Connect with us

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

Censorship Industrial Complex

UN General Assembly Adopts Controversial Cybercrime Treaty Amid Criticism Over Censorship and Surveillance Risks

Published on

 

 

By 

 

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Global cybercrime treaty faces scrutiny over human rights safeguards and potential misuse of cross-border powers.

As we expected, even though opponents have been warning that the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime needed to have a narrower scope, strong human rights safeguard and be more clearly defined in order to avoid abuse – the UN General Assembly has just adopted the documents, after five years of wrangling between various stakeholders.

It is now up to UN-member states to first sign, and then ratify the treaty that will come into force three months after the 40th country does that.

The UN bureaucracy is pleased with the development, hailing the convention as a “landmark” and “historic” global treaty that will improve cross-border cooperation against cybercrime and digital threats.

But critics have been saying that speech and human rights might fall victim to the treaty since various UN members treat human rights and privacy in vastly different ways – while the treaty now in a way “standardizes” law enforcement agencies’ investigative powers across borders.

Considerable emphasis has been put by some on how “authoritarian” countries might abuse this new tool meant to tackle online crime – but in reality, this concern applies to any country that ends up ratifying the treaty.

Another point of criticism has been that UN members individually already have laws that address the same issues, rendering the convention superfluous – unless it is to extend some of those authoritarian powers to the countries that don’t formally have them, and can’t outright pass them at home for political reasons.

Since the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution without a vote – after the text was previously agreed on by negotiators – it is not immediately clear how many countries might sign it next year, and ratify what would then become a legally binding document.

In the meanwhile, a spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres referred to the treaty as “a demonstration of multilateralism.”

Where opponents see potential for undemocratic law enforcement practices spilling over sovereign borders, UN representatives speak about “an unprecedented platform for cooperation” that will allow agencies to exchange evidence, create a safe cyberspace, and protect victims of crimes such as child sexual abuse, scams and money laundering.

And they claim all this will be achieved “while safeguarding human rights online.”

Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.

Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.

Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.


Thank you.
Continue Reading

Bruce Dowbiggin

Trudeau Parting Gift: Conceding Indigenous Land Claims For All Time

Published on

Idea for a hit Canadian show. Law & Order: Indigenous Victims Unit. The shows begin with a horrific crime reported by the Canadian media. Children murdered by priests and then buried in the dark of night with no markers. PMJT tells the world we are a genocidal culture. Media goes Code red. Statues of Canadian PMs past are toppled.

The kicker in the show is that no one actually investigates the allegation. It’s just an hour of media mindlessly repeating the claims while local indigenous leaders say we didn’t use headstones and the dead are accounted for. Every episode ends with PMJT sending a whack of money to indigenous agitators and a promise to repeat the plot next week.

Okay, a bit glib. But amidst all the carnage PMJT has inflicted on his citizens, the Indigenous shell game of accusation = payout has received scant attention from a media salivating for Woke narratives on CBC. If possible, the PM’s tepid performance on this file— firing his indigenous finance minister was the highlight— is worse than almost all the others combined.

His cringing performance theatre in a graveyard was the most visible sign of this ineptitude. But for longer-lasting harm to the nation you probably need to look at the negotiations his government and the NDP BC government are conducting with the Haida Gwaii nation (population about 4,500) of the Queen Charlotte Islands archipelago. While no one was looking PMJT and his scofflaw partner BC premier David Eby have created a scenario where indigenous bands in Canada can achieve the daily double of independence while retaining all the perks of a social welfare state.

So far the tactic is working— for the Haida Gwaii. To be brief, the Haida Gwaii, who never signed a treaty with the Crown, are claiming the Queen Charlotte Islands as an independent nation that simultaneously is a recipient of financial and health benefits from the people they’re taking to court. The Haida Gwaii have reached something called the Rising Tide “agreement” with the BC. The federal Liberals are panting for the chance to do the same.

Geoff Moyse KC explains: “Trudeau succumbed  to a provision in the Haida agreement to the effect it is not a ‘treaty’.  The sole reason for this clause is to preserve the Haida position that they are not Canadians, rather they are a completely separate nation.  As a separate nation they can negotiate “agreements” with other nations, such as Canada. But if they entered into a “treaty” they would be recognizing Canadian sovereignty.  Which they are not prepared to do.”

In exchange for this agreement, explains Moyse, PMJT and David Eby received no concessions whatsoever from the Haida Gwaii. There is no release of the huge claim for damages for all the alleged things done to them nor for damages for the benefits BC has extracted from the land over the last 200 years. There is no release claim to being a completely separate nation, not subject to Canadian sovereignty.

Eby, the freshly re-elected premier, claims this is “the greatest thing he has ever done, and he wants to enter into similar agreements throughout BC.” Eby wants to grant indigenous bands throughout his province joint control over Crown lands. The province would then need consent from their new partners to do anything on that land. Say goodbye to forestry and pipelines. 

What could go wrong? After all, this is Justin Trudeau we’re talking about. Mr. Sobriety. You guessed it. A bad deal became worse. BC has now instituted this Rising Tide agreement into provincial legislation. The federal Liberals seem intent on doing the same if PMJT can extend his mandate till October of 2025.

Instead of joint control, Eby and Trudeau will grant sole ownership and sovereignty of the Crown lands to the native bands, conceding aboriginal title over most of BC. Ergo, the PMJT/ Eby collapse could render property ownership worthless throughout the province. 

What’s infuriating in this abject retreat is that, in the only two cases to have gone to final verdict after a trial, the bands obtained aboriginal title to only a very small part of what they are claiming. In short, the law seems to be demonstrating that a rigourous defence of the federal position would likely result in minor concessions, not complete surrender.

There is a chance to save the province and many other disputed hotspots across the nation if someone will show some spine in Ottawa when the issue is tested in court. That’s why PMJT’s government is in a hurry to pass equivalent federal legislation to BC’s for this to cement Aboriginal title over the entirety of the Haida archipelago for all time.

The bad news is that the spine needed for indigenous claims currently belongs to PMJT. A weaker spine is hard to imagine. The good news is that, if current trends continue, his window to pass the agreement— especially in a prorogued Parliament— is shrinking rapidly. So to the list of things Trudeau wants to wreck given enough runway, you can add this file to the urgency for his departure.

It’s hard to imagine a more tendentious, perverse way to run a country. But Canada has been watching Law & Order: Indigenous Victims Unit, directed by PMJT and his deputy Jagmeet Singh, since 2015. It’s time to cancel the show.

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. You can see all his books at brucedowbigginbooks.ca.

Continue Reading

Trending

X