Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

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

Published

7 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

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.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author

2025 Federal Election

Study links B.C.’s drug policies to more overdoses, but researchers urge caution

Published on

By Alexandra Keeler

A study links B.C.’s safer supply and decriminalization to more opioid hospitalizations, but experts note its limitations

A new study says B.C.’s safer supply and decriminalization policies may have failed to reduce overdoses. Furthermore, the very policies designed to help drug users may have actually increased hospitalizations.

“Neither the safer opioid supply policy nor the decriminalization of drug possession appeared to mitigate the opioid crisis, and both were associated with an increase in opioid overdose hospitalizations,” the study says.

The study has sparked debate, with some pointing to it as proof that B.C.’s drug policies failed. Others have questioned the study’s methodology and conclusions.

“The question we want to know the answer to [but cannot] is how many opioid hospitalizations would have occurred had the policy not have been implemented,” said Michael Wallace, a biostatistician and associate professor at the University of Waterloo.

“We can never come up with truly definitive conclusions in cases such as this, no matter what data we have, short of being able to magically duplicate B.C.”

Jumping to conclusions

B.C.’s controversial safer supply policies provide drug users with prescription opioids as an alternative to toxic street drugs. Its decriminalization policy permitted drug users to possess otherwise illegal substances for personal use.

The peer-reviewed study was led by health economist Hai Nguyen and conducted by researchers from Memorial University in Newfoundland, the University of Manitoba and Weill Cornell Medicine, a medical school in New York City. It was published in the medical journal JAMA Health Forum on March 21.

The researchers used a statistical method to create a “synthetic” comparison group, since there is no ideal control group. The researchers then compared B.C. to other provinces to assess the impact of certain drug policies.

Examining data from 2016 to 2023, the study links B.C.’s safer supply policies to a 33 per cent rise in opioid hospitalizations.

The study says the province’s decriminalization policies further drove up hospitalizations by 58 per cent.

“Neither the safer supply policy nor the subsequent decriminalization of drug possession appeared to alleviate the opioid crisis,” the study concludes. “Instead, both were associated with an increase in opioid overdose hospitalizations.”

The B.C. government rolled back decriminalization in April 2024 in response to widespread concerns over public drug use. This February, the province also officially acknowledged that diversion of safer supply drugs does occur.

The study did not conclusively determine whether the increase in hospital visits was due to diverted safer supply opioids, the toxic illicit supply, or other factors.

“There was insufficient evidence to conclusively attribute an increase in opioid overdose deaths to these policy changes,” the study says.

Nguyen’s team had published an earlier, 2024 study in JAMA Internal Medicine that also linked safer supply to increased hospitalizations. However, it failed to control for key confounders such as employment rates and naloxone access. Their 2025 study better accounts for these variables using the synthetic comparison group method.

The study’s authors did not respond to Canadian Affairs’ requests for comment.

 

Subscribe for free to get BTN’s latest news and analysis – or donate to our investigative journalism fund.

 

Correlation vs. causation

Chris Perlman, a health data and addiction expert at the University of Waterloo, says more studies are needed.

He believes the findings are weak, as they show correlation but not causation.

“The study provides a small signal that the rates of hospitalization have changed, but I wouldn’t conclude that it can be solely attributed to the safer supply and decrim[inalization] policy decisions,” said Perlman.

He also noted the rise in hospitalizations doesn’t necessarily mean more overdoses. Rather, more people may be reaching hospitals in time for treatment.

“Given that the [overdose] rate may have gone down, I wonder if we’re simply seeing an effect where more persons survive an overdose and actually receive treatment in hospital where they would have died in the pre-policy time period,” he said.

The Nguyen study acknowledges this possibility.

“The observed increase in opioid hospitalizations, without a corresponding increase in opioid deaths, may reflect greater willingness to seek medical assistance because decriminalization could reduce the stigma associated with drug use,” it says.

“However, it is also possible that reduced stigma and removal of criminal penalties facilitated the diversion of safer opioids, contributing to increased hospitalizations.”

Karen Urbanoski, an associate professor in the Public Health and Social Policy department at the University of Victoria, is more critical.

“The [study’s] findings do not warrant the conclusion that these policies are causally associated with increased hospitalization or overdose,” said Urbanoski, who also holds the Canada Research Chair in Substance Use, Addictions and Health Services.

Her team published a study in November 2023 that measured safer supply’s impact on mortality and acute care visits. It found safer supply opioids did reduce overdose deaths.

Critics, however, raised concerns that her study misrepresented its underlying data and showed no statistically significant reduction in deaths after accounting for confounding factors.

The Nguyen study differs from Urbanoski’s. While Urbanoski’s team focused on individual-level outcomes, the Nguyen study analyzed broader, population-level effects, including diversion.

Wallace, the biostatistician, agrees more individual-level data could strengthen analysis, but does not believe it undermines the study’s conclusions. Wallace thinks the researchers did their best with the available data they had.

“We do not have a ‘copy’ of B.C. where the policies weren’t implemented to compare with,” said Wallace.

B.C.’s overdose rate of 775 per 100,000 is well above the national average of 533.

Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, has been a vocal critic of B.C.’s decriminalization and safer supply policies.

“If the government doesn’t want to believe this study, well then I invite them to do a similar study,” she told reporters on March 27.

“Show us the evidence that they have failed to show us since 2020,” she added, referring to the year B.C. implemented safer supply.


This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.

Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism,

consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Is Government Inflation Reporting Accurate?

Published on

The Audit David Clinton's avatar David Clinton

Who ya gonna believe: official CPI figures or your lyin’ eyes?

Great news! We’ve brought inflation back under control and stuff is now only costing you 2.4 percent more than it did last year!

That’s more or less the message we’ve been hearing from governments over the past couple of years. And in fact, the official Statistics Canada consumer price index (CPI) numbers do show us that the “all-items” index in 2024 was only 2.4 percent higher than in 2023. Fantastic.

So why doesn’t it feel fantastic?

Well statistics are funny that way. When you’ve got lots of numbers, there are all kinds of ways to dress ‘em up before presenting them as an index (or chart). And there really is no one combination of adjustments and corrections that’s definitively “right”. So I’m sure Statistics Canada isn’t trying to misrepresent things.

But I’m also curious to test whether the CPI is truly representative of Canadians’ real financial experiences. My first attempt to create my own alternative “consumer price index”, involved Statistics Canada’s “Detailed household final consumption expenditure”. That table contains actual dollar figures for nation-wide spending on a wide range of consumer items. To represent the costs Canadian’s face when shopping for basics, I selected these nine categories:

  • Food and non-alcoholic beverages
  • Clothing and footwear
  • Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels
  • Major household appliances
  • Pharmaceutical products and other medical products (except cannabis)
  • Transport
  • Communications
  • University education
  • Property insurance

I then took the fourth quarter (Q4) numbers for each of those categories for all the years between 2013 and 2024 and divided them by the total population of the country for each year. That gave me an accurate picture of per capita spending on core cost-of-living items.

Overall, living and breathing through Q4 2013 would have cost the average Canadian $4,356.38 (or $17,425.52 for a full year). Spending for those same categories in Q4 2024, however, cost us $6,266.48 – a 43.85 percent increase.

By contrast, the official CPI over those years rose only 31.03 percent. That’s quite the difference. Here’s how the year-over-year changes in CPI inflation vs actual spending inflation compare:

As you can see, with the exception of 2020 (when COVID left us with nothing to buy), the official inflation number was consistently and significantly lower than actual spending. And, in the case of 2021, it was more than double.

Since 2023, the items with the largest price growth were university education (57.46 percent), major household appliances (52.67 percent), and housing, water, electricity, gas, and other fuels (50.79).

Having said all that, you could justifiably argue that the true cost of living hasn’t really gone up that much, but that at least part of the increase in spending is due to a growing taste for luxury items and high volume consumption. I can’t put a precise number on that influence, but I suspect it’s not trivial.

Since data on spending doesn’t seem to be the best measure of inflation, perhaps I could build my own basket of costs and compare those numbers to the official CPI. To do that, I collected average monthly costs for gasolinehome rentals, a selection of 14 core grocery items, and taxes paid by the average Canadian homeowner.¹ I calculated the tax burden (federal, provincial, property, and consumption) using the average of the estimates of two AI models.

How did the inflation represented by my custom basket compare with the official CPI? Well between 2017 and 2024, the Statistics Canada’s CPI grew by 23.39 percent. Over that same time, the monthly cost of my basket grew from $4,514.74 to $5,665.18; a difference of 25.48 percent. That’s not nearly as dramatic a difference as we saw when we measured spending, but it’s not negligible either.

The very fact that the government makes all this data freely available to us is evidence that they’re not out to hide the truth. But it can’t hurt to keep an active and independent eye on them, too.

1 After all, taxes are certainly a major part of our cost of living, right? And even though you could argue that tax payments deliver benefits like “free” healthcare, well transportation expenses also deliver benefits (like the ability to get to work).

Subscribe to The Audit

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X