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.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
International
Zelensky, not Trump, instigated Oval office clash

MxM News
Quick Hit:
Miranda Devine pushes back against claims that 47th President Donald Trump “ambushed” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during their Oval Office meeting, arguing that it was Zelensky who provoked the confrontation. Devine contends that Trump was “cordial” and intent on brokering peace, while Zelensky entered the meeting “in bad faith,” contradicting and interrupting the president before ultimately derailing the negotiations.
Key Details:
-
Devine asserts that Zelensky was “negative from the start,” contradicting Trump within minutes and repeatedly interrupting him in an “insolent” manner.
-
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Zelensky should have voiced concerns privately at a scheduled lunch instead of creating a public spectacle.
-
Trump’s detractors, according to Devine, are using this incident to fuel yet another “Russia hoax” in their ongoing attempts to discredit him.
Diving Deeper:
Miranda Devine, in her latest op-ed for the New York Post, refutes the mainstream media’s portrayal of 47th President Donald Trump’s recent Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as an “ambush.” Instead, she argues, it was Zelensky who instigated the confrontation by entering the meeting with “negative body language” and a “hostile attitude.”
“Trump could not have been more cordial,” Devine writes, emphasizing that Trump had successfully navigated complex negotiations to bring both Russia and Ukraine to a moment where peace seemed possible. But Zelensky, she asserts, was determined to sabotage that effort.
From the outset, Zelensky took a defiant tone, directly contradicting Trump’s assertion that Europe had provided far less financial support to Ukraine than the U.S. “President Trump said that they made less support, but they are our friends,” Zelensky interjected, attempting to downplay Trump’s concerns. When Trump reiterated his position, Zelensky repeatedly interrupted with “No, no, no.” Despite Trump’s attempt to keep the exchange lighthearted, the tension in the room was palpable.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent later weighed in on the debacle, telling Fox News that “if Zelensky wanted to contradict Trump, the proper venue for that would have been 15 minutes later [at a private lunch].” Instead, Zelensky chose to grandstand before the press, leading to what Devine describes as the complete “blowing up” of the peace talks.
At the end of the meeting, Zelensky’s smirk and thumbs-up to someone off-camera left little doubt in Devine’s mind that he had orchestrated the confrontation deliberately. His ambassador, she noted, appeared distraught, watching the spectacle unfold “with her head in her hands.”
Devine sees a broader political game at play. She argues that the media and Trump’s political enemies have seized upon this incident to spin yet another “Russia hoax,” akin to the discredited Steele dossier, the first Trump impeachment over a call with Zelensky, and the “Laptop from Hell” censorship saga. “They could not tolerate that Trump… would be successful in ending the war,” Devine writes, suggesting that warmongers on both sides of the aisle needed this peace effort to fail.
Trump, for his part, did not let the moment pass without drawing a direct line to the Biden family’s corruption in Ukraine. He referenced Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop, telling Zelensky: “It came out of Hunter Biden‘s bathroom. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bedroom. It was disgusting. And then they said… the ‘laptop from hell’ was made by Russia. The 51 agents. The whole thing was a scam.”
Despite his provocations, Zelensky was met with Trump’s signature diplomatic coolness. When Zelensky dismissed the minerals deal, a key component of Trump’s proposed peace framework, Trump did not lash out. Even when Zelensky warned that “your American soldiers will fight” if Ukraine failed, a “severe provocation” as Devine puts it, Trump remained composed.
Only after an extended barrage of Zelensky’s interruptions and dismissive tone did Vice President JD Vance finally respond, stressing that “the path to peace and the path to prosperity is maybe engaging in diplomacy.” That set Zelensky off, leading Trump to finally push back. “We’re trying to solve a problem,” he told the Ukrainian leader. “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel, because you’re in no position to dictate that.”
Now, with the negotiations shattered, the fate of Ukraine rests in Europe’s hands at an upcoming summit. “Ukraine can’t survive without America,” Devine warns, and Zelensky may soon realize that the stunt he pulled in the Oval Office cost him far more than he anticipated.
You can watch all 46 minutes of the February 28 meeting between Trump, Vance and Zelensky here.
Daily Caller
All Epstein Files Are In, Attorney General Reveals What Will Go Public Starting Thursday

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Hailey Gomez
If something’s redacted, you will know the line, and you will know why it’s redacted, the victim’s name, identifying information of a victim.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Monday evening on Fox News that the thousands of withheld files on deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein are now in the hands of the FBI, adding certain redactions will be made, with an explanation provided for each one.
The Department of Justice released the first phase of “The Epstein Files” — an over 100-page document — on Thursday, but it failed to contain a majority of new information, sparking controversy online. On “Hannity,” Fox’s Sean Hannity addressed the controversy, asking Bondi for her response. She said she had been informed fewer than 24 hours before the release that “there were way more documents that they were supposed to turn over.”
“You’re looking at these documents going, ‘These aren’t all the Epstein files.’ There were flight logs, there were names, victims’ names, and we’re going, ‘Where’s the rest of the stuff?’ That’s what the FBI had turned over to us,” Bondi said. “So a source said, ‘Whoa, all this evidence is sitting in the Southern District of New York.’ So based on that, I gave them the deadline, Friday at 8, a truckload of evidence arrived.”
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
“It’s now in the possession of the FBI. Kash is going to get me, and himself really, a detailed report as to why all these documents and evidence had been withheld,” Bondi added. “We’re going to go through it, go through it as fast as we can, but go through it very cautiously to protect all the victims of Epstein, because there are a lot of victims.”
Before the release of “Phase One,” Bondi told Fox News last Wednesday that the DOJ would be releasing “some” of the files by Thursday, hoping the public would see “a lot of flight logs, a lot of names, a lot of information.” However, the DOJ and Trump administration faced pushback online after conservative influencers obtained a binder labeled “The Epstein Files: Phase 1.” Some of those influencers were seen smiling and holding it up outside the West Wing.
WATCH:
Hannity pressed Bondi about additional potential redactions in the files.
“National security, some grand jury information, which is always going to be confidential, but we’ll see. Let’s look through them as fast as we can. Get it out to the American people, because the American people have a right to know,” Bondi said. “Not only on that, but on Kennedy, on Martin Luther King, on all of these cases that the Biden administration has just sat on for all these years.”
“It’s really — it’s not sad. It’s infuriating that these people thought that they could sit on this information, but they can’t,” Bondi said. “And when we redact things, Sean, what we’re going to do is not just pull pages out like they used to do. If something’s redacted, you will know the line, and you will know why it’s redacted, the victim’s name, identifying information of a victim.”
Epstein was arrested and charged in 2019 with sex trafficking, only later to be found dead in his New York Metropolitan Correctional Center cell a month after his arrest. Since his death, Republicans, including Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn, have called for the full, unredacted records of Epstein to be released to the public, which includes his infamous flight log.
After the release of phase one, Bondi requested that the FBI deliver the remaining documents to the DOJ by Friday at 8 a.m., tasking newly confirmed FBI Director Kash Patel with investigating “why the request for all documents was not followed.”
“We believe in transparency, and America has the right to know. The Biden administration sat on these documents. No one did anything with them. Why were they sitting in the Southern District of New York? I want a full report on that,” Bondi said.
“Sadly, these people don’t believe in transparency, but I think more, unfortunately, I think a lot of them don’t believe in honesty,” Bondi added. “It’s a new day. It’s a new administration, and everything’s going to come out to the public. The public has a right to know. Americans have a right to know.”
-
National2 days ago
War against the US? Chrystia Freeland says Canada, allies need to build ‘New World Order’ to combat Trump
-
Opinion2 days ago
Liberal leadership race guarantees Canadian voters will be guided by a clown show for a while yet
-
Business2 days ago
Taxpayers launching court fight against CBC transparency
-
Courageous Discourse1 day ago
Zelensky Met with Dems Before He Met President Trump
-
Business2 days ago
Elon Musk: ‘I’m getting a lot of death threats’ due to DOGE
-
Crime2 days ago
Could the UK’s ‘Grooming Gangs’ operate in Canada?
-
Alberta2 days ago
Can Trump Revive The Keystone Pipeline?
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta Coordinating law enforcement to fight fentanyl