Business
Journalists should not be paid by the government
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Author: Kris Sims
Trust in journalism is crumbling while government funding of the media ramps up.
The Trudeau government is currently in a spat with tech giants Google and Facebook which could cost taxpayers big money.
Bill C-18 is forcing internet companies to pay media corporations when links to news stories are posted. In retaliation, the companies are vowing to block news links from their services.
The brass from media companies say if their news links are banned, they will lose out on millions of dollars.
What happens if Big Tech refuses to pay?
This Trudeau government is eager to have a place in the newsrooms of the nation.
“We have to make sure that newsrooms are open, that (journalists) are able to do their job and (they) have the resources necessary,” Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez told reporters.
In government speak “resources” means taxpayers’ money.
It’s time to set out a fundamental truth: having the government sign the paycheques of journalists who are supposed to impartially cover that very same government is a massive conflict of interest.
Columnist Andrew Coyne penned it well back in 2019 when the so-called media bailout was first being hatched:
“Taking money from the people we cover will place us in a permanent and inescapable conflict of interest; that it will produce newspapers concerned less with appealing to readers than to grantsmen.”
Fast forward four years and those media bailout deals are coming up for renewal, with the funding set to run out at the end of the fiscal year.
According to the heritage minister wielding the taxpayer piggybank, it sounds like more government-funded media is on the way.
That’s the last thing we need.
The CBC already gets more than $1.2 billion in taxpayers’ money every year and the feds budgeted $595 million for the media bailout over the past four years.
This means taxpayers have poured about $5.3 billion into the CBC and private-sector newsrooms over the last four years.
That kind of money would buy a year’s worth of groceries for about 350,000 families. It could cover the annual income tax bill of more than 380,000 people – about the population of London, Ontario. It could buy about 7,400 homes.
This government-funded media scheme isn’t just a waste of money, and it’s not just a conflict of interest – it also isn’t supported by Canadians.
More than 59 per cent of Canadians surveyed said the government should not fund newsrooms “because it compromises journalistic independence.”
That “journalistic independence” is an endangered species.
A Trudeau government committee is deciding what a journalist is, what a qualified newsroom is and the government is paying journalists.
The term “free press” doesn’t mean newspapers were free to take off a newsstand. It means the press is free from government influence and censorship.
Journalists should not be paid by the government. Newsrooms should rely on money from advertising, subscriptions and free-will donations from people who support them.
Under Trudeau’s bailout program newsroom employees get 25 per cent of their salaries covered by the government, up to a maximum of $13,750 per person.
Imagine being a journalist and knowing a big chunk of your paycheque is covered by the same government you are covering.
That’s like referees saying they can call the game fairly while also making bets.
Even the perception of corruption or bias erodes trust and a majority of Canadians have lost trust in journalists.
According to a longstanding survey that gauges trust, 61 per cent of Canadians think “journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.”
Most Canadians now think journalists are trying to mislead them on purpose.
For journalists who believe their craft is a calling and that speaking truth to power is a nearly sacred task, that distrust is very tough to hear.
But we must listen. We can’t afford not to.
Kris Sims is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and a former longtime member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.
Business
Parliamentary Budget Officer begs Carney to cut back on spending
PBO slices through Carney’s creative accounting
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to cut spending following today’s bombshell Parliamentary Budget Officer report that criticizes the government’s definition of capital spending and promise to balance the operating budget.
“The reality is that Carney is continuing on a course of unaffordable borrowing and the PBO report shows government messaging about ‘balancing the operating budget’ is not credible,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Carney is using creative accounting to hide the spiralling debt.”
Carney’s Budget 2025 splits the budget into operating and capital spending and promises to balance the operating budget by 2028-29.
However, today’s PBO budget report states that Carney’s definition of capital spending is “overly expansive.” Without using that “overly expansive” definition of capital spending, the government would run an $18 billion operating deficit in 2028-29, according to the PBO.
“Based on our definition, capital investments would total $217.3 billion over 2024-25 to 2029-30, which is approximately 30 per cent ($94 billion) lower compared to Budget 2025,” according to the PBO. “Moreover, based on our definition, the operating balance in Budget 2025 would remain in a deficit position over 2024-25 to 2029-30.”
The PBO states that the Carney government is using “a definition of capital investment that expands beyond the current treatment in the Public Accounts and international practice.” The report specifically points out that “by including corporate income tax expenditures, investment tax credits and operating (production) subsidies, the framework blends policy measures with capital formation.”
The federal government plans to borrow about $80 billion this year, according to Budget 2025. Carney has no plan stop borrowing money and balance the budget. Debt interest charges will cost taxpayers $55.6 billion this year, which is more than the federal government will send to the provinces in health transfers ($54.7 billion) or collect through the GST ($54.4 billion).
“Carney isn’t balancing anything when he borrows tens of billions of dollars every year,” Terrazzano said. “Instead of applying creative accounting to the budget numbers, Carney needs to cut spending and debt.”
Business
Carney government needs stronger ‘fiscal anchors’ and greater accountability
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill and Grady Munro
Following the recent release of the Carney government’s first budget, Fitch Ratings (one of the big three global credit rating agencies) issued a warning that the “persistent fiscal expansion” outlined in the budget—characterized by high levels of spending, borrowing and debt accumulation—will erode the health of Canada’s finances and could lead to a downgrade in Canada’s credit rating.
Here’s why this matters. Canada’s credit rating impacts the federal government’s cost of borrowing money. If the government’s rating gets downgraded—meaning Canadian federal debt is viewed as an increasingly risky investment due to fiscal mismanagement—it will likely become more expensive for the government to borrow money, which ultimately costs taxpayers.
The cost of borrowing (i.e. the interest paid on government debt) is a significant part of the overall budget. This year, the federal government will spend a projected $55.6 billion on debt interest, which is more than one in every 10 dollars of federal revenue, and more than the government will spend on health-care transfers to the provinces. By 2029/30, interest costs will rise to a projected $76.1 billion or more than one in every eight dollars of revenue. That’s taxpayer money unavailable for programs and services.
Again, if Canada’s credit rating gets downgraded, these costs will grow even larger.
To maintain a good credit rating, the government must prevent the deterioration of its finances. To do this, governments establish and follow “fiscal anchors,” which are fiscal guardrails meant to guide decisions regarding spending, taxes and borrowing.
Effective fiscal anchors ensure governments manage their finances so the debt burden remains sustainable for future generations. Anchors should be easily understood and broadly applied so that government cannot get creative with its accounting to only technically abide by the rule, but still give the government the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. For example, a commonly-used rule by many countries (including Canada in the past) is a ceiling/target for debt as a share of the economy.
The Carney government’s budget establishes two new fiscal anchors: balancing the federal operating budget (which includes spending on day-to-day operations such as government employee compensation) by 2028/29, and maintaining a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio over the years to come, which means gradually reducing the size of the deficit relative to the economy. Unfortunately, these anchors will fail to keep federal finances from deteriorating.
For instance, the government’s plan to balance the “operating budget” is an example of creative accounting that won’t stop the government from borrowing money each year. Simply put, the government plans to split spending into two categories: “operating spending” and “capital investment” —which includes any spending or tax expenditures (e.g. credits and deductions) that relates to the production of an asset (e.g. machinery and equipment)—and will only balance operating spending against revenues. As a result, when the government balances its operating budget in 2028/29, it will still incur a projected deficit of $57.9 billion when spending on capital is included.
Similarly, the government’s plan to reduce the size of the annual deficit relative to the economy each year does little to prevent debt accumulation. This year’s deficit is expected to equal 2.5 per cent of the overall economy—which, since 2000, is the largest deficit (as a share of the economy) outside of those run during the 2008/09 financial crisis and the pandemic. By measuring its progress off of this inflated baseline, the government will technically abide by its anchor even as it runs relatively large deficits each and every year.
Moreover, according to the budget, total federal debt will grow faster than the economy, rising from a projected 73.9 per cent of GDP in 2025/26 to 79.0 per cent by 2029/30, reaching a staggering $2.9 trillion that year. Simply put, even the government’s own fiscal plan shows that its fiscal anchors are unable to prevent an unsustainable rise in government debt. And that’s assuming the government can even stick to these anchors—which, according to a new report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is highly unlikely.
Unfortunately, a federal government that can’t stick to its own fiscal anchors is nothing new. The Trudeau government made a habit of abandoning its fiscal anchors whenever the going got tough. Indeed, Fitch Ratings highlighted this poor track record as yet another reason to expect federal finances to continue deteriorating, and why a credit downgrade may be on the horizon. Again, should that happen, Canadian taxpayers will pay the price.
Much is riding on the Carney government’s ability to restore Canada’s credibility as a responsible fiscal manager. To do this, it must implement stronger fiscal rules than those presented in the budget, and remain accountable to those rules even when it’s challenging.
-
Daily Caller2 days agoLaura Ingraham’s Viral Clash With Trump Prompts Her To Tell Real Reasons China Sends Students To US
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day agoRichmond Mayor Warns Property Owners That The Cowichan Case Puts Their Titles At Risk
-
armed forces2 days agoCanadian veteran says she knows at least 20 service members who were offered euthanasia
-
Business1 day agoSluggish homebuilding will have far-reaching effects on Canada’s economy
-
Business1 day agoMark Carney Seeks to Replace Fiscal Watchdog with Loyal Lapdog
-
National2 days agoConservative bill would increase penalties for attacks on places of worship in Canada
-
Censorship Industrial Complex18 hours agoEU’s “Democracy Shield” Centralizes Control Over Online Speech
-
Alberta2 days agoHow economic corridors could shape a stronger Canadian future



