CBC hired 84 percent racialized, Indigenous, or disabled while having job vacancies for top talent: Internal report

Telling that the commentary only mentions the overall diversity numbers for context at the bottom of the article, highlighting the representation gaps that CBC like other organizations are trying to address:

The CBC far exceeded its “equity representation” target in the last fiscal year, with 84.1 percent of new hires being “Indigenous Peoples, persons with disabilities, and racialized people,” according to the public broadcaster’s new corporate report. In the “reflecting contemporary Canada” subsection, the report shows the CBC had aimed for 65 percent of new hires to fall within the three groups, but surpassed it by 19 percentage points.

Some employment lawyers believe the CBC’s fixation on race and disabilities in its hiring process is limiting the broadcaster from accurately reflecting the Canadian population, and could fall into hiring discrimination.

“Moving away from merit-based hiring is a disaster no matter what the makeup of your organization is,” said Puneet Tiwari, a Toronto-based employment lawyer. “If an employer wants a more diverse workplace, it should be an equal opportunity employer, but still hire based on merit. As an Indo-Canadian whose grandparents came here in the 60s, I’ve seen more representation across all media outlets.”

CBC hiring doesn’t appear to reflect the overall ethnic demographics of the country. Canada’s most recent census data from 2021 showed that approximately 4.9 percent of Canadians were Indigenous, 26.5 were visible minorities (with 67.4 percent being white), and 27 percent had disabilities. The country’s demographics and population has dramatically changed in the last four years through immigration, however, increasing from 38.1 million in 2021 to 41.7 million in 2025.

…Out of CBC’s total workforce as of June 2025, employees self-identifying as Indigenous were 2.1 percent, 11.3 percent were persons with disabilities, and 20.7 were visible minorities….

Source: CBC hired 84 percent racialized, Indigenous, or disabled while having job vacancies for top talent: Internal report

Peter Menzies: Travis Dhanraj’s CBC resignation reveals the truth about media ‘diversity’ in Canada 

Of interest:

…While this “public attack on the integrity of CBC News” was something that, according to Kelly, “saddened” Dhanraj’s former employer, it made him a hero to conservatives who have long complained the Crown corporation bears a prejudice towards them and their causes.

But they should be careful about rushing to conclusions. Dhanraj’s complaints may delight by confirming their opinions, but there are always at least two sides to a story (even though in his blog last week, CBC editor-in-chief Brodie Fenlon insists that is not always the case).

Commentators on the right, however, didn’t hesitate. They took full advantage of the CBC’s blushes, joining the chorus by adding their voices to those of Dhanraj and Marshall to decry their competition’s imbalance while proudly displaying their own. The irony that one publicly-funded outlet could be demanding balance from another publicly-funded entity because it is publicly funded was not lost on me. But among the more compelling voices was that of Julia Malott, a transwoman who doesn’t run with the herd. She expressed gratitude in the National Post for Dhanraj’s willingness to allow their contrary views to be part of his (now cancelled) show.

Dhanraj isn’t the first journalist of colour to run into trouble with a publicly licensed employer for not complying with managerial expectations. Jamil Jivani, now the Conservative Member of Parliament for Bowmanville-Oshawa North, made a similar case against Bell Mediafollowing the termination of what was clearly an unhappy spell for him as the only full-time black host on that company’s Newstalk 1010 and iHeart radio network.

“There was an expectation that because he’s Black he should have been saying and doing certain things—because in Bell’s mind he was checking this token box, and when they realized they weren’t getting the kind of Black man they wanted, that’s when he was out the door,” said his lawyerat the time—the same Kathryn Marshall who is now representing Dhanraj.

She said it was “outrageous” that white media executives used diversity as a wedge to fire their only black radio host.

That matter was, in the end, quietly settled. The same hush could not save Bell’s blushes in the matter of Patricia Jaggernauth, an Emmy award-winning host who dragged the vertically-integrated behemoth before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

That case was not related to editorial perspectives, but was focused on what the commission referred to as “a pattern of discrimination in pay,” which, when you think about it, doesn’t exactly lighten the DEI load.

Dhanraj said in his departure letter that he “was fighting for balance” and in response was “accused of being on a ‘crusade.’”

Both can be true.

And if they are, that’s exactly the sort of crusade the nation needs to bring real diversity, balance, and objectivity to its newsrooms. Let’s go.

Source: Peter Menzies: Travis Dhanraj’s CBC resignation reveals the truth about media ‘diversity’ in Canada

Conservatives call for investigation into CBC after journalist resigns over ‘performative diversity, tokenism’

Interesting that Dhanraj represented by right leaning activist lawyer Marshall:

The Conservative party is calling for a parliamentary committee to investigate the CBC after journalist Travis Dhanraj resigned over the public broadcaster’s alleged “performative diversity, tokenism, a system designed to elevate certain voices and diminish others.”

Dhanraj was the host of Canada Tonight: With Travis Dhanraj on CBC. But he resigned on Monday, involuntarily, he says, because the CBC “has made it impossible for me to continue my work with integrity.”

“I have been systematically sidelined, retaliated against, and denied the editorial access and institutional support necessary to fulfill my public service role,” he wrote in his resignation letter. “I stayed as long as I could, but CBC leadership left me with no reasonable path forward.”

On Wednesday, Rachel Thomas, an Alberta Conservative member of Parliament, wrote a letter to the chair of the House of Commons standing committee on Canadian heritage, saying that Dhanraj’s claims have “reignited concerns about the organization’s workplace culture.”

The letter calls on the chair, Ontario Liberal MP Lisa Hepfner, to recall the committee.

“It is critical that we hear testimony from Mr. Dhanraj, CBC executives and Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, Steven Guilbeault,” the letter states.

Kathryn Marshall, Dhanraj’s lawyer, told National Post in an interview that they welcome the attempt to recall the committee for hearings….

Source: Conservatives call for investigation into CBC after journalist resigns over ‘performative diversity, tokenism’

Survey shows more newcomers choose immigration consultants over lawyers — and that can be risky, experts say

General rule of thumb. When something or some offer appears to good to be true, it generally is. As always, the “bad apples” undermine trust in all:

The legal challenge comes as more newcomers are choosing the services of immigration consultants over lawyers, according to a new survey commissioned by CBC News.

The survey, conducted by market research firm Pollara in November, asked 1,507 people who arrived in Canada in the past 10 years about their immigration experiences and found 33 per cent used consultants, while 16 per cent used lawyers. A national survey of that size would normally have a margin of error of +/- 2.5 per cent.

Immigration experts say newcomers may prefer consultants because they’re convenient and affordable. But they also say the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants (CICC) hasn’t done enough to punish bad actors in the industry.

They also say victims need better recourse, including a compensation fund promised years ago that has yet to come to fruition.

“I’ve worked with excellent immigration consultants, but the problem is that there are bad actors that are unscrupulous,” said Vancouver immigration lawyer Jae-Yeon Lim, who also teaches immigration law at Queen’s University to those seeking to become consultants. She clarified that she was speaking about her own experiences with clients and not on behalf of her employers….

Overhaul of regulatory body

In 2019, the federal government announced an overhaul to the regulatory body for immigration consultants and the creation of the CICC, which opened about two years later.

Since 2004, two other bodies were not able to effectively regulate consultants because they lacked legislative authorities, the federal government said in briefing notes obtained by CBC News.

CICC was given powers to investigate complaints made against consultants and to publish the names of those being investigated on the college’s website.

It has undertaken more than 70 disciplinary actions against consultants, ranging from fines and suspensions to revocations of licences, according to IRCC.

The college has issued about $300,000 in fines and ordered a total of about $365,000 in restitution to be awarded to clients.

But lawyers Logan and Lim have concerns about the length of time the college takes to discipline consultants.

For example, CICC suspended Lucion about 30 months after the college received complaints about her, during which she was able to continue practising.

“The rules on paper are good. There’s a very good code of conduct. But the actual enforcement of these rules has been lacking,” Logan said.

In another case, a consultant was disciplined in 2023 relating to complaints from 2016. (The regulator transitioned into the CICC for part of that period).

Another consultant was suspended in 2024 in relation to complaints made in 2019 and 2020.

“The impact is that they’re re-traumatizing the victims through these lengthy processes … for something that should have been done in a more expedient manner,” Lim said, adding that victims may lose their legal status in Canada and have to leave before the issue is resolved.

CICC declined interview requests from CBC News. In a statement, it said its goal is to handle complaints in a fair and efficient manner….

Source: Survey shows more newcomers choose immigration consultants over lawyers — and that can be risky, experts say

HESA: Credulous Nonsense on Colleges from the CBC

Good analysis and critique. Shameful that the CBC declined to interview Usher as part of their reporting:

…So why did the CBC react as if it did?

This was the question I asked them when a CBC producer tried to get me to comment on the story on December 27th. Why would you do a story on so little evidence? I said I didn’t think the evidence merited a story but agreed to speak to them if they wanted someone to explain exactly why the evidence was so thin. You will no doubt be shocked to learn that CBC then declined to interview me.

Upon reading the story, it’s not hard to understand why. With zero evidence, they got a bunch of experts to repeat talking points about the awfulness of student visas that they’ve been repeating for months now.

Raj Sharma, a Calgary-based immigration lawyer, told said “If the allegations are true, it reveals shocking gaps in our integrity protocols.… This is deeply, deeply concerning and problematic,” adding that the allegations suggest “wide-scale human smuggling.”

(The “if” in that sentence is doing a hell of a lot of work – AU)

Kelly Sundberg, a former Canada Border Services Agency officer who is a professor of criminology at Mount Royal University, said the system has no oversight and is “being exploited” by transnational criminals. “This type of fraud, of gaming our immigration system has been going on for quite some time actually,” he said, noting that the volume of those potentially involved “is staggering.”

Ken Zaifman, a Winnipeg-based immigration lawyer, says that from his experience, the responsibility of oversight should lie with the educational institutions, but that they did not do so because “they were addicted to international students to fund their programs.”

Ok, so, these comments about fraud and oversight are worth examining. I’m trying to imagine how either the government of Canada or an educational institution could legitimately “prevent fraud” or “exercise oversight” in a case like this one. Are colleges and universities supposed to be like the pre-cogs in the movie Minority Report, able to spot criminals before they commit a crime? I mean, there is a case to be made that in the past Canada made such cross-border runs more tempting by allowing students’ entire families to join them in Canada while studying (as was the case in the Dingucha affair), but that loophole was largely closed ten months ago when the feds basically stopped giving open work permits to partners of students unless they were enrolled in a graduate degree.

Anyways, this is where we are now: our national broadcaster sees no problem running evidence-free stories simply as a platform to beat up on public colleges because that’s a great way to get clicks. Crappy journalism? Sure. But it’s also evidence of the disdain with which Canadian PSE institutions are now viewed by the broader public: CBC wouldn’t run such a thin story unless it thought the target was “soft.” And there’s no solution to our funding woes until this gets sorted out.

Source: HESA: Credulous Nonsense on Colleges from the CBC

Newcomers feel Canada accepts ‘too many immigrants’ without proper planning, CBC survey finds

Good long detailed article with a mix of data and testimonies. Not surprising that immigrants have many of the same concerns as non-immigrants regarding lack of planning with respect to housing, infrastructure etc among other issues raised in a fairly comprehensive survey:

More than 80 per cent of newcomers to Canada feel the country is bringing in too many people through its immigration system without proper planning, a poll commissioned by CBC News has found.

The survey conducted by market research firm Pollara Strategic Insights in November asked 1,507 people about their experiences coming to Canada. Among its findings was that four in five newcomers believe the Canadian government has accepted “too many immigrants and international students with no planning for adequate housing, infrastructure or having sufficient job opportunities.”

Shabnoor Abdullateef, a physician who immigrated to Canada from Iran in 2022, says she agrees with this statement.

“There was absolutely no thinking behind this,” said Abdullateef, who graduated from the health-care administration management program at Fanshawe College in London, Ont., last spring….

Source: Newcomers feel Canada accepts ‘too many immigrants’ without proper planning, CBC survey finds

Dave Snow: The groundbreaking Cass Review on transgender care is shifting the debate abroad. Yet it was barely reported by Canadian media  

While I don’t follow this issue closely, this analysis is nevertheless revealing on how the review and related issues are portrayed, particularly by the CBC:

Few Canadian policy issues are as polarizing as youth gender transition. Yet according to my analysis below, most Canadian media spent last month paying little to no attention to one of the most consequential reports on the topic…

Canadian media coverage of the Cass Review

As a major medical report on an issue where there is considerable Canadian political debate, one would have expected the Cass Review to garner considerable Canadian media attention.

To determine how the issue was covered in Canada, I conducted a content analysis of online articles from five mainstream media outlets (The Globe and MailNational PostToronto Star, CBC, and CTV) from the three-week period following the Cass Review’s publication (April 10 – April 30, 2024). These five outlets published a total of 15 stories that mentioned the Cass Review. Given that three stories (all from the National Post) only briefly mentioned it in passing, and one Associated Press story was published in two outlets, this meant a total of 11 unique stories in which the Cass Review featured prominently.

Coverage was dominated by the National Post, which featured seven articles on the Cass Review over an 11-day period between April 10 and April 20. By contrast, there were only two stories featuring the Cass Review in the Toronto Star, and only one each in CBC, CTV, and the Globe. Apart from the one AP story, every article applied the Cass Review to the Canadian context, with six mentioning Alberta’s proposed gender policies. The stories were split between hard news (six) and opinion pieces (five).

Given the National Post’s longstanding focus on youth gender transition, it is not surprising that it gave the Cass Review the most coverage. The other four outlets did not give it as much attention. The only hard news piece in the Toronto Star was a wire story written by the U.S.-based Associated Press. CTV’s one mention of Cass appeared in a piece about Alberta’s proposed gender policies and was only the result of Premier Smith raising it during an interview with the outlet. Meanwhile, the lone CBC article on the review was more of a condemnation than a news report (see below). The Globe and Maildid not feature Cass in a single hard news article, though the report was mentioned in an investigative opinion piece about gender transition in Canada written 16 days after the review was published. In total, only three of the six hard news pieces quoted from the Cass Review extensively, including two lengthy pieces from National Post reporter Sharon Kirkey and one Associated Press piece (published in both the Star and Post).

While there were only five opinion pieces published about the Cass Review, they shared several notable characteristics. All five opinion pieces—three from the National Post and one each in the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail—portrayed the review positively, including descriptions such as “landmark” and“an exhaustive and rigorous report.” All five were broadly supportive of exercising greater caution around the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for youth. The Post’s Adam Zivo called such restrictions “a wise approach that Canada should follow,” while the Globe’s Robyn Urback cited multiple studies “exploring the potential long-term effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on bone densityfertilitysexual function, and cognitive development” (links in original). Moreover, the five opinion writers demonstrated considerable knowledge of the review itself, with Cass quoted or paraphrased a total of 1611eightfour, and three times, respectively.

By contrast, the CBC’s one news story, published five days after the Cass Review, only quoted it twice. The 1,750-word article, “What Canadian doctors say about new U.K. review questioning puberty blockers for transgender youth,” spent more time criticizing the report than describing it. The story did not quote any proponents of the Cass Review, but it did contain over a dozen quotes from three organizations and three Canadian doctors who were supportive of the gender-affirming model. Two of those doctors criticized the Cass Review directly: one wondered if it was “coming from a place of bias” and “trying to create fear around gender-affirming care,” while another called it “politically motivated.”

One sentence in particular, written by the journalist, is indicative of the CBC’s framing: “The Cass Review, while aiming to be an independent assessment, has been criticized as flawed and anti-trans by trans activists in the U.K., and was described as a product of the U.K.’s hostile environment for trans people in the International Journal of Transgender Health” (links in original). The CBC journalist did not specify the difference between an “independent assessment” and “aiming” to be independent.

However, the International Journal of Transgender Health piece cited by  the CBC journalist refers to the Cass Review as an example of “Cis-supremacy in the UK’s approach to healthcare for trans children.” It was written by a researcher who specializes in “trans inclusion and Applied Trans Studies” and currently holds a grant for “Building Lived Experience Accountability into Culturally Competent Health and Well-being Assessment for Trans Youth Social Justice.” The CBC did not address whether that piece, which was published nearly a month before the Cass Review’s final report came out, was similarly “aiming” to be independent in its assessment of Cass.

This CBC article has garnered considerable attention. It was criticized by American journalist Jesse Singal as “critically dangerous science miscommunication,” while Hub contributor Peter Menzies described it as “so bereft of balance that one could only conclude it [CBC] had abandoned any pretence of principled journalism in favour of playing the role of ally.” But, to regular observers of the CBC, this story was entirely in keeping with its ongoing approach to covering youth gender transition.

People involved in a march against the teaching of so-called “gender ideology” in schools, stand in front of the New Brunswick legislature as they yell across the street at pro-transgender rights counter-protesters in Fredericton, Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2023. Stephen MacGillivray/The Canadian Press. 

Canadian coverage of other LGBTQ topics

Given that major Canadian outlets paid limited attention to the Cass Review, apart from the National Post, observers may wonder if this simply reflected a media tendency to ignore LGBTQ issues.

To test for this, I also conducted a search of stories containing terms like “LGBTQ,” “transgender,” and “gender identity” at each of the five outlets during the same period (April 10-30). I then analyzed stories in which LGBTQ issues were the main topic.

Between April 10-30, in addition to the 11 stories about Cass described above, there were 25  stories on the topic of Canadian LGBTQ issues: 14 at the CBC, six at CTV, three at the Globe and Mail, and one each at the Toronto Starand National Post (this includes one identical Canadian Press wire story published by the Globe, Star, and CTV).

However, not one of these additional Canadian stories mentioned the Cass Review. Some of this was understandable, as most CBC and CTV articles, for example, were local stories covering topics such as a proposed LGBTQ community centre in Montreal, legal battles over New Brunswick’s pronoun policy, and a summer camp for LGBTQ children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, in addition to these 25 Canadian-focused LGBTQ stories, the five outlets also published  66 internationally-focused LGBTQ stories. None of these mentioned the Cass Review. All were written by foreign wire services.

Thirty stories were published by the National Post, 27 by the Toronto Star, five by CTV, four by he Globe and Mail, and none by the CBC. Nearly 80 percent (52/66) were focused on American politics, but the 14 other stories covered topics such as Swedish and German laws making changing your gender easier, the passage of an anti-LGBTQ law in Iraq, and a Hong Kong trans activistgetting a male ID card.

Canadian news outlets’ lack of attention to the Cass Review cannot be explained by a lack of interest in international news on LGBTQ issues. The Toronto Star published 28 hard news stories about international LGBTQ issues during this period, but only one mentioned the Cass review. Likewise, the Globe and Mail and CTV published four and five international news stories on LGBTQ issues respectively, none of which mentioned the Cass Review.

 Consequences for Canada

Three broad conclusions can be drawn from the Canadian media’s coverage of the Cass Review. First, apart from the National Post, hard news coverage of the groundbreaking report was limited. Moreover, this minimal coverage cannot be explained by a lack of interest in LGBTQ issues, as these outlets published many Canadian and international LGBTQ-focused stories about topics far less prominent. Perhaps it is unsurprising that a conservative outlet was more likely to report on a major study that appeared to vindicate arguments associated with conservative political positions. Yet the lack of reporting by other news outlets brings to mind a quote from American journalist Nellie Bowles about the 2020 riots around policing and African Americans in Kenosha, Wisconsin: “How the mainstream media controlled the narrative was by not covering it.”

Second, despite this minimal reporting in Canada, the Cass Review seems to have shifted the parameters of the debate over youth gender transition. The way that it has been covered in international media suggests it will now be far more difficult to paint those who favour a more cautious approach to social transition, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones as “transphobic.” Although Canadian hard news coverage of Cass was limited, Canadian opinion pieces demonstrate a similar shift. All five opinion pieces (including one from the Toronto Star) covered the Cass Review favourably. All raised criticisms about the prevalence of the gender-affirming model across Canada. In the recent past, the Globe and Star have not been shy about publishing opinionpieces lauding the gender-affirming model. But no such opinion pieces were published in response to the Cass Review.

Finally, as the debate around youth gender medicine shifts, the CBC appears to have dug in its heels in support of the gender-affirming model. In previous research for The Hub, I documented how the national public broadcaster chose allyship over objectivity in its coverage of youth gender transition. That trend has clearly continued. The CBC has often been criticized in general for progressive bias, but it is difficult to recall another policy issue for which the CBC’s lack of balance has been so strident and so sustained. As scientific and policy debates around youth gender transition evolve, this issue will provide a litmus test for whether CBC can provide objective coverage on contentious social and medical topics. For now, the public broadcaster is failing that test.

Source: Dave Snow: The groundbreaking Cass Review on transgender care is shifting the debate abroad. Yet it was barely reported by Canadian media

Jen Gerson: The Conservative case for the CBC

Comments on immigrant communities and their media consumption from country of origin sources as a reason to revitalize the CBC. Her reform suggestions have merit:

It was at the recent Canada Strong and Free Network conference — formerly known by the much less awkward title the “Manning Centre” conference — in which I overheard one of those conversations that is so often considered taboo in tête-à-têtes that are more Liberal or NDP-adjacent. It was a discussion on immigration, and specifically, on the obstacles to cultural integration that rapid immigration can sometimes entail. 

The speaker noted with some dismay the number of satellite TV dishes affixed to the balconies of apartments in urban areas that tend to become the first homes of new arrivals to the country. With the advent of affordable global satellite television, those who had relocated to Canada could keep abreast of news at home, in the languages they were most comfortable with. This influx included not only the plethora of private television networks, but also their public counterparts: RT, IRA, CCTV — virtually every country in the world invests in some content offering, and makes that offering widely available both domestically and abroad. 

In liberal democracies, public broadcasting tends to value at least a degree of journalistic independence. In authoritarian nations, well, not so much. But they broadcast just the same. 

Of course there’s nothing inherently wrong with seeking news and entertainment from one’s homeland. Nothing could be more natural than the desire to seek out the familiar, especially while adapting to a new culture and a new home. My fellow conversationalist was not unsympathetic to that desire, yet those satellite dishes concerned him, nonetheless. Canada is welcoming a nearly unprecedented number of new immigrants at the same moment in which its sense of itself as a nation has, arguably, never been weaker. Or, as Justin Trudeau himself once put it “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.” 

If that’s so, how do we expect this influx of new Canadians to cohere to the vacant identity of their adopted homeland? Is the move to Canada a thing that exists in the body only; the spirit to remain entrenched in the values, language, news and entertainment of the citizen’s soul? His homeland? How does a nation as widely dispersed and malleable as ours, one that welcomes people from around the world, create some kind of pan-Canadian values and identity? How the hell do we actually work together?  

I don’t have an easy answer to that question, but I did note at the time that this individual had unwittingly articulated the best Conservative case for the CBC. 

And he had done it in a place where promises to “defund the CBC” generated unabashed whoops of glee. 

“Perhaps don’t defund the CBC” is a contrarian position in my circles, of late. Conservatives hate this institution — and I don’t use the word “hate” lightly. It may be too late to make an appeal for reform, caution or reason. Blood is high. 

They are angry that the CBC sued the Conservative party — and only the Conservative party — for a fair use of news material in political advertising. They are angry at an organization that seems to be ideologically driven to, and hell bent on, closing the Overton window on a range of policy positions and values that many of them care about. They resent being forced to pay for a public broadcaster that they feel has alienated them. 

While I think some of these positions are clouded by the poor judgment that inevitably accompanies anger, many of these grievances are valid. And, privately, I know at least some employees in the CBC will admit to it. The CBC is not what it ought to have been in recent years, and calls for it to be defunded are a predictable and inevitable consequence of adopting a set of cultural values that are openly at odds with a plurality of the taxpayers that fund it. 

The organization still does necessary work, and employs many hundreds of diligent and grounded journalists. However, at least some sections of the organization do come off as high handed and patronizing, as if the outlet sees its role as imposing a set of Canadian Values onto a benighted populace eager for the Call On High of the Annex, rather than as an institution whose fundamental role is to serve those very masses. 

Take the carbon tax, MAID, government spending, contentious protests, gender identity, sex work, safe supply, diversity and inclusion, homelessness, and crime — these are some of the most pressing and contentious issues facing Canadians today. These are complicated issues, often morally fraught, and offer rich opportunities for real debate, reporting, and investigation. I don’t think that’s what we’re getting from the CBC right now. That is a problem, and an abrogation of the CBC’s duty to inform and serve a geographically and ideologically diverse public. Hence the anger. 

However, I cannot pin this failure solely on the CBC. 

If our public broadcaster is not producing the kind of journalism that we want, need and expect, then the negligence lies also within ourselves. We taxpayers, political leaders, and citizens have failed to communicate to the CBC what we expect. And weak management, poorly guided by a vague mandate, has been unable to establish a clear vision of what the outlet needs to prioritize — and, more crucially, what it must deprioritize. 

What I see when I look at the CBC is a Byzantine hall, ruled by competing fiefdoms, and dug five stories deep into the forbidding earth. What I see is mandate creep.

Is there anyone in senior management who can seriously blank-face defend CBC Gem? Or CBC Comedy? Why is the CBC replicating widely available language learning apps with their own version, Mauril? Or how about its vertical devoted to first-person opinion pieces? In an era of Substack and Medium and X, is there market failure that a public broadcaster really needs to address, here? A real lack of opportunity to write articles like: After coming out as trans, my return to sex work has been unexpectedly rewarding.

I could go on, but you get the point. Is there anyone, anywhere, within the CBC hierarchy who can say: “No”? 

All of these efforts reek of a senior management that so lacks a sense of self direction that it instead tries to be everything to everybody, and then blames its lack of adequate funding when it fails to do anything particularly well. And that’s before we get into the management bonuses, and last minute budget top ups. This isn’t sustainable. And it’s why I don’t find arguments for increasing funding right now compelling — absent a clear mandate and strong internal management, the government could double or even triple the CBC’s funding and not create anything better; all we’d get is an even more sprawling bureaucracy trying to churn out more #content in categories that are already amply if not ably served by the private sector. 

So, yeah, I understand the emotion, here. I understand how gratifying it is for Conservatives who squeal with delight when Pierre Poilievre screams “defund the CBC.” Whatever that means. 

All I’d ask is for such people to consider that this is, indeed, an emotional response generated by feelings of grievance and alienation. It’s not a rational policy position. Shut down the CBC tomorrow, and Canada is not suddenly going to host 1,000 ideologically grounded private media organizations. That’s a fantasy, totally detached from a solid understanding of the modern media market. The only problem defunding the CBC solves is the continued public funding of the CBC. 

Local news — real reporting that involves sending actual people to write about quotidian court cases and city hall meetings week after week — is a very hard business case in an environment that generates revenue by virality and clicks. There are going to be some successes in this sphere, but not enough to replicate a tenth of even the current skeletal coverage. 

Privatizing the CBC will do nothing other than to create another failing private media outlet. And defunding or shuttering it outright is only going to eliminate what’s left of an already battered local news system at the very moment that the private media sector is heading into its senescence. This is going to contribute to already expansive news deserts, with citizens turning to things like Facebook groups and closed group chats in order to share local knowledge. 

Some of these quasi-outlets will be fine, and even useful. Ordinary journalism doesn’t require special training or a credential. 

But it does mean that more Canadians over time are going to grow increasingly reliant on sources of information that may or may not have any attachment to how the world around them actually functions. Not only is this going to have an impact on our concepts of a shared national identity, but in some cases, even consensus reality. 

We don’t have to peer too deep into the darkness of our hearts to get a sense of where this is going. Travel just a little ways outside a major city and you’ll quickly run into news deserts where a significant subsection of the population already believes that the Canadian government is controlled by Klaus Schwab for the benefit of Satanic, adrenochrome-swilling pedophiles. 

To put it more bluntly: Conservatives, it’s one thing to burn CBC’s downtown Toronto HQ. By all means, paint your bodies in the ashes and scream at the moon until she hears your victory. Revel in it. But then you’re actually going to have to govern people. How long do you think the current crop of “hang the elites” stand by you when you’re the elite

The CBC in its current state is not sustainable. It needs a radical overhaul that includes an extensive mandate review that sets clear expectations for content, tone, and objective outcomes. Personally, I’d cleave everything related to entertainment and leave that to die. The CBC ought to be an exclusively journalistic organization, with a particular focus on local news, beat reporting, and investigations. I’d take the CBC’s mandate out of the Broadcasting Act and create a standalone statute that enshrines objective journalistic standards and practices in law so internal committees can’t dick around with journalistic fads. (I have no objection to “activist” journalism, or concepts like “moral clarity” in private business, or even grant-supported niche outlets; but a national public broadcaster ought to adopt broadly unobjectionable and historically grounded journalistic standards when serving an audience that cannot escape footing the bill.)

I’d demand the CBC create a functional, independent newsroom in every city over 100,000 people in this country. I’d assign specific beats like health, upper courts, legislatures and the like, and I’d write those expectations straight into the mandate. 

Most importantly, I’d have both the CBC and its critics understand that it is one of the most important repositories of institutional knowledge in this country — it is not only a reservoir of Canada’s culture and history, but also an irreplaceable living resource for the craft and practice of journalism itself. I wish the CBC considered itself not as a competitor to private journalistic enterprise, but more like a public service, akin to a library. An institution whose role is to help foster regional journalistic talent — perhaps through workshops, internships, or even equipment or facility rentals. 

If a local journalism student wants to start a podcast in, say, Medicine Hat, the local CBC outlet ought to be a resource to help her make that project a success. The local CBC outlet ought to be her champion. 

In this lurid dream vision, I would make all the CBC’s written and audio-visual materials freely available to any Canadian media outlet. Further, the CBC should be allergic to private advertising. 

I would also put some serious thought into the CBC’s role as a guardian of this country’s digital and physical news archives. If much private media is about to collapse, we risk losing an extraordinary amount of our shared cultural heritage, unless some entity is willing to take on the care, organization, and access of historic documents and material. 

All the above is a napkin sketch for a sustainable CBC mandate. One that fosters an innovative private media sector while ensuring that Canadians will be reasonably well served by a grounded and objective information environment. If Canadians want to wander into QAnon conspiracy land, that’s not for me, or for any government, to restrict. However, in the face of market failure — and objective news reporting is one such imminent failure — there is room for the public sector to act. We should ensure that Canadians have real choices. 

Funnily, when I spelled out that vision of a CBC, most of the Conservatives I spoke to at the conference in Ottawa could get behind it, or some version of it. And that didn’t surprise me. Most Conservatives in this country are not libertarians or even, frankly, true populists. Most, I think, grant that there is some role for a federal government to play in the promotion of a Canadian culture and identity, particularly where the preservation of history and institutions are concerned. I am aligned to the role of a free market in media, as in anything else (like and subscribe!), but I would remind everybody that the media industry doesn’t exist in a pure free market in the Platonic world of ideal forms, and never has. There are bad ways to intervene in it (ahem, the Online News Act) and there are good ways — ways grounded in historic success, both here and in other countries. Public broadcasting is tried and true, which is why almost every country has some version of it in accordance with its national values, needs, and insecurities. 

Ironically, the cultural conditions that prompted the creation of the CBC in 1936 are more prevalent now than at any time previous in living memory. There is more need now for a shared sense of Canadian identity. We need a revitalized social understanding about how to mediate access to information and power in a democracy. I would remind Conservatives of this, and I would ask: if you destroy the CBC, would you have to replace it with something else? I would ask you to put a pin in the anger, and consider how Canada and her people will be best served after the impending collapse of traditional media infrastructure. Lastly, I would remind you of all those satellites on all those apartment blocks and ask: if the CBC, or something like it, isn’t going to fill the gap, who will? 

Source: Jen Gerson: The Conservative case for the CBC

Online citizenship ceremonies undermine oath’s significance, critics say

CBC’s The National coverage of the citizenship oath petition:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2274832451616

And the reason that “over 90 percent” choose the virtual option is that they are not offered a choice: “We’ll invite most applicants to a video oath ceremony (virtual citizenship ceremony).”

Feds probe ‘disturbing’ tweets by consultant on government-funded anti-racism project

One of the things I learned when working under the Conservative government was to ensure we checked social media posts of those in leadership positions in groups applying for G&C funding. We learned this the hard way when political staffers would flag particularly egregious or overly ideological postings, thus removing the proposal from being considered.

And of course, this needs to be applied broadly and consistently across organizations and funding requests:

The federal diversity minister says he’s taking action over “disturbing” tweets by a senior consultant on an anti-racism project that received $133,000 from his department.

Ahmed Hussen has asked Canadian Heritage to “look closely at the situation” after what he called “unacceptable behaviour” by Laith Marouf, a senior consultant involved in the government-funded project to combat racism in broadcasting.

Marouf’s Twitter account is private but a screenshot posted online shows a number of tweets with his photo and name.

One tweet said: “You know all those loud mouthed bags of human feces, aka the Jewish White Supremacists; when we liberate Palestine and they have to go back to where they come from, they will return to being low voiced bitches of thier (sic) Christian/Secular White Supremacist Masters.”

Marouf declined requests for comment, but when asked about the tweet, a lawyer acting for Marouf asked for his client’s tweets to be quoted “verbatim” and distinguished between Marouf’s “clear reference to ‘Jewish white supremacists,’” and Jews or Jewish people in general.

Marouf does not harbour “any animus toward the Jewish faith as a collective group,” lawyer Stephen Ellis said in an email.

Last year, the Community Media Advocacy Centre received a $133,800 Heritage Department grant to build an anti-racism strategy for Canadian broadcasting.

Marouf is listed as a senior consultant on CMAC’s website and is quoted saying that CMAC is “excited to launch” the “Building an Anti-Racism Strategy for Canadian Broadcasting: Conversation & Convergence Initiative” with funding support from Heritage’s anti-racism action program.

He expressed gratitude to “Canadian Heritage for their partnership and trust imposed on us,” saying that CMAC commits to “ensuring the successful and responsible execution of the project.”

Hussen, who is based in the Heritage Department, said in a statement: “We condemn this unacceptable behaviour by an individual working in an organization dedicated to fighting racism and discrimination.”

“Our position is clear — antisemitism and any form of hate have no place in Canada. That is why I have asked Canadian Heritage to look closely at the situation involving disturbing comments made by the individual in question. We will address this with the organization accordingly, as this clearly goes against our government’s values,” Hussen added.

CMAC did not respond to a request for comment.

Irwin Cotler, a former Liberal justice minister who was appointed as Canada’s special envoy on antisemitism by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, said Marouf’s tweet referring to “loud mouthed bags of human feces” was “beyond the pale.”

Cotler said he plans to speak to officials working in the Heritage department on combating racism about the issue.

Shimon Koffler Fogel, president and CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said Canadians “should be appalled” by his tweets.

“Canadian Heritage must review its oversight policies to ensure Canadian taxpayer dollars are provided to groups committed to cherished Canadian values and to combating racism, hate, and discrimination,” he said.

Source: Feds probe ‘disturbing’ tweets by consultant on government-funded anti-racism project