National
Media bound to pay the price for selling their freedom to (selectively) offend
I wouldn’t watch, read or listen but freedom of the press means any operator can be whatever it wants to be, even if core journalism principles involving fairness, accuracy, balance and an objective presentation of the news go out the window on a regular basis. Even if it means consistently failing to mention the enormous economic benefits a pipeline could bring to a country facing economic peril. Media are, in other words, free to neglect to mention polls showing widespread public support for pipelines, be really bad at journalism and, as news organizations, drive themselves into financial oblivion and subject themselves to lawsuits. That’s Freedom of the Press.
But the moment you start taking other people’s money to subsidize your (mis)adventures, you are no longer free and will, inevitably, suffer consequences when you realize that freedom comes attached to responsibility. As Bob Dylan famously wrote, it “may be the Devil or it may be the Lord, but you’re gonna have to serve somebody.”
This is what, in my experience, sticks in the craw of most of the Mother Corp’s critics, particularly those in the West. While they don’t seem to mind their local radio stations too much, turning on national TV, as I did last week, only to find Paul Wells (independent), Shannon Proudfoot (Globe and Mail) and Marty Patriquin (The Logic) discussing pipelines with Power and Politics host David Cochrane just doesn’t connect. But those who feel alienated by this sort of experience still have to pay for the privilege of feeling excluded and there never seem to be any consequences for those doing the exclusion. As political scientist and Stephen Harper’s chief of staff Ian Brodie pointed out, “There are lots of people who can provide an informed and grounded interview on tanker traffic. CBC can find these people if they want to.”
But they regularly don’t and, rather than suffering market consequences, they just got an additional $150 million a year in taxpayer funding.
Which brings us to the Toronto Star and its cartoonist, Theo Moudakis, a freelancer, whose work (above) illustrates this newsletter. He is entirely within his rights to depict Prime Minister Mark Carney as a strong and wise adult male. He is equally free to express his opinion of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith as a weak, unsophisticated, infantile female.
I’d say it was risky for the Toronto Star to publish it, particularly when viewing it through a gender lens (we’re still doing that, right?). But it is 100 per cent free to do so. In happier times, those most likely to be offended by it – westerners and their womenfolk – would have never seen it. And the majority of those who did see it – people in downtown Toronto – would have enjoyed a quiet snicker at the expense of the western rubes.
But in modern times the cartoon can be spread for viewing across the country via social media so that journalists like The Free Press’s Rupa Subramanya, Brian Lilley of the Toronto Sun, Chris Selley of National Post and others were expressing alarm.
And, also in modern times, taxpayers in the West – the most likely to take offense from the cartoon – pay to subsidize the Toronto Star, which at last report was losing close to $1 million a week. And, as with the CBC, it’s one thing to feel excluded and mocked, quite another to be forced to pay for the privilege.
The bottom line message to subsidized media? You’re all the CBC now. Those who fund you with their taxes believe you owe them. Conduct yourselves accordingly.
Canadian media’s refusal to report on international developments concerning the use of puberty blockers for teens and children afflicted by gender dysphoria is reaching the point – and I have hesitated to use this word in the past – of full blown censorship. That’s right, a great many of the nation’s newsrooms appear to be intentionally refusing to keep the public fully informed on an issue of grave cultural and medical importance.
Some of you may know, but many of you won’t, that in the wake of the UK’s 2024 Cass Review – which Canadian media did their best to avoid reporting about – New Zealand recently joined the list of countries that have banned puberty blockers for minors.
That’s because while the Kiwi decision was widely reported in the international press, including left-leaning titles such as The Guardian, the sole Canadian coverage of the development that I could find was provided by CTV News, which picked up a Reuters story. Given the controversial nature of transgender policies in Canada, media have an obligation to keep the public up to date on these types of developments. Intentionally avoiding doing so, particularly while supported by taxpayer subsidies, is inexcusable.
I’ve always thought that independent media would benefit from a platform upon which their work could be aggregated and presented to the public as a virtual “newsstand.” To be fair, some of them disagree with me, doubt that such a move would benefit them financially and prefer as much independence as possible. Which is fine.
Nevertheless I thought it worth passing along that independent news platforms in France have recently decided to give this a go. One, le Portail des médias indépendants, aggregates stories from 80 French outlets in an effort to diminish distribution dependence on US social media platforms. The most recent, La Press Libre, involves eight left-leaning publications that decided to create a platform offering access to all of their content for a single monthly fee.
I have no idea if this will work, but it’s encouraging to see attempts to innovate. Good luck to them.
CPAC isn’t exactly a ratings leader but it has been, in my book, the least biased source of broadcast news in the country for some time. It’s primary role, however, is to provide live feeds of Question Period, committee meetings and hearings such as those conducted by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Because it is funded through cable companies that continue to experience declines in revenue, it is running out of money. Last summer it informed the CRTC, which has been putting off practically every broadcasting decision it can while it tries to implement the Online Streaming Act, that unless its wholesale fee increases from 13 cents to 16 cents next year, it won’t be able to meet its obligations.
The CRTC, as it is doing with just about everything these days and often at great cost to those it regulates, decided to boot that decision down the road. Expect more job losses in media as a result.
It’s not often that a foreign nation feels compelled to publicly correct a media outlet for misrepresenting its representative, but that’s exactly what the U.S. Embassy did following a Toronto Star report claiming “Future of trade talks depends on Canada’s purchase of American fighter jets, U.S. ambassador says.”
The U.S. Embassy in Ottawa posted a Correction Notice, complete with video, noting that:
“It has been reported that, during an exchange …. U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra said “the future of Canada-U.S. trade talks depends on how Canada’s review of its decision to buy U.S.-made F-35 fight jets turns out.” As video of the interaction clearly shows, Ambassador Hoekstra did not make this statement.
No, he didn’t, but fear not, faithful readers, it’s time, according to Justin Ling, to:

Ling, renowned for his reporting that “violent extremist groups were deeply involved” in the Freedom Convoy of 2022, has joined the Star as a full-time columnist where he will write twice a week about “big tech oligopolies.” Should be something.
Don’t forget to check out this week’s Full Press podcast in which yours truly, Harrison Lowman and Tara Henley wonder, among other things. what the CBC’s Fifth Estate was thinking with its take on safe supply.
The Rewrite is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)
Energy
Canadians will soon be versed in massive West Coast LPG mega-project
Welcome to the world of REEF
Most Canadians, know who Connor McDavid is.
Most Canadians, know who Connor Bedard is.
And, well … most Canadians know who Howie Mandel is, right?
Household words.
But do any Canadians, know what REEF is? Probably not.
The Ridley Island Energy Export Facility project, a large-scale terminal near Prince Rupert, B.C., being built by AltaGas to export liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and other bulk liquids to global markets.
Did you know it is providing valuable propane to Japan? No, not for barbecues, but for crucial energy demands in the Asian nation.
Japan uses propane (LP gas) for a wide range of purposes, including household use for cooking, water heating, and room heating, as well as for a majority of taxis, industrial applications, and as a raw material for town gas production.
Construction is progressing, with a target startup around the end of 2026. The project involves building significant infrastructure, including large storage tanks.
And it just so happens that Resource Works CEO Stewart Muir, paid a visit this past week to get a close-up look at a part of Canada’s export story that almost nobody talks about: a brand-new accumulator tank built to hold chilled propane and butane.
“It’s the largest of its kind anywhere. Two more are on the way, and together they’ll form a critical piece of the AltaGas Ltd. REEF project,” Muir said in a report.
”What stood out to me is the larger pattern: projects like this only happen because of the crown jewel of the B.C. economy — the Montney Formation.”
“It’s the triple-word-score of Canadian resource development: LNG, valuable natural gas liquids like propane, and the diluent streams that help unlock Canada’s single biggest export category, crude oil.”
Like the oilsands, the industry has long known about the Montney formation, which stretches 130,000 square kilometres in a football-shaped diagonal from northeast British Columbia into northwest Alberta.
According to CBC News, underneath this huge tract of land, the National Energy Board (NEB) estimates there’s 90 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe), most of it natural gas. That’s more than half the size of the oilsands, yet the Montney has received only a fraction of the attention, at least from the public at large.
For oil and gas types, the gold rush is on.
Without question, and despite the ire of green groups who seem to be against any kind of resource development in Canada, the Montney is the quiet force multiplier behind local jobs, municipal tax bases, and the national balance of trade.
And it’s all being done at the highest environmental standard, with producers like Tourmaline Oil Corp already posting a 41% reduction in CO2 emission intensity and a target of 55% less methane emission intensity.
”Congrats to AltaGas for pushing this project forward, and a nod as well to other major employers on the North Coast — Trigon, CN and Pembina, writes Muir.
“Quietly and steadily, they’re building the future prosperity of Canadians. And thanks to Mayor Herb Pond, who took the time to walk us through the regional dynamics that make this corridor such a strategic asset.”
Muir was gobsmacked by the size of the project.
Sources say Alberta’s midstream bottleneck and rapid growth of Shale oil and gas exploration and production, has created an absolute glut in ethane, propane and butane. Ridley Island takes this glut and transports it to the Prince Rupert region by railcar and exports to Asian markets.
Ridley Island’s current export capacity of 92,000 bpd is undergoing aggressive expansion to growth by another 115,000 bpd over the next few years in two more phases of construction.
Recent images detail active construction efforts of the storage, jetty and rail infrastructure.
Alas, every issue that threatens to derail the ambitions of Canada’s oil and gas industry — access to market, First Nations land rights, public acceptance of infrastructure projects and, especially, the climate consequences of burning fossil fuels — is writ large in the Montney.
There are now seven separate lawsuits, and threats of further escalation, centred on claims by the Lax Kw’alaams and Metlakatla First Nations (collectively the Coast Tsimshian) that they were misled and lied to by the Crown when they agreed to developments on their traditional lands at Prince Rupert, John Ivison at the National Post reported.
The dispute over a future propane export facility at the port has spread to other resource projects, and the two First Nations have launched lawsuits against the Ksi Lisims LNG project that was one of the Liberal government’s major projects announced by the prime minister last week.
Further, the conflict threatens to negatively impact any plans Ottawa and the province of Alberta have to build an oil pipeline to the port.
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent announcements giving the green light to Alberta’s oil & gas industry has stirred the energy pot to new levels.
B.C. Premier David Eby — who prides himself on Indigenous virtue signalling — is pissed off. It appears he was largely left out of the loop and he is digging in.
Eby said the B.C. government needs to make sure this pipeline project doesn’t become an “energy vampire.”
“With all of the variables that have yet to be fulfilled — no proponent, no route, no money, no First Nations support — that it cannot draw limited federal resources, limited Indigenous governance resources, limited provincial resources away from the real projects that will employ people,” Eby added.
B.C.’s Coastal First Nations also say they will use “every tool in their toolbox” to keep oil tankers out of the northern coastal waters.
It is now apparent that all roads, or, shall we say, pipelines, lead to Prince Rupert.
The feds now face an imposing uphill battle, to leverage their standing as a regulator and resolve a dispute that threatens Canada’s crucial growth agenda.
— with files from CBC News, National Post
THE MAKICHUK REPORT is free today.
But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell THE MAKICHUK REPORT that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription.
You won’t be charged unless they enable payments.
Food
Canada Still Serves Up Food Dyes The FDA Has Banned
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
Canada is falling behind on food safety by continuing to allow seven synthetic food dyes that the United States and several other jurisdictions are banning due to clear health risks.
The United States is banning nine synthetic food dyes linked to health risks, but Canada is keeping them on store shelves. That’s a mistake.
On April 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced they would ban nine petroleum-based dyes, artificial colourings that give candies, soft drinks and snack foods their bright colours, from U.S. foods before 2028.
The agencies’ directors said the additives presented health risks and offered no nutritional value. In August, the FDA targeted Orange B and Citrus Red No. 2 for even quicker removal.
The good news for Canada is that Orange B was banned here long ago, in 1980, while Citrus Red No. 2 is barely used at all. It is allowed at two parts per million in orange skins. Also, Canada reduced the maximum permitted level for other synthetic dyes following a review in 2016.
The bad news for Canadians is that regulators will keep allowing seven dyes that the U.S. plans to ban, with one possible exception. Health Canada will review Erythrosine (called Red 3 in the U.S.) next year. The FDA banned the substance from cosmetics and drugs applied to the skin in 1990 but waited decades to do the same for food.
All nine dyes targeted by the FDA have shown evidence of tumours in animal studies, often at doses achievable through diet. Over 20 years of meta-analyses also show each dye increases the risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in eight to 10 per cent of children, with a greater risk in mixtures.
At least seven dyes demonstrate broad-spectrum toxicity, especially affecting the liver and kidneys. Several have been found to show estrogenic endocrine effects, triggering female hormones and causing unwanted risks for both males and females. Six dyes have clinical proof of causing DNA damage, while five show microbiome disruption in the gut. One to two per cent of the population is allergic to them, some severely so.
The dyes also carry a risk of dose dependency, or addiction, especially when multiple dyes are combined, a common occurrence in processed foods.
U.S. research suggests the average child consumes 20 to 50 milligrams of synthetic dyes per day, translating to 7.3 to 18.25 kilograms (16.1 to 40.2 pounds) per year. It might be less for Canadian kids now, but eating even a “mere” 20 pounds of synthetic dyes per year doesn’t sound healthy.
It’s debatable how to properly regulate these dyes. Regulators don’t dispute that scientists have found tumours and other problems in rats given large amounts of the dyes. What’s less clear are the implications for humans with typical diets. With so much evidence piling up, some countries have already taken decisive action.
Allura Red (Red 40), slated for removal in the U.S., was previously banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. However, these countries were forced to accept the dye in 2009 when the European Union harmonized its regulations across member countries.
Nevertheless, the E.U. has done what Canada has not and banned Citrus Red No. 2 and Fast Green FCF (Green 3), as have the U.K. and Australia. Unlike Canada, these countries have also restricted the use of Erythrosine (Red 3). And whereas product labels in the E.U. warn that the dyes risk triggering hyperactivity in children, Canadians receive no such warning.
Canadian regulators could defend the status quo, but there’s a strong case for emulating the E.U. in its labelling and bans. Health Canada should expand its review to include the dyes banned by the E.U. and those the U.S. is targeting. Alignment with peers would be good for health and trade, ensuring Canadian manufacturers don’t face export barriers or costly reformulations when selling abroad.
It’s true that natural alternatives present challenges. Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a food policy expert and professor at Dalhousie University, wrote that while natural alternatives, such as curcumin, carotenes, paprika extract, anthocyanins and beet juice, can replace synthetic dyes, “they come with trade-offs: less vibrancy, greater sensitivity to heat and light, and higher costs.”
Regardless, that option may soon look better. The FDA is fast-tracking a review of calcium phosphate, galdieria blue extract, gardenia blue, butterfly pea flower extract and other natural alternatives to synthetic food dyes. Canada should consider doing the same, not only for safety reasons but to add value to its agri-food sector.
Ultimately, we don’t need colour additives in our food at all. They’re an unnecessary cosmetic that disguises what food really is.
Yes, it’s more fun to have a coloured candy or cupcake than not.What’s less fun is cancer, cognitive disorders, leaky gut and hormonal disruptions. Canada must choose.
Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
-
National2 days agoAlleged Liberal vote-buying scandal lays bare election vulnerabilities Canada refuses to fix
-
Addictions2 days agoThe Death We Manage, the Life We Forget
-
Alberta1 day agoNet Zero goal is a fundamental flaw in the Ottawa-Alberta MOU
-
Crime2 days agoVancouver police seize fentanyl and grenade launcher in opioid-overdose crisis zone
-
Food24 hours agoCanada Still Serves Up Food Dyes The FDA Has Banned
-
Daily Caller2 days agoJohn Kerry Lurches Back Onto Global Stage For One Final Gasp
-
National1 day agoEco-radical Canadian Cabinet minister resigns after oil deal approved
-
Addictions1 day agoManitoba Is Doubling Down On A Failed Drug Policy






