell you about how disconnected your organization is from the people you claim to serve?”
Tait’s attempt to counter these accusations with claims of digital engagement and cultural contributions only highlighted how out of touch the CBC leadership is. “While traditional TV viewership may be declining, our digital platforms have grown significantly, reaching millions of Canadians monthly,” she insisted. But for Scheer and millions of Canadians, that’s not the point. It’s not about clicks and digital revenue; it’s about trust, and the CBC has lost it.
The Liberal MPs, as expected, rushed to Tait’s defense. Michael Coteau accused the Conservatives of ideological warfare against the CBC, framing the broadcaster as a national treasure under siege.
“The conservatives seem intent on destroying one of the last institutions uniting Canadians,” Coteau said, conveniently ignoring that the CBC has alienated much of the country with its political bias and inefficiency.
Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois focused on preserving Radio-Canada, the French-language arm of the CBC, warning that defunding the English side would have catastrophic effects on Francophone programming. Bloc MP Martin Champoux pressed Tait on how funding cuts could exacerbate public frustrations with ads and digital barriers, only for Tait to suggest the solution was—of course—more taxpayer money. “Replacing commercial revenue would require an additional $400 to $500 million from taxpayers,” she explained.
Even the NDP, usually allies of big government, expressed frustration. Niki Ashton blasted the CBC for handing out bonuses while neglecting rural and northern Canada. She demanded accountability:
“Canadians want to see a public broadcaster that is accountable to them, not doling out executive bonuses while cutting jobs and neglecting regional stories.”
The hearing wasn’t just about dollars and cents; it was about whether the CBC still has a place in Canada’s media landscape. For decades, CBC defenders have painted it as a vital cultural institution, a unifying force in a diverse nation. But the reality laid bare in Monday’s hearing is starkly different: a taxpayer-funded broadcaster that prioritizes executive perks over public service, that alienates rural and conservative Canadians while cozying up to elites, and that spends more time justifying its existence than fulfilling its mandate.
And let’s be honest, that’s the CBC’s real problem—it’s not just bloated and wasteful; it’s arrogant. Catherine Tait sits there, comfortable on her half-a-million-dollar salary, doling out millions in bonuses, all while Canadians are told they need the CBC to “unite” them. But unite them how? By force-feeding them narratives they don’t trust, all at their own expense?
Here’s the truth: the CBC doesn’t unite Canadians. It alienates them. And every taxpayer dollar it demands only widens the gap. The time for excuses is over. It’s time for accountability.
Maybe we should defund the CBC. Not because it’s out of touch, though it is. Not because it’s failing, though it clearly is. But because Canadians deserve better than to bankroll a broadcaster that no longer respects them, represents them, or serves them. Defunding the CBC isn’t the end of Canadian culture—it’s the start of giving it back to the people.
2025 Federal Election
Will Four More Years Of Liberals Prove The West’s Tipping Point?

The 1997 political comedy Wag The Dog featured a ruling president far behind in the polls engaging Hollywood to rescue his failing ratings. By inventing a fake war against Albania and a left-behind “hero”— nicknamed Shoe— the Hollywood producer creates a narrative that sweeps the nation.
The meme of hanging old shoes from the branches of trees and power lines catches on and re-elects the president. In a plot kicker, the vain producer is killed by the president’s handlers when he refuses to stay quiet about his handiwork. The movie’s cynicism over political spin made it a big hit in the Bill Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky days.

In the recent 2024 election the Democrats thought they’d resurrect the WTD formula to spin off senile Joe Biden at the last minute in favour of Kamala Harris. Americans saw through the obvious charade and installed Donald Trump instead.
You’d think that would be enough to dissuade Canadians who pride themselves on their hip, postmodern humour. But you’d be wrong, they don’t get the joke. Wag The Carney is the current political theatre as Liberals bury the reviled Justin Trudeau and pivot to Mark Carney. If you believe the polling it might just be working on a public besotted by ex-pat Mike Myers and “Canada’s Not For Sale”.
As opposed to Wag The Dog, few are laughing about this performative theatre, however. There are still two debates (English/ French) and over three more weeks of campaign where anything— hello Paul Chiang—can happen. But with Laurentian media bribed by the Libs— Carney is threatening those who stray— people are already projecting what another four years of Liberals in office will mean.
As the most prominent outlier to Team Canada’s “we will fight them on the beaches…” Alberta’s premier Danielle Smith is already steering a course for her province that doesn’t include going to war with America on energy. She asked Trump to delay his tariffs until Canadians had a chance to speak on the subject in an election April 28. Naturally the howler monkeys of the Left accused her of treason. She got her wish Wednesday when Canada was spared any new tariffs for the time being.

Clearly, she (and Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe) have no illusions about Carney not using their energy industry as a whipping post for his EU climate schemes. They’ve seen the cynical flip in polls as former Trudeau loyalists hurry back to the same Liberal party they abandoned in 2024. They know Carney can manipulate the Boomer demographic just as he did when he called for draconian financial methods against the peaceful Truckers Convoy in 2022.
Former Reform leader Preston Manning is unequivocal: “’Large numbers of Westerners simply will not stand for another four years of Liberal government, no matter who leads it.’“ So how does the West respond within Confederation to protect itself from a predatory Ottawa elite?
Clearly, the emissions cap— part of Carney’s radical environmental plans— will keep Alberta’s treasure in the ground. With Carney repeating no cancellation of Bill C-69 that precludes building pipelines in the future, the momentum for a referendum in Alberta will only grow. The NDP will howl, but there will be enough push among from the rest of Albertans for a new approach within Canada.
In this vein Smith even wants to approach Quebec. While it seems like odd bedfellows the two provinces most at odds with the status quo have much in common . “This is an area where our two provinces may be able to coordinate an approach,” Smith wrote this week. That could include referendums by the middle of 2026.
Perhaps the best recipe for keeping the increasingly fractious union together is a devolution of power, not unlike that governing the United Kingdom. While Westminster remains the central power since 1997, there are now separate parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that put power closer to the citizen, so that local factors are better recognized in decision making.
With so little uniting the regions of the country any longer, devolution might provide a solution. What form could decentralization take within Canada? A Western Canada Parliament could blunt predatory federal energy policies while countering the imbalances of Canada’s equalization process. Similar parliaments representing Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, Ontario and B.C. would protect their own special interests within Canada. Ottawa could handle Canada’s international obligations to defence, trade and international cooperation.
While the idea is fraught with pitfalls it nonetheless remains preferable to a breakup of the nation, which four more years of Liberals rule under Mark Carney and the same Trudeau characters will likely precipitate. Smith’s outreach case would be the beginning of such a process.
None of this would be necessary were the populations of Eastern Canada and B.C.’s lower mainland remotely serious after snoozing through the Trudeau decade. The OECD shows Canada’s 1.4% GDP barely ahead of Luxembourg and behind the rest of the industrialized world from 2015-2025. As we’ve said before the Boomers sitting on their $1 million-plus homes are re-staging Woodstock on the Canada Pension and OAS. As with Wag The Dog, they’re not getting the joke.

When the Boomers award themselves another four years of taxapalooza and Mike Myers and the other “Canada Not For For Sale” celebs head south to their tax-avoidance schemes how will the Boomers say they’ve left Canada better off for anyone under 60? We’ll hang up and listen to your answer on the TV.
Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, his new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.
2025 Federal Election
Highly touted policies the Liberal government didn’t actually implement

From The Audit
State capacity is the measure of a government’s ability to get stuff done that benefits its population. There are many ways to quantify state capacity, including GDP per capita spent on health, education, and infrastructure versus outcomes; the tax-to-GDP ratio; judicial independence; enforcement of contracts; and crime rates.
But a government’s ability to actually implement its own policies has got to rank pretty high here, too. All the best intentions are worthless if, as I wrote in the context of the Liberal’s 2023 national action plan to end gender-based violence, your legislation just won’t work in the real world.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
So I thought I’d take a look at some examples of federal legislation from the past ten years that passed through Parliament but, for one reason or another, failed to do its job. We may agree or disagree with goals driving the various initiatives, but government’s failure to get the work done over and over again speaks to a striking lack of state capacity.
The 2018 Cannabis Act (Bill C-45). C-45 legalized recreational cannabis in Canada, with a larger goal of regulating production, distribution, and consumption while reducing illegal markets and protecting public health. However, research has shown that illegal sales persisted post-legalization due to high legal prices and taxation. Studies have also shown continued use among children despite regulations. And there are troubling indicators about the overall impact on public health.
The 2021 Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act (Bill C-12). The legislation aimed to ensure Canada achieves net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 by setting five-year targets and requiring emissions reduction plans. However, critics argue it lacks enforceable mechanisms to guarantee results. A much-delayed progress report highlighted a lack of action and actual emissions reductions lagging far behind projections.
The First Nations Clean Water Act (Bill C-61) was introduced in late 2024 but, as of the recent dissolution of Parliament, not yet passed. This should be seen in the context of the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act (2013), which was repealed in 2021 after failing to deliver promised improvements in water quality due to inadequate funding and enforcement. The new bill aimed to address these shortcomings, but a decade and a half of inaction speaks to a special level of public impotence.
The 2019 Impact Assessment Act (Bill C-69). Passed in 2019, this legislation reformed environmental assessment processes for major projects. Many argue it failed to achieve its dual goals of streamlining approvals while enhancing environmental protection. Industry groups claim it created regulatory uncertainty (to put it mildly), while environmental groups argue it hasn’t adequately protected ecosystems. No one seems happy with this one.
The 2019 Firearms Act (Bill C-71). Parts of this firearms legislation were delayed in implementation, particularly the point-of-sale record keeping requirements for non-restricted firearms. Some provisions weren’t fully implemented until years after passage.
The 2013 First Nations Financial Transparency Act. – This legislation, while technically implemented, was not fully enforced after 2015 when the Liberal government stopped penalizing First Nations that didn’t comply with its financial disclosure requirements.
The 2019 National Housing Strategy Act. From the historical perspective of six years of hindsight, the law has manifestly failed to meaningfully address Canada’s housing affordability crisis. Housing prices and homelessness have continued their rise in major urban centers.
The 2019 Indigenous Languages Act (Bill C-91). Many Indigenous advocates have argued the funding and mechanisms have been insufficient to achieve its goal of revitalizing endangered Indigenous languages.
The 2007 Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA). Designed to protect whistleblowers within the federal public service, the PSDPA has been criticized for its ineffectiveness. During its first three years, the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (OPSIC) astonishingly reported no findings of wrongdoing or reprisal, despite numerous submissions. A 2017 review by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates recommended significant reforms, but there’s been no visible progress.
There were, of course, many bills from the past ten years that were fully implemented.¹ But the failure rate is high enough that I’d argue it should be taken into account when measuring our state capacity.
Still, as a friend once noted, there’s a silver lining to all this: the one thing more frightening than an inefficient and ineffective government is an efficient and effective government. So there’s that.
The fact that we’re still living through the tail end of a massive bout of inflation provides clear testimony that Bill C-13 (COVID-19 Emergency Response Act) had an impact.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
MORE OF THE SAME: Mark Carney Admits He Will Not Repeal the Liberal’s Bill C-69 – The ‘No Pipelines’ Bill
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
‘Coordinated and Alarming’: Allegations of Chinese Voter Suppression in 2021 Race That Flipped Toronto Riding to Liberals and Paul Chiang
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
‘I’m Cautiously Optimistic’: Doug Ford Strongly Recommends Canada ‘Not To Retaliate’ Against Trump’s Tariffs
-
Business20 hours ago
California planning to double film tax credits amid industry decline
-
Business1 day ago
Canada may escape the worst as Trump declares America’s economic independence with Liberation Day tariffs
-
Alberta1 day ago
Energy sector will fuel Alberta economy and Canada’s exports for many years to come
-
Alberta1 day ago
Big win for Alberta and Canada: Statement from Premier Smith
-
Catherine Herridge22 hours ago
FBI imposed Hunter Biden laptop ‘gag order’ after employee accidentally confirmed authenticity: report