Connect with us

Business

Trudeau gov’t dept. suggests giving LGBT, minority journalists $45k annually to promote ‘diversity’

Published

5 minute read

Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

‘Organizations mentioned the need for government funds dedicated to creators and journalists from Indigenous, racialized and religious minority communities in the media’

The Canadian Department of Heritage is advising that Indigenous, Muslim, Black or LGBT identifying journalists be federally funded up to $45,000 per year to promote “diversity.” 

According to a report titled Changing Narratives Fund Report On Consultations, published November 28 by Blacklock’s Reporter, the Department of Canadian Heritage has recommended that the Cabinet directly give individual reporters a salary of $45,000 annually.  

“Organizations mentioned the need for government funds dedicated to creators and journalists from Indigenous, racialized and religious minority communities in the media,” said the report. “Funding should be stable and targeted.” 

The proposed scheme, submitted by departmental advisors, professors Christopher Dornan and Adrian Harewood of Carleton University and Patrick White of the University of Québec, suggests “a salary of $45,000 per annum” for reporters who are Indigenous, Muslim, Black or LGBT. 

“Hiring journalists and creators from diverse communities especially new talent alone cannot guarantee diverse perspectives will be presented in media coverage,” the report asserted. “If these new talents are not trained or allocated budgets or resources to share their stories they may well remain invisible.” 

“For these stories to be seen a paradigm shift is needed in the way traditional news media share the stories of Indigenous, racialized and religious minority communities,” it continued.  

“A number of organizations argued media coverage of the reality of their communities has not only been historically deficient but has often been detrimental,” the report alleged.  

“Consequently the lack of regular and daily contact between majority and minority communities leads to misunderstanding of the other and worsens stereotypes and negative attitudes,” it added.  

The report failed to explain how “diversity” of reporting could be maintained if the Liberal government under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is funding the journalists’ salaries.  

“Communism much??” one wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.  

“Not even trying to hide the bribery anymore!” another posted. 

“Government Approved Newsrooms are Pravda,” one wrote, referring to the official newspaper of the former Communist Party of the Soviet. “Government has no place in promoting narrative.” 

Notably, the call for increased federal funding for journalists closely follows Trudeau’s fall economic statement which includes massive payouts for mainstream media outlets ahead of and after the 2025 election.   

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.   

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

This suggestion was adopted by the Trudeau government in its Fall Economic Statement, which increased the rebates to 35 percent on newsroom salaries up to $85,000, totaling a maximum rebate of $29,750. The temporary tax credit is set to apply for the next four years.    

While media subsidies were to set to expire March 31, 2024, they have now been expanded to 2029 past the next general election. The increased payouts are expected to cost taxpayer $129 million in the next five years and an additional $10 million for every subsequent year.    

The renewed media bailouts come as trust in mainstream media is polling at an all-time low with Canadians. 

According to a recent study by Canada’s Public Health Agency, less than a third of Canadians displayed “high trust” of the federal government, with “large media organizations” as well as celebrities getting even lower scores.  

Large mainstream media outlets and “journalists” working for them scored a “high trust” rating of only 18 percent. This was followed by only 12 percent of people saying they trusted “ordinary people,” with celebrities garnering only an eight percent “trust” rating.  

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Top Canadian bank ditches UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate goals it helped create

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

RBC’s dropping of its ‘net zero’ finance targets came just one day after the Liberal Party under Mark Carney was re-elected in Canada.

Just one day after the re-election of the Liberal Party under Mark Carney, the Royal Bank of Canada joined the growing list of top banks withdrawing from a United Nations-backed “net zero” alliance that supports the eventual elimination of the nation’s oil and gas industry in the name of “climate change.”

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) on Tuesday quietly dumped its UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) sustainable finance targets, which called for banks to come in line with the push for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The NZBA is a subgroup of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which Carney was co-chair of until recently.

RBC’s departure comes despite the fact that it was one of the NZBA’s founding members.

RBC joins Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD), Bank of Montreal (BMO), National Bank of Canada, and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) who earlier in the year said they were withdrawing from the NZBA.

The bank announced the move away from a green agenda in its 2024 sustainability report, noting it would no longer look to pursue a $500 billion sustainable finance goal. It cited changes to Canada’s federal Competition Act as the reason.

The changes to the act, known as the “greenwashing law,” now mandate that companies provide proof of their environmental claims.

“We have reviewed our methodology and have concluded that it may not have appropriately measured certain of our sustainable finance activities,” noted RBC in its report.

RBC also noted it would not make public any of its metrics regarding its energy supply ratio.

Monday’s election saw Liberal leader Carney beat out Conservative rival Poilievre, who also lost his seat. The Conservatives managed to pick up over 20 new seats, however, and Poilievre has vowed to stay on as party leader, for now.

The GFANZ was formed in 2021 while Carney was its co-chair. He resigned from his role in the alliance right before he announced he would run for Liberal leadership to replace former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Large U.S. banks such as Morgan Stanley,  JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wells Fargo and Bank of America have all withdrawn from the group as well.

Since taking office in 2015, the Liberal government, first under Trudeau and now under Carney, has continued to push a radical environmental agenda in line with those promoted by the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.” Part of this push includes the promotion of so called net-zero energy by as early as 2035.

Continue Reading

Business

Overregulation is choking Canadian businesses, says the MEI

Published on

  From the Montreal Economic Institute

The federal government’s growing regulatory burden on businesses is holding Canada back and must be urgently reviewed, argues a new publication from the MEI released this morning.

“Regulation creep is a real thing, and Ottawa has been fuelling it for decades,” says Krystle Wittevrongel, director of research at the MEI and coauthor of the Viewpoint. “Regulations are passed but rarely reviewed, making it burdensome to run a business, or even too costly to get started.”

Between 2006 and 2021, the number of federal regulatory requirements in Canada rose by 37 per cent, from 234,200 to 320,900. This is estimated to have reduced real GDP growth by 1.7 percentage points, employment growth by 1.3 percentage points, and labour productivity by 0.4 percentage points, according to recent Statistics Canada data.

Small businesses are disproportionately impacted by the proliferation of new regulations.

In 2024, firms with fewer than five employees pay over $10,200 per employee in regulatory and red tape compliance costs, compared to roughly $1,400 per employee for businesses with 100 or more employees, according to data from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Overall, Canadian businesses spend 768 million hours a year on compliance, which is equivalent to almost 394,000 full-time jobs. The costs to the economy in 2024 alone were over $51.5 billion.

It is hardly surprising in this context that entrepreneurship in Canada is on the decline. In the year 2000, 3 out of every 1,000 Canadians started a business. By 2022, that rate had fallen to just 1.3, representing a nearly 57 per cent drop since 2000.

The impact of regulation in particular is real: had Ottawa maintained the number of regulations at 2006 levels, Canada would have seen about 10 per cent more business start-ups in 2021, according to Statistics Canada.

The MEI researcher proposes a practical way to reevaluate the necessity of these regulations, applying a model based on the Chrétien government’s 1995 Program Review.

In the 1990s, the federal government launched a review process aimed at reducing federal spending. Over the course of two years, it successfully eliminated $12 billion in federal spending, a reduction of 9.7 per cent, and restored fiscal balance.

A similar approach applied to regulations could help identify rules that are outdated, duplicative, or unjustified.

The publication outlines six key questions to evaluate existing or proposed regulations:

  1. What is the purpose of the regulation?
  2. Does it serve the public interest?
  3. What is the role of the federal government and is its intervention necessary?
  4. What is the expected economic cost of the regulation?
  5. Is there a less costly or intrusive way to solve the problem the regulation seeks to address?
  6. Is there a net benefit?

According to OECD projections, Canada is expected to experience the lowest GDP per capita growth among advanced economies through 2060.

“Canada has just lived through a decade marked by weak growth, stagnant wages, and declining prosperity,” says Ms. Wittevrongel. “If policymakers are serious about reversing this trend, they must start by asking whether existing regulations are doing more harm than good.”

The MEI Viewpoint is available here.

* * *

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.

Continue Reading

Trending

X