From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Trudeau’s Online News Act, framed as a way to support local media, has hurt small media outlets while giving massive payouts to legacy media, a study has found.

According to a new study, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Online News Act has successfully crushed local media outlets while mainstream media has remained relatively unaffected.  

According to an April study from the Media Ecosystem Observatory, Trudeau’s Online News Act, also known as Bill C-18, has caused a 84 percent drop in engagement for local Canadian outlets, as Big Tech company Meta – the parent company of Facebook and Instagram – has refused to publish links to Canadian news outlets on their platforms.  

“We lost 70 per cent of our audience when that happened,” Iain Burns, the managing editor of Now Media Group, which manages news posts for outlets serving smaller communities, revealed. He further explained that he experienced a 50 percent loss in revenue following the move. 

“We’re not the only ones. Many, many outlets are in this situation,” Burns added.

The Online News Act, passed by the Senate in June 2023, mandates that Big Tech companies pay to publish Canadian content on their platforms. While the legislation promised to support local media, it has seemingly accomplished the opposite.  

While Meta has blocked all news on its platforms, devastating small publishers, Google agreed to pay Canadian legacy media outlets $100 million to publish their content online. 

The study, a collaboration between the University of Toronto and McGill University, examined the 987 Facebook pages of Canadian news outlets, 183 personal pages of politicians, commentators and advocacy groups, and 589 political and local community groups.  

“The ban undoubtedly had a major impact on Canadian news,” the study found.  

The study found a 84 percent drop in engagement for Canadian outlets, with small local news outlets being the most affected compared to larger government-funded outlets.  

“Local news outlets have been particularly affected by the ban: while large, national news outlets were less reliant on Facebook for visibility and able to recoup some of their Facebook engagement regardless, hundreds of local news outlets have left the platform entirely, effectively gutting the visibility of local news content,” it explained.   

However, LifeSiteNews has been relatively unaffected by the ban as viewership on its official Facebook page has remained relatively the same, similar to its Instagram account since most views already came from the United States.  

Similarly unaffected was Meta: “We find little evidence that Facebook usage has been impacted by the ban.”  

“After the ban took effect, the collapse of Canadian news content production and engagement on Facebook did not appear to substantially affect users themselves,” the study said.  

While local media outlets’ viewership has declined thanks to Trudeau’s new legislation, larger media outlets have thrived due to increased payouts from the Trudeau government.  

Legacy media journalists are projected to have roughly half of their salaries paid by the Liberal government after the $100 million Google agreement and the subsidies outlined in the Fall Economic Statement.  

Mainstream Canadian media had already received massive federal payouts, but they have nearly doubled after Trudeau announced increased subsidies for legacy media outlets ahead of the 2025 election. The subsidies are expected to cost taxpayers $129 million over the next five years.   

However, just as government payouts increase, Canadians’ trust in mainstream media has decreased. Recent polling found that only one-third of Canadians consider mainstream media trustworthy and balanced.   

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

From the Fraser Institute

Authors: Grady Munro Jake Fuss

In 2024/25 the federal government now expects to pay $54.1 billion in debt interest, or $1,331 per Canadian, which is $2.0 billion more than it plans to spend on health care transfers to provinces.

In the foreword of the Trudeau government’s recent budget, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland declared that, “it would be irresponsible and unfair to pass on more debt to the next generations.” Minister Freeland is absolutely right—if only she had listened to her own advice.

Fairness was the purported theme of this federal budget and nearly every new policy is presented as something that will help make life fairer for Canadians—especially younger generations. But the glaring contradiction is that partly due to all of the new spending on these policies, the Trudeau government is doing the very thing it admits is “unfair” and saddling future generations with hundreds of billions in added debt.

By 2027/28, the Trudeau government plans to add $395.6 billion to the total (gross) amount of debt held federally, which is $180.0 billion more than it planned to add just last spring. Overall, gross debt is projected to increase by nearly 20 per cent over the next four years. Adjusting for population growth and inflation during this period, by the end of 2027/28 every Canadian will be responsible for $2,301 more in gross federal debt than they are currently.

Much of this added debt stems from the introduction of new programs, which have caused federal program spending (total spending minus debt interest) over the next four years to be an expected $77.2 billion higher than was forecasted last spring. And though the Trudeau government will increase capital gains taxes to try and pay for this new spending, much of the new spending will still be financed through borrowing. Indeed, combined deficits from 2024/25 to 2027/28 are $44.7 billion higher than forecasted in last year’s budget, and there is no balanced budget in sight at all.

The problem with accumulating substantial amounts of debt, and why Minister Freeland is right when she asserts that it’s “irresponsible and unfair,” is that a growing government debt burden imposes costs on Canadians now and in the future.

One of the most important consequences of government debt are debt interest payments. These interest payments represent taxpayer dollars that don’t go towards any programs or services for Canadians, and have grown to impose a significant burden on federal finances. Specifically, in 2024/25 the federal government now expects to pay $54.1 billion in debt interest, or $1,331 per Canadian, which is $2.0 billion more than it plans to spend on health care transfers to provinces.

While debt interest costs represent a more immediate impact, debt accumulated today must also ultimately be paid for by future generations, again in the form of higher taxes. In fact, research suggests that this effect may be disproportionate, with one dollar borrowed today needing to be paid back by more than one dollar in future taxes.

One study estimates that Canadians aged 16 can expect to pay the equivalent of $29,663 over their lifetime in additional personal income taxes as a consequence of rising federal debt. Older age groups shoulder a much smaller burden in comparison. A 65-year-old can expect to pay $2,433 over their lifetime in additional personal income taxes due to rising federal debt.

The outsized burden of federal debt borne by younger generations of Canadians is hardly what any reasonable person would consider “fair.”

For all its talk about fairness and helping the next generation of Canadians, the Trudeau government’s incessant spending and substantial debt accumulation will simply result in young Canadians paying disproportionately higher taxes in the future. Does that seem fair to you?

Authors: Grady Munro Jake Fuss