From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

A Heritage Committee report is recommending “that the Government of Canada provide a substantial and lasting increase in the parliamentary appropriation for CBC, allowing it to eliminate its paid subscription services and gradually end its reliance on commercial advertising revenues.” 

The Liberal-run Heritage Committee is demanding millions more in funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation despite the fact it already gets roughly $1.4 billon from the government annually.

According to information obtained and published December 16 by Blacklock’s Reporter, a Heritage Committee report is recommending “that the Government of Canada provide a substantial and lasting increase in the parliamentary appropriation for CBC, allowing it to eliminate its paid subscription services and gradually end its reliance on commercial advertising revenues.”  

While the report did not suggest an amount, CBC CEO Catherine Tait previously testified that the outlet required funding in the “$400 million to $500 million range.” 

While the report suggested throwing more taxpayer dollars at the failing outlet, Conservatives wrote a dissenting report, arguing the media platform should be defunded.   

“The CBC cut hundreds of jobs while awarding lavish bonuses,” Conservative MP Kevin Waugh said, referencing CBC managers taking $14.9 million in bonuses this year while cutting 346 jobs.  

“This disgraceful abuse of taxpayer dollars when Canadians are struggling for financial survival has contributed to the ‘defund the CBC’ movement,” he continued.  

Waugh’s comments echo those of Canadian Taxpayer Federation Alberta director Kris Sims, who called on Parliament to abolish all taxpayer funding to the CBC, arguing that propping up the media outlet is not only a waste of money but also creates a conflict of interest for journalists.  

Indeed, not only has the CBC’s network audience plummeted, but many have pointed out that the outlet has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government.  

“A free press means journalists free from government,” Sims explained. “A journalist who is paid by the government is in a direct conflict of interest. You cannot hold the powerful government to account when you’re counting on the powerful government for your paycheck.”  

In seeming confirmation of Sims’ concerns, in October, Liberal Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge’s department admitted that federally funded media outlets buy “social cohesion.”  

Additionally, in September, House leader Karina Gould directed mainstream media reporters to “scrutinize” Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, who has repeatedly condemned government-funded media as an arm of the Liberals.  

Gould’s comments were in reference to Poilievre’s promise to defund the CBC if elected prime minister. Poilievre is a longtime critic of government-funded media, especially the CBC. 

There have also been multiple instances of the CBC pushing what appears to be ideological content, including the creation of pro-LGBT material for kids, tacitly endorsing the gender mutilation of children, promoting euthanasia, and even seeming to justify the burning of mostly Catholic churches throughout the country. 

Despite this, beginning in 2019, Parliament changed the Income Tax Act to give yearly rebates of 25 percent for each news employee in cabinet-approved media outlets earning up to $55,000 a year to a maximum of $13,750.  

The Canadian Heritage Department since admitted that the payouts are not even sufficient to keep legacy media outlets running and recommended that the rebates be doubled to a maximum of $29,750 annually. 

Last November, Trudeau again announced increased payouts for legacy media outlets that coincide with the leadup to the 2025 election. The subsidies are expected to cost taxpayers $129 million over the next five years. 

Similarly, Trudeau’s 2024 budget earmarked $42 million in increased funding for the CBC in 2024-25.  

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Morgan Murphy

With less than a month to go before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the top brass are already running for cover. This week the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, pledged to cut approximately a dozen general officers from the U.S. Army.

It is a start.

But given the Army is authorized 219 general officers, cutting just 12 is using a scalpel when a machete is in order. At present, the ratio of officers to enlisted personnel stands at an all-time high. During World War II, we had one general for every 6,000 troops. Today, we have one for every 1,600.

Right now, the United States has 1.3 million active-duty service members according to the Defense Manpower Data Center. Of those, 885 are flag officers (fun fact: you get your own flag when you make general or admiral, hence the term “flag officer” and “flagship”). In the reserve world, the ratio is even worse. There are 925 general and flag officers and a total reserve force of just 760,499 personnel. That is a flag for every 674 enlisted troops.

The hallways at the Pentagon are filled with a constellation of stars and the legions of staffers who support them. I’ve worked in both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Starting around 2011, the Joint Staff began to surge in scope and power. Though the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command and simply serves as an advisor to the president, there are a staggering 4,409 people working for the Joint Staff, including 1,400 civilians with an average salary of $196,800 (yes, you read that correctly). The Joint Staff budget for 2025 is estimated by the Department of Defense’s comptroller to be $1.3 billion.

In contrast, the Secretary of Defense — the civilian in charge of running our nation’s military — has a staff of 2,646 civilians and uniformed personnel. The disparity between the two staffs threatens the longstanding American principle of civilian control of the military.

Just look at what happens when civilians in the White House or the Senate dare question the ranks of America’s general class. “Politicizing the military!” critics cry, as if the Commander-in-Chief has no right to question the judgement of generals who botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan, bought into the woke ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or oversaw over-budget and behind-schedule weapons systems. Introducing accountability to the general class is not politicizing our nation’s military — it is called leadership.

What most Americans don’t understand is that our top brass is already very political. On any given day in our nation’s Capitol, a casual visitor is likely to run into multiple generals and admirals visiting our elected representatives and their staff. Ostensibly, these “briefs” are about various strategic threats and weapons systems — but everyone on the Hill knows our military leaders are also jockeying for their next assignment or promotion. It’s classic politics

The country witnessed this firsthand with now-retired Gen. Mark Milley. Most Americans were put off by what they saw. Milley brazenly played the Washington spin game, bragging in a Senate Armed Services hearing that he had interviewed with Bob Woodward and a host of other Washington, D.C. reporters.

Woodward later admitted in an interview with CNN that he was flabbergasted by Milley, recalling the chairman hadn’t just said “[Trump] is a problem or we can’t trust him,” but took it to the point of saying, “he is a danger to the country. He is the most dangerous person I know.” Woodward said that Milley’s attitude felt like an assignment editor ordering him, “Do something about this.”

Think on that a moment — an active-duty four star general spoke on the record, disparaging the Commander-in-Chief. Not only did it show rank insubordination and a breach of Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88, but Milley’s actions represented a grave threat against the Constitution and civilian oversight of the military.

How will it play out now that Trump has returned? Old political hands know that what goes around comes around. Milley’s ham-handed political meddling may very well pave the way for a massive reorganization of flag officers similar to Gen. George C. Marshall’s “plucking board” of 1940. Marshall forced 500 colonels into retirement saying, “You give a good leader very little and he will succeed; you give mediocrity a great deal and they will fail.”

Marshall’s efforts to reorient the War Department to a meritocracy proved prescient when the United States entered World War II less than two years later.

Perhaps it’s time for another plucking board to remind the military brass that it is their civilian bosses who sit at the top of the U.S. chain of command.

Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.