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.
Plus! Global’s oops on Trump in the crosshairs and assuming what Stephen Harper thinks may not be the best idea!
It has never been easier, thanks to the internet, for journalists to check if they are being played for fools. But due either to sloth, neglect, habit or servility – pick one – way too many lack the motivation to use a search engine.
Instead, they frequently accept the role of featherheads manipulated by politicians staging one of the oldest scams in the Machiavellian playbook, the recycled “news” announcement. I say “featherheads” (patsies was another option) because, for instance, Prime Minister Mark Carney can book news network time for a full half hour speech that is nothing more than a rehash of everything he’s been saying for the past 10 months and still lead newscasts and make the front pages.
The Rewrite is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Here, I must pause to credit the Toronto Star. It, like other news organizations, received an embargoed copy of Wednesday’s speech in advance. It read it, saw that it contained no news and did not put a report on its front page. Others such as National Post and the Globe and Mail tried desperately to find a fresh angle within the speech but put it on their front pages anyway. CBC threw everything it had into it and CTV also led with it and tried its best to make it sound like news had happened.
Now, I am a reasonable and fair-minded person, so I would not be reacting were it just this incident that captured my attention. The PM is speaking, everyone gets excited, you review and lock in your story lineup and, ya, I get it. Been there, done that. But this was part of a troubling pattern that has emerged.
For instance, the government’s “plan” to hire 1,000 more Canadian Border Services guards was first announced in the Liberal election platform last spring. It was then, according to Blacklock’s Reporter, re-announced “April 10, April 28, June 3 and August 12.”
That Blacklock’s report was published Oct. 14 and focused on Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree’s insistence he was “not responsible” for the promised hiring that hadn’t happened yet. Two days later, Carney announced that the previously announced and re-announced plan would be announced again in the Nov. 4 budget. And the day after that – Oct. 17 – Anandasangaree announced his ministry would be doing what he said a few days previously wasn’t his responsibility and hiring 1,000 new border guards – over the next five years. A similar pattern of announcement and reannouncements took place regarding the government’s plan to hire 1,000 more RCMP officers, also not immediately but eventually. Then, last week, Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne announced a financial crimes agency would be up and running by next June. This, too, was reported as a new initiative even though the government first committed to that agency in 2021.
While not all news organizations rise to the bait, this widely carried Canadian Press story is an example of how easily the public can be misinformed by reporting that lacks proper context. Re-announcements are presented as “news” despite there being no news other than “politicians repeat what they said before to keep their names in the news.” Media that go along with this pattern of manipulation allow themselves to be accused of defining news as anything the government wishes to present as news, something about which – now that media are subsidized by politicians – they should be more cautious.
The nation needs journalists to tell the whole story or, as Robert Maynard, founder of the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education, put it:
“The first thing about journalism is about accuracy and fairness, but that’s not enough. It has to be about context, it has to be about depth.”
Speaking of headlines, Global News deserves a long stare and shake of the head for the one it slapped on its report of the “No Kings” protests held last weekend.
 |
Seemingly oblivious to the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk and two attempts on the life of US President Donald Trump, Global initially went with the above illustrated “Trump in the crosshairs” headline before changing it to “No Kings Day rallies draw hundreds of thousands of protesters.” The updated version made no reference to the initial version.
There was quite a stir within the punditry when Dimitri Soudas, defrocked Conservative comms guy and former pal of notorious floor-crosser Eve Adams, wrote an op-ed for the Toronto Star criticizing party leader Pierre Poilievre. Rather than go with the disgruntled former employee angle, the Globe and Mail’s Larry Martin led the pack in leaping to a conclusion:
“Soudas wouldn’t have written this attack on Poilievre without Stephan (sic) Harper’s okay,” he posted. “It means the knives are out to get PP and they are big knives that could kill his leadership.”
Martin, who has had a very distinguished career, hadn’t confirmed what he assumed Harper was thinking and was quickly schooled by Anna Tomala, the former PM’s spokeswoman.
“Mr. Soudas does not speak on behalf of Mr. Harper,” she stated curtly.
Martin did not delete his original post but while to his credit he did post an update, it’s unclear his blushes were spared.
 |
CTV, meanwhile, declined to include Tomala’s Harper statement in its report on Soudas’s op-ed.
Retired CTV reporter Alan Fryer, meanwhile, gave his past employer a blast on X after it delivered this headline: “Carney is going ‘where the puck is going to be’ in first trip to Asia as PM.”
Fryer’s world-weary response?
“My Lord, the headline. A leader couldn’t hope for a more compliant media.”
Finally, two commentators for news organizations were subjected to harm and intimidation last week and we learned that a third had been threatened in August. Terry Newman of National Post posted that she would be contacting police, Ezra Levant of Rebel News was laid out at a protest in Dublin and it was discovered that Brian Passifume of the Toronto Sun faced a death threat in August. I checked to see if the Canadian Association of Journalists (which has abandoned X) had something to say on their behalf. The CAJ’s most recent web post regarding abuse of journalists was on Sept. 25 in defence of Isaac Peltz of theindependent.ca and William Wilson, who writes for therover.ca.
Readers will notice a new DONATE button has been added. This allows you to buy The Rewrite a cup of coffee or, if you are feeling generous, wine, but doesn’t constitute a subscription. Please consider making use of it and help us save journalism from bad journalism.
(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)
Invite your friends and earn rewards
From the Fraser Institute
By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss
There are ostensibly two approaches to economic growth from a government policy perspective. The first is to create the best environment possible for entrepreneurs, business owners and investors by ensuring effective government that only does what’s needed, maintains competitive taxes and reasonable regulations. It doesn’t try to pick winners and losers but rather introduces policies to create a positive environment for all businesses to succeed.
The alternative is for the government to take an active role in picking winners and losers through taxes, spending and regulations. The idea here is that a government can promote certain companies and industries (as part of a larger “industrial policy”) better than allowing the market—that is, individual entrepreneurs, businesses and investors—to make those decisions.
It’s never purely one or the other but governments tend to generally favour one approach. The Trudeau era represented a marked break from the consensus that existed for more than two decades prior. Trudeau’s Ottawa introduced a series of tax measures, spending initiatives and regulations to actively constrain the traditional energy sector while promoting what the government termed the “green” economy.
The scope and cost of the policies introduced to actively pick winners and losers is hard to imagine given its breadth. Direct spending on the “green” economy by the federal government increased from $600 million the year before Trudeau took office (2014/15) to $23.0 billion last year (2024/25).
Ottawa introduced regulations to make it harder to build traditional energy projects (Bill C-69), banned tankers carrying Canadian oil from the northwest coast of British Columbia (Bill C-48), proposed an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, cancelled pipeline developments, mandated almost all new vehicles sold in Canada to be zero-emission by 2035, imposed new homebuilding regulations for energy efficiency, changed fuel standards, and the list goes on and on.
Despite the mountain of federal spending and regulations, which were augmented by additional spending and regulations by various provincial governments, the Canadian economy has not been transformed over the last decade, but we have suffered marked economic costs.
Consider the share of the total economy in 2014 linked with the “green” sector, a term used by Statistics Canada in its measurement of economic output, was 3.1 per cent. In 2023, the green economy represented 3.6 per cent of the Canadian economy, not even a full one-percentage point increase despite the spending and regulating.
And Ottawa’s initiatives did not deliver the green jobs promised. From 2014 to 2023, only 68,000 jobs were created in the entire green sector, and the sector now represents less than 2 per cent of total employment.
Canada’s economic performance cratered in line with this new approach to economic growth. Simply put, rather than delivering the promised prosperity, it delivered economic stagnation. Consider that Canadian living standards, as measured by per-person GDP, were lower as of the second quarter of 2025 compared to six years ago. In other words, we’re poorer today than we were six years ago. In contrast, U.S. per-person GDP grew by 11.0 per cent during the same period.
Median wages (midpoint where half of individuals earn more, and half earn less) in every Canadian province are now lower than comparable median wages in every U.S. state. Read that again—our richest provinces now have lower median wages than the poorest U.S. states.
A significant part of the explanation for Canada’s poor performance is the collapse of private business investment. Simply put, businesses didn’t invest much in Canada, particularly when compared to the United States, and this was all pre-Trump tariffs. Canada’s fundamentals and the general business environment were simply not conducive to private-sector investment.
These results stand in stark contrast to the prosperity enjoyed by Canadians during the Chrétien to Harper years when the focus wasn’t on Ottawa picking winners and losers but rather trying to establish the most competitive environment possible to attract and retain entrepreneurs, businesses, investors and high-skilled professionals. The policies that dominated this period are the antithesis of those in place now: balanced budgets, smaller but more effective government spending, lower and competitive taxes, and smart regulations.
As the Carney government prepares to present its first budget to the Canadian people, many questions remain about whether there will be a genuine break from the policies of the Trudeau government or whether it will simply be the same old same old but dressed up in new language and fancy terms. History clearly tells us that when governments try to pick winners and losers, the strategy doesn’t lead to prosperity but rather stagnation. Let’s all hope our new prime minister knows his history and has learned its lessons.
Jason Clemens
Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute
Jake Fuss
Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
Carney speech highlights how easily newsrooms are played by politicians
The painful return of food inflation exposes Canada’s trade failures
Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
-
Alberta16 hours ago
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
-
Media12 hours ago
Carney speech highlights how easily newsrooms are played by politicians
-
Business2 days agoCanada’s attack on religious charities makes no fiscal sense
-
International1 day agoPrince Andrew banished from the British monarchy
-
Business1 day ago“We have a deal”: Trump, Xi strike breakthrough on trade and fentanyl
-
Crime1 day agoCanada Seizes 4,300 Litres of Chinese Drug Precursors Amid Trump’s Tariff Pressure Over Fentanyl Flows
-
Alberta1 day agoHow one major media torqued its coverage – in the take no prisoners words of a former Alberta premier
-
Alberta1 day agoProvince orders School Boards to gather data on class sizes and complexity by Nov 24