Government surrenders to Google: Peter Menzies

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Peter Menzies

In the short term, this is very good news. The bad news is that $100 million won’t save journalism

Heritage Minister Pascale St. Onge has surrendered to Google and Canadian media have avoided what would have been a catastrophic exclusion from the web giant’s search engine.

In the short term, this is very good news. The bureaucrats at Heritage must have performed many administrative contortions to find the words needed in the Online News Act’s final regulations to satisfy Google, a beast which isn’t easily soothed. In doing so, they have managed to avoid what Google was threatening — to de-index news links from its search engine and other platforms in Canada. Given that Meta had already dropped the carriage of news on Facebook and Instagram in response to the same legislation, Google’s departure would have constituted a kill shot to the industry.

Instead, the news business will get $100 million in Google cash. For this, all its members will now fight like so many pigeons swarming an errant crust of bread.

The agreement will also allow the government, while surrounded by an industry whose reputation and economics have been devastated by this policy debacle, to attempt to declare victory. Signs of that are already evident.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that while 100 million bucks is nothing to sneeze at, in the grand scheme of things it is a drop in the bucket for an industry in need of at least a billion dollars if it is to recover any sense of stability. Indeed, when News Media Canada first began begging the government to go after Google and Meta for cash, some involved were selling the idea that sort of loot was possible.

This did not turn out to be so.

Instead of the $100,000 per journo cashapalooza that was once hoped for, the final tally will be more like $6,666.00 per ink-stained wretch.

That figure is based on two assumptions. The first is that the government has agreed to satisfy Google’s desire to pay a single sum to a single defined industry “collective” that would then divide the loot on a per-FTE (full-time employee) basis to everyone granted membership in the industry’s bargaining group. Google had made it clear it had no interest in conducting multiple negotiations and exposing itself to endless and costly arbitrations. So, as we have a deal and Google held all the cards, it’s fair to assume it got what it wanted — a single collective with a single agreement and a single cheque.

The outcome, in the end, (and the government will deny this endlessly) is essentially what Google was offering from the outset and what Konrad von Finckenstein and I had recommended in our policy paper for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute — a fund.

Now comes the haggling within the collective: who counts as a journalism FTE? Newsroom editors, photogs, camera operators, graphic artists, illustrators, support staff, and so on?

The second assumption is that this fund will be distributed across about 15,000 media workers nationwide. But whether that number turns out to be 15,000 or 5,000, here’s what really matters:

Such an agreement is likely to bring an end to Google’s existing commercial agreements — at least with those organizations that join the collective. That means the incremental amount of cash coming into the industry once its internal negotiations have been completed could be somewhat less than $100 million. How much less would be pure speculation, but individual agreements certainly exist — with the Star, for example, and also with Postmedia. Or at least they did.

The largest beneficiaries — because they have the most journalists — will almost certainly be the CBC/SRC, Bell Media and Rogers, none of which actually need the money, and that may also convince the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to shake down foreign streamers to subsidize their newsrooms.

Just for reference, Bell Media’s parent company made $10 billion last year.

With 75 per cent of the dollars predicted to go to broadcasters, that leaves those organizations in the most dire financial circumstances — Postmedia and the Toronto Star for example — with about $25 million to fight over. So, the scraps will go to the starving (the Star has suggested it is losing close to a million dollars a week) while the healthy will be even more well fed.

And of course none of this means Meta, which had estimated that on top of the $18 million it provided to Canadian journalism directly via now-cancelled deals, it also once drove more than $200 million in business annually to Canadian news organizations, will get back in the business of carrying news. If we assume that was the case, the final impact of the Online News Act amounts to revenue losses to the nation’s news industry of something north of $100 million, likely closer to $150 million.

It also means that those smaller startup news organizations that may have represented the industry’s best chance to transition to the digital world no longer have access to Facebook or Instagram, which constituted a free platform through which they could launch and market their ventures.

The bottom line is that lobbyists for Canada’s news industry, in concert with the government, launched the Online News Act in the belief it would make the industry better off by as much as $600 million and no less than $230 million. The end result is an industry at least $100 million worse off and with severely reduced access to the eyeballs needed to survive.

Well played, everyone. Well played.

Peter Menzies is a senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, past vice-chair of the CRTC and a former newspaper publisher.

Up Next

Ireland vows to crack down on ‘hate speech’ after knife attack by Algerian immigrant

Don't Miss

Federal government clearly misstates its economic record

Todayville

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

The Conventional Energy Sector and Pipelines Will Feature Prominently in Alberta’s Referendum Debate

Business / 1 hour ago

Pension and Severance Estimate for 110 MP’s Who Resigned or Were Defeated in 2025 Federal Election

Alberta / 2 hours ago

Why Some Albertans Say Separation Is the Only Way

Business

Pension and Severance Estimate for 110 MP’s Who Resigned or Were Defeated in 2025 Federal Election

Published on May 21, 2025

Todayville

By Franco Terrazzano

Taxpayers Federation releases pension and severance figures for 2025 federal election

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released its calculations of estimated pension and severance payments paid to the 110 members of Parliament who were either defeated in the federal election or did not seek re-election.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t feel too bad for the politicians who lost the election because they’ll be cashing big severance or pension cheques,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Thanks to past pension reforms, taxpayers will not have to shoulder as much of the burden as they used to. But there’s more work to do to make politician pay affordable for taxpayers.”

Defeated or retiring MPs will collect about $5 million in annual pension payments, reaching a cumulative total of about $187 million by age 90. In addition, about $6.6 million in severance cheques will be issued to some former MPs.

Former prime minister Justin Trudeau will collect two taxpayer-funded pensions in retirement. Combined, those pensions total $8.4 million, according to CTF estimates. Trudeau is also taking a $104,900 severance payout because he did not run again as an MP.

The payouts for Trudeau’s MP pension will begin at $141,000 per year when he turns 55 years old. It will total an estimated $6.5 million should he live to the age of 90. The payouts for Trudeau’s prime minister pension will begin at $73,000 per year when he turns 67 years old. It will total an estimated $1.9 million should he live to the age of 90.

“Taxpayers need to see leadership at the top and that means reforming pensions and ending the pay raises MPs take every year,” Terrazzano said. “A prime minister already takes millions through their first pension, they shouldn’t be billing taxpayers more for their second pension.

“The government must end the second pension for all future prime ministers.”

There are 13 former MPs that will collect more than $100,000-plus a year in pension income. The pension and severance calculations for each defeated or retired MP can be found here.

Some notable severance / pensions

Name Party Years as MP Severance Annual Starting Pension Pension to Age 90

Bergeron, Stéphane BQ 17.6 $ 99,000.00 $ 4,440,000.00

Boissonnault, Randy LPC 7.6 $ 44,200.00 $ 53,000.00 $ 2,775,000.00

Dreeshen, Earl CPC 16.6 $ $ 95,000.00 $ 1,938,000.00

Mendicino, Marco * LPC 9.4 $ 66,000.00 $ 3,586,000.00

O’Regan, Seamus LPC 9.5 $ 104,900.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 3,927,000.00

Poilievre, Pierre ** CPC 20.8 $ 136,000.00 $ 7,087,000.00

Singh, Jagmeet NDP 6.2 $ 140,300.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 2,694,000.00

Trudeau, Justin *** LPC 16.6 $ 104,900.00 $ 141,000.00 $ 8,400,000.00

* Marco Mendicino resigned as an MP on March 14th, 2025

** Pierre Poilievre announced that he would not take a severance

*** The Pension to Age 90 includes Trudeau’s MP pension and his secondary Prime Minister’s pension

Business

New fiscal approach necessary to reduce Ottawa’s mountain of debt

Published on May 21, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Apparently, despite a few days of conflicting statements from the government, the Carney government now plans to table a budget in the fall. If the new prime minister wants to reduce Ottawa’s massive debt burden, which Canadians ultimately bear, he must begin to work now to reduce spending.

According to the federal government’s latest projections, from 2014/15 to 2024/25 total federal debt is expected to double from $1.1 trillion to a projected $2.2 trillion. That means $13,699 in new federal debt for every Canadian (after adjusting for inflation). In addition, from 2020 to 2023, the Trudeau government recorded the four highest years of total federal debt per person (inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history.

How did this happen?

From 2018 to 2023, the government recorded the six highest levels of program spending (inflation-adjusted, on a per-person basis) in Canadian history—even after excluding emergency spending during COVID. Consequently, in 2024/25 Ottawa will run its tenth consecutive budget deficit since 2014/15.

Of course, Canadians bear the burden of this free-spending approach. For example, over the last several years federal debt interest payments have more than doubled to an expected $53.7 billion this year. That’s more than the government plans to spend on health-care transfers to the provinces. And it’s money unavailable for programs including social services.

In the longer term, government debt accumulation can limit economic growth by pushing up interest rates. Why? Because governments compete with individuals, families and businesses for the savings available for borrowing, and this competition puts upward pressure on interest rates. Higher interest rates deter private investment in the Canadian economy—a necessary ingredient for economic growth—and hurt Canadian living standards.

Given these costs, the Carney government should take a new approach to fiscal policy and begin reducing Ottawa’s mountain of debt.

According to both history and research, the most effective and least economically harmful way to achieve this is to reduce government spending and balance the budget, as opposed to raising taxes. While this approach requires tough decisions, which may be politically unpopular in some quarters, worthwhile goals are rarely easy and the long-term gain will exceed the short-term pain. Indeed, a recent study by Canadian economist Bev Dahlby found the long-term economic benefits of a 12-percentage point reduction in debt (as a share of GDP) substantially outweighs the short-term costs.

Unfortunately, while Canadians must wait until the fall for a federal budget, the Carney government’s election platform promises to add—not subtract—from Ottawa’s mountain of debt and from 2025/26 to 2028/29 run annual deficits every year of at least $47.8 billion. In total, these planned deficits represent $224.8 billion in new government debt over the next four years, and there’s currently no plan to balance the budget. This represents a continuation of the Trudeau government’s approach to rack up debt and behave irresponsibly with federal finances.

With a new government on Parliament Hill, now is the time for federal policymakers to pursue the long-ignored imperative of reducing government debt. Clearly, if the Carney government wants to prioritize debt reduction, it must rethink its fiscal plan and avoid repeating the same mistakes of its predecessor.