Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

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.

Energy

Canadians will soon be versed in massive West Coast LPG mega-project

Published on

An accumulator tank arrives at Prince Rupert. One of three tanks at the project, it is equivalent in size to 12 Olympic-sized swimming pools, or about half a football field. Photo courtesy AltaGas

Welcome to the world of REEF

Most Canadians, know who Connor McDavid is.

Most Canadians, know who Connor Bedard is.

And, well … most Canadians know who Howie Mandel is, right?

Household words.

But do any Canadians, know what REEF is? Probably not.

The Ridley Island Energy Export Facility project, a large-scale terminal near Prince Rupert, B.C., being built by AltaGas to export liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and other bulk liquids to global markets.

Did you know it is providing valuable propane to Japan? No, not for barbecues, but for crucial energy demands in the Asian nation.

Japan uses propane (LP gas) for a wide range of purposes, including household use for cooking, water heating, and room heating, as well as for a majority of taxis, industrial applications, and as a raw material for town gas production.

Construction is progressing, with a target startup around the end of 2026. The project involves building significant infrastructure, including large storage tanks.

And it just so happens that Resource Works CEO Stewart Muir, paid a visit this past week to get a close-up look at a part of Canada’s export story that almost nobody talks about: a brand-new accumulator tank built to hold chilled propane and butane.

“It’s the largest of its kind anywhere. Two more are on the way, and together they’ll form a critical piece of the AltaGas Ltd. REEF project,” Muir said in a report.

”What stood out to me is the larger pattern: projects like this only happen because of the crown jewel of the B.C. economy — the Montney Formation.”

“It’s the triple-word-score of Canadian resource development: LNG, valuable natural gas liquids like propane, and the diluent streams that help unlock Canada’s single biggest export category, crude oil.”

The REEF project at Prince Rupert. Photo Courtesy AltaGas

Like the oilsands, the industry has long known about the Montney formation, which stretches 130,000 square kilometres in a football-shaped diagonal from northeast British Columbia into northwest Alberta.

According to CBC News, underneath this huge tract of land, the National Energy Board (NEB) estimates there’s 90 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe), most of it natural gas. That’s more than half the size of the oilsands, yet the Montney has received only a fraction of the attention, at least from the public at large.

For oil and gas types, the gold rush is on.

Without question, and despite the ire of green groups who seem to be against any kind of resource development in Canada, the Montney is the quiet force multiplier behind local jobs, municipal tax bases, and the national balance of trade.

And it’s all being done at the highest environmental standard, with producers like Tourmaline Oil Corp already posting a 41% reduction in CO2 emission intensity and a target of 55% less methane emission intensity.

”Congrats to AltaGas for pushing this project forward, and a nod as well to other major employers on the North Coast — Trigon, CN and Pembina, writes Muir.

“Quietly and steadily, they’re building the future prosperity of Canadians. And thanks to Mayor Herb Pond, who took the time to walk us through the regional dynamics that make this corridor such a strategic asset.”

Muir was gobsmacked by the size of the project.

Sources say Alberta’s midstream bottleneck and rapid growth of Shale oil and gas exploration and production, has created an absolute glut in ethane, propane and butane. Ridley Island takes this glut and transports it to the Prince Rupert region by railcar and exports to Asian markets.

An LNG tanker arrives in the Sea of Japan. File photo

Ridley Island’s current export capacity of 92,000 bpd is undergoing aggressive expansion to growth by another 115,000 bpd over the next few years in two more phases of construction.

Recent images detail active construction efforts of the storage, jetty and rail infrastructure.

Alas, every issue that threatens to derail the ambitions of Canada’s oil and gas industry — access to market, First Nations land rights, public acceptance of infrastructure projects and, especially, the climate consequences of burning fossil fuels — is writ large in the Montney.

There are now seven separate lawsuits, and threats of further escalation, centred on claims by the Lax Kw’alaams and Metlakatla First Nations (collectively the Coast Tsimshian) that they were misled and lied to by the Crown when they agreed to developments on their traditional lands at Prince Rupert, John Ivison at the National Post reported.

The dispute over a future propane export facility at the port has spread to other resource projects, and the two First Nations have launched lawsuits against the Ksi Lisims LNG project that was one of the Liberal government’s major projects announced by the prime minister last week.

Further, the conflict threatens to negatively impact any plans Ottawa and the province of Alberta have to build an oil pipeline to the port.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent announcements giving the green light to Alberta’s oil & gas industry has stirred the energy pot to new levels.

B.C. Premier David Eby — who prides himself on Indigenous virtue signalling — is pissed off. It appears he was largely left out of the loop and he is digging in.

Eby said the B.C. government needs to make sure this pipeline project doesn’t become an “energy vampire.”

“With all of the variables that have yet to be fulfilled — no proponent, no route, no money, no First Nations support — that it cannot draw limited federal resources, limited Indigenous governance resources, limited provincial resources away from the real projects that will employ people,” Eby added.

B.C.’s Coastal First Nations also say they will use “every tool in their toolbox” to keep oil tankers out of the northern coastal waters.

It is now apparent that all roads, or, shall we say, pipelines, lead to Prince Rupert.

The feds now face an imposing uphill battle, to leverage their standing as a regulator and resolve a dispute that threatens Canada’s crucial growth agenda.

— with files from CBC News, National Post

THE MAKICHUK REPORT is free today.

But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell THE MAKICHUK REPORT that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription.

You won’t be charged unless they enable payments.

Pledge your support

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Tom Homan Predicts Deportation Of Most Third World Migrants Over Risks From Screening Docs

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jason Hopkins

White House border czar Tom Homan predicted Sunday the Trump administration will deport the majority of Third World migrants due to vetting challenges.

Two National Guardsmen were shot Wednesday, allegedly by an Afghan national brought into the U.S. under the Biden administration. The attack prompted President Donald Trump to announce in a Thursday post on Truth Social that his administration would “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries.” Homan said on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that Third World nations could not be relied upon to provide accurate information for vetting migrants.

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!

“[T]hese Third World nations, they don’t have systems like we do. So, a lot of these Afghanistans, when they did get here and get vetted, they had no identification at all. Not a single travel document, not one piece of identification,” Homan said. “And we’re going to count on the people that run Afghanistan, the Taliban, to provide us any information [on] who the bad guys were or who the good guys are? Certainly not. And many people need to understand that most terrorists in this world, most of ’em, aren’t in any database.”

“And the same thing with illegal aliens, the over 10 million that came across the border under Joe Biden. There’s no way to vet these people. You think El Salvador or Turkey or Sudan or any of these countries have the databases or system checks that we have?” he added. “Do you think the government[s] of China, Russia, Turkey, do you think they’re going to share that data with us even if they did have it? There’s no way to clearly vet these people 100% that they’re safe to come to this country from these Third World nations.”

The president also wrote in his Thursday post he would “terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions,” along with deporting those who do not offer value to the United States. Homan said Trump is correct to evaluate all migrants who entered under Biden.

“I really, truly think that most of ’em are [going to] end up being deported ’cause we’re not going to be able to properly vet them,” he said.

Similarly, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem asserted Sunday on NBC News’s “Meet the Press” the Trump administration would deport individuals with pending asylum claims.

West Virginia Army National Guard Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, 20, perished Thursday from wounds sustained in Wednesday’s shooting. The other victim, Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, remains in critical condition at the time of publication.

The shooting was allegedly carried out by Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who entered the country in September 2021 after the U.S. military’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. Lakanwal previously worked with the U.S. government, including the CIA, and was admitted into the U.S. under the Biden administration’s Operation Allies Welcome, which resettled Afghans who had helped American forces.

Lakanwal applied for asylum in 2024, which the Trump administration granted in April 2025, according to Reuters. The alleged gunman shouted, “Allahu akbar!” before opening fire with a revolver, independent journalist Julio Rojas reported.

As of December 2024, over 180,000 Afghans were resettled in the U.S. following its August 2021 withdrawal, according to the State Department. After the shooting, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that the “processing of all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals” would be paused “indefinitely.”

USCIS also asserted Thursday it would conduct a full-scale reexamination of all green cards granted to individuals from 19 countries “of concern” at Trump’s direction. The agency added in a later statement that, when vetting migrants from those nations, it would weigh “negative, country specific factors,” such as whether the country was able to “issue secure identity documents.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X