Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

CBC staff with six figure salaries balloons under Trudeau government

Published

3 minute read

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Ryan Thorpe

The number of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation staff taking home a six-figure annual salary has soared by 231 per cent under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Last year, 1,450 CBC staff took home more than $100,000 in base salary, according to access-to-information records obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

That’s a 231 per cent increase over 2015, when just 438 CBC employees took home a six-figure annual salary.

Six-figure salaries at the state broadcaster cost taxpayers more than $181 million last year, for an average of $125,000 for those employees.

“The CBC has been raking in big paycheques and bonuses while the taxpayers footing the bills have been struggling,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Is anyone in government going to step in, stick up for taxpayers and put an end to the CBC gravy train?”

The CBC also dished out more than $11.5 million in pay raises last year to 87 per cent of its workforce, according to separate access-to-information records.

No CBC employee received a pay cut in 2023.

All told, raises at the CBC total $97 million since 2015.

This week, the Canadian Press reported the CBC paid out $18.4 million in bonuses in 2024, after it eliminated hundreds of jobs.

That included $3.3 million in bonuses for 45 executives, for an average of $73,000 each – more than the average salary for Canadian workers, according to Statistics Canada.

The bonuses also included $10.4 million paid out to 631 managers and $4.6 million for 518 other employees.

Bonuses at the CBC now total $132 million since 2015. Combined, raises and bonuses at the CBC total more than $229 million and counting since 2015.

“It’s time to end these taxpayer-funded bonuses and defund the CBC,” Terrazzano said.

Year

Raise

Bonus

Combined Cost

2015

$7,958,060

$8,254,599

$16,212,569

2016

$8,187,668

$8,097,155

$16,284,823

2017

$10,134,964

$8,903,882

$19,038,846

2018

$14,544,563

$13,337,262

$27,881,825

2019

$11,048,543

$14,257,933

$25,306,476

2020

$11,989,307

$15,013,838

$27,003,145

2021

$9,218,379

$15,398,101

$24,616,480

2022

$12,505,938

$16,052,148

$28,558,086

2023

$11,528,793

$14,902,755

$26,431,548

2024

N/A

$18,400,000

$18,400,000

Total

$97,116,215

$132,617,673

$229,733,888

The CBC News Network’s share of the national prime-time viewing audience is 2.1 per cent, according to its latest third-quarter report.

Put another way, 97.9 per cent of TV-viewing Canadians choose not to watch CBC’s English language prime-time news program.

Nevertheless, the state broadcaster considers this a success, claiming CBC News Network “continues to track above” its target of 1.7 per cent, “driven by major news stories drawing large audiences.”

In 2018, the CBC’s share of the national prime-time viewing audience was 7.6 per cent. That means in six years, CBC News Network’s share has plummeted by 72 per cent.

The CBC will take more than $1.4 billion from taxpayers in 2024-25.

That’s enough money to pay the annual grocery bill for roughly 86,000 Canadian families of four.

Business

What Inter-Provincial Migration Trends Can Tell Us About Good Governance

Published on

 

It turns out we move a great deal less than our American neighbors

Government policies have consequences. Among them is the possibility that they might so annoy the locals that people actually get up and head for the exit. Given how parting can be such sweet sorrow (and how it’s a pain to lose out on all that revenue from provincial income, property, and sales tax), legislatures generally prefer to keep their citizens on this side of the door.

Nevertheless, migration happens. And when enough people do it at the same time, they sometimes leave economic and social clues behind waiting to be discovered. This graph represents net migrations since 1971 into and out of the four largest provinces:

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

It may just be possible to make out some broad patterns here. Quebec has never had a net inbound migration year (although there’s been plenty of immigration to Quebec from outside of Canada). But nothing matches the mass exodus of anglophones due to concerns over language and separation in the 1970s.

Curiously it seems that Alberta and British Columbia received far more migrants than Ontario around that time – although the actual numbers tell us that they were more likely to have come from Saskatchewan and Ontario than Quebec. By contrast, most disillusioned Quebecers found their way to Ontario. Besides the 70s, Alberta also enjoyed inbound spikes in the mid-90s, mid-00s, and early 10s. And it looks like they’re in the middle of another boom cycle as we speak.

The real value of all this data however, is in using it to test causation hypotheses. In other words, can statistical analysis tell us what it was that caused the migrations? And are some or all of those causes the result of government policy choices? Here are some possibilities we’ll explore:

  • Household income trends
  • Government debt
  • Crime rates
  • Healthcare costs
  • Housing costs

Right off the top I’ll come clean with you: there’ll be no smoking gun here. I could find no single historical measure that came close to explaining migration patterns. However I was able to confidently discard some theories. That’s a win I guess. And other numbers did hint to intriguing possibilities.

Inter-provincial variations in household income, crime rates (specifically murder rates), healthcare costs (including prescriptions, eye care, and dental care), and even housing affordability had no measurable impact on migration. This was true for both correlation coefficients and lag analysis (where we looked at migration changes in the years following an economic event).

Rising unemployment had, at best, a minimal impact on outbound migration. And even then, it was only noticeable for Alberta and Prince Edward Island.

Of all the metrics I explored, the only one that might have had a serious influence in migration was provincial government budget deficits.

Folks from Alberta, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland all responded to growing government debt by clearing out. Now, I doubt this was their way to telling the government what they really thought about bad fiscal management. Rather, people probably decided to move to greener pastures in response to the ripple-effect consequences of deficits, like higher taxes, reduced social services, and deteriorating infrastructure.


I suspect that part of the reason I wasn’t able to find any strong connections between those metrics and migration patterns is because there really isn’t all that much migration going on in the first place.

Take Ontario’s record net population loss of 31,018 residents back in 2021. That may sound like a lot of people, but it’s actually just a hair over two-tenths of one percent of the total Ontario population. And even Quebec’s epic 1979 loss of 46,429 people was still nowhere near one percent. It was 0.7117456, to be precise. Those aren’t significant numbers.

When so few people choose to move, it’s probably because there’s nothing on the macro level going on that’s pushing them. Those who do go, probably do it primarily for personal reasons that just won’t show up in population-scale data.

There’s also the very real possibility that Canadians are smart enough to realize that things probably won’t be any better over there than they already are right here. Fewer than two-thirds of one percent of Ontarians left for other provinces in 2023, while only around one-third of a percent gave up on Quebec.

By contrast, annual state-to-state migration figures in the U.S. typically range between 1 percent to 5 percent of each state’s population. In 2022, that added up to 8.2 million people, according to the Census Bureau.

Subscribe to The Audit. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

In the market for bespoke data analysis?

Custom Reports by The Audit

Continue Reading

Business

Bureaucrats are wasting your money faster than you can say “bottoms up!”

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Franco Terrazzano

Bureaucrats in one federal department spent more than $3 million on wine, beer and spirits since 2019.

They’re spending an average of $51,000 a month on booze and sending you the bill.

We really need someone in Ottawa to cut the number of bureaucrats. I’d cheers to that.

All that and more in this week’s Taxpayer Waste Watch.

Franco.


Bottoms up: bureaucrats guzzle down your tax dollars

Working in government is a thirsty profession.

At least, it sure looks that way, seeing as a single federal department billed you for more than $3 million in alcoholic beverages since 2019.

That’s right, Global Affairs Canada ordered up at least $3,311,563 worth of wine, beer and spirits between Jan. 1, 2019, and May 3, 2024.

And then they sent you the bill.

Isn’t that nice?

Sure, you weren’t actually invited to any of their fancy wine tastings or cocktails parties, but you do get the privilege of picking up the drink tab.

All told, alcoholic drink orders from bureaucrats at Global Affairs Canada are costing you an average of $51,000 per month.

And keep in mind: that’s just ONE department.

According to the Government of Canada’s website, there are 213 departments and federal agencies.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation dug up the dirt on Global Affairs Canada’s boozy spending spree by filing an access-to-information request.

To add insult to injury, there’s good reason to suspect this $3.3 million doesn’t reflect the department’s total booze tab.

A Global Affairs Canada bureaucrat (presumably between sips from his rum and coke) told the CTF the department doesn’t track the total amount of your money it spends on alcohol.

So that $3.3 million figure represents their best guess.

In other words, these bureaucrats spent so much of your money on booze they can’t even keep track of it all.

It’s one thing to have a night where things get out of hand and memories are a little hazy. But when you have trouble nailing down five years’ worth of documents, you may have a problem.

At times, the records obtained by the CTF indicate the alcohol was ordered for a specific purpose – such as an official event or reception, or in one case, a $1,024 booze-filled “trivia night.”

But in many cases, the records provide no explanation for the booze orders beyond “bulk alcohol purchase” or “replenishment of wine stock.”

The largest single purchase came in February 2020, when bureaucrats “working” in Washington, D.C., expensed $56,684 in “wine purchases from the special store.”

Orders flown off to bureaucrats in far flung locales like Beijing, Oslo, Tokyo, Moscow and London routinely run into the thousands of dollars per shipment.

On March 19, 2019, bureaucrats in San Jose, California, ordered $8,153 worth of booze.

But apparently those bureaucrats didn’t get their fill…
Just 12 days later, Global Affairs Canada shipped another $2,196 worth of booze to San Jose.

Or take Reykjavik, Iceland, where bureaucrats ordered $8,074 worth of booze on Jan. 23, 2020, only to follow it up with another order for $2,849 less than two months later.

Does anyone remember the days when a $16 orange juice was enough to get a sitting cabinet minister to resign in disgrace?

Well good thing Global Affairs Canada wasn’t there, or it would’ve been a $68 screwdriver.

Continue Reading

Trending

X