Trudeau gov’t fall economic statement includes massive payouts to legacy media ahead of election

The subsidies for legacy media come as Canadians’ trust in mainstream media is polling at an all-time low

The federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s fall economic statement includes massive payouts for mainstream media outlets ahead of and after the 2025 election.

On November 21, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland delivered the Liberal Government’s Fall Economic Statement in the House of Commons, which includes legacy media subsidies which will cost taxpayers $129 million over the next five years.

“To ensure a strong and independent press can continue to thrive in Canada the Fall Economic Statement proposes to enhance the Canadian journalism labour tax credit,” the Department of Finance wrote.

Beginning in 2019, Parliament changed the Income Tax Act to give yearly rebates of 25 percent for each news employee in cabinet-approved media outlets earning up to $55,000 a year, to a maximum of $13,750.

However, the Canadian Heritage Department since admitted that the payouts are not sufficient to keep legacy media outlets running. The department recommended that rebates be doubled next year to a maximum $29,750 annually.

This suggestion was adopted by the Trudeau government in the Fall Economic Statement, which increased the rebates to 35 percent on newsroom salaries up to $85,000, totaling a maximum rebate of $29,750. The temporary tax credit is set to apply for the next four years.

While media subsidies were to set to expire March 31, 2024, they have now been expanded to 2029 past the next general election. The increased payouts are expected to cost taxpayer $129 million in the next five years and an additional $10 million for every subsequent year.

The Trudeau government’s decision has been roundly condemned by Canadians on social media, many of whom are pointing to it as Trudeau’s attempt to make up for the failure of Bill C-18.

Bill C-18, the Online News Act, was projected to increase legacy media revenue by forcing Big Tech companies to pay to publish Canadian content on their platforms.

“This is just a massive bailout using public dollars for the government’s blunder on Bill C-18,” Canadian academic and law professor Michael Geist wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “News outlets could previously claim a max of $13,750 per employee. That now increases to $29,750 or by 116%.”

Note that this is retroactive as it applies to expenditures from the start of the year. It’s a $60M gift to the news sector, to off-set the lost revenues due to its own legislation. So the industry lobbied for Bill C-18 and then lobbied for a bailout.https://t.co/XpccVcyRTy

— Michael Geist (@mgeist) November 21, 2023

“Note that this is retroactive as it applies to expenditures from the start of the year,” he added. “It’s a $60M gift to the news sector, to off-set the lost revenues due to its own legislation. So the industry lobbied for Bill C-18 and then lobbied for a bailout.”

Similarly, Canadian politician and CEO of the Western Standard Derek Fildebrandt said, “Ottawa is turning journalism into little better than supply-managed dairy farming. It is quickly becoming impossible to run a media company of any scale without taking the damned bailout money.”

They pass legislation devastating our ability to grow revenues, shrug their shoulders after we told them 100 times this is exactly what would happen, and propose to simply cut more bailout cheques. https://t.co/vMRLfE9CLC

— Derek Fildebrandt (@Dfildebrandt) November 21, 2023

Additionally, Royal Canadian Air Force Veteran Rex Glacer pointed out that thanks to the payouts, “Legacy media is now nothing but employees of the Liberal Party of Canada whose job is to help Trudeau win the next election, congratulations on your pay raises!”

Legacy media is now nothing but employees of the Liberal Party of Canada whose job is to help Trudeau win the next election, congratulations on your pay raises! https://t.co/26k925AlvI

— Rex Glacer (@rexglacer) November 22, 2023

The renewed media bailouts come as trust in mainstream media is polling at an all-time low with Canadians.

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

Large mainstream media outlets and “journalists” working for them scored a “high trust” rating of only 18 percent. This was followed by only 12 percent of people saying they trusted “ordinary people,” with celebrities garnering only an eight percent “trust” rating.

Up Next

Trudeau launches assault on property rights to answer housing shortage

Don't Miss

Canada may not be broken but Ottawa is definitely broke: Jack Mintz

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

CDC’s Autism Reversal: Inside the Collapse of a 25‑Year Public Health Narrative

Health / 27 mins ago

BREAKING: CDC quietly rewrites its vaccine–autism guidance

espionage / 9 hours ago

Trump: “I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!”

Business

Canada is failing dismally at our climate goals. We’re also ruining our economy.

Published on November 20, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Short-term climate pledges simply chase deadlines, not results

The annual meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties, or COP, which is dedicated to implementing international action on climate change, is now underway in Brazil. Like other signatories to the Paris Agreement, Canada is required to provide a progress update on our pledge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. After decades of massive government spending and heavy-handed regulations aimed at decarbonizing our economy, we’re far from achieving that goal. It’s time for Canada to move past arbitrary short-term goals and deadlines, and instead focus on more effective ways to support climate objectives.

Since signing the Paris Agreement in 2015, the federal government has introduced dozens of measures intended to reduce Canada’s carbon emissions, including more than $150 billion in “green economy” spending, the national carbon tax, the arbitrary cap on emissions imposed exclusively on the oil and gas sector, stronger energy efficiency requirements for buildings and automobiles, electric vehicle mandates, and stricter methane regulations for the oil and gas industry.

Recent estimates show that achieving the federal government’s target will impose significant costs on Canadians, including 164,000 job losses and a reduction in economic output of 6.2 per cent by 2030 (compared to a scenario where we don’t have these measures in place). For Canadian workers, this means losing $6,700 (each, on average) annually by 2030.

Yet even with all these costly measures, Canada will only achieve 57 per cent of its goal for emissions reductions. Several studies have already confirmed that Canada, despite massive green spending and heavy-handed regulations to decarbonize the economy over the past decade, remains off track to meet its 2030 emission reduction target.

And even if Canada somehow met its costly and stringent emission reduction target, the impact on the Earth’s climate would be minimal. Canada accounts for less than 2 per cent of global emissions, and that share is projected to fall as developing countries consume increasing quantities of energy to support rising living standards. In 2025, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), emerging and developing economies are driving 80 per cent of the growth in global energy demand. Further, IEA projects that fossil fuels will remain foundational to the global energy mix for decades, especially in developing economies. This means that even if Canada were to aggressively pursue short-term emission reductions and all the economic costs it would imposes on Canadians, the overall climate results would be negligible.

Rather than focusing on arbitrary deadline-contingent pledges to reduce Canadian emissions, we should shift our focus to think about how we can lower global GHG emissions. A recent study showed that doubling Canada’s production of liquefied natural gas and exporting to Asia to displace an equivalent amount of coal could lower global GHG emissions by about 1.7 per cent or about 630 million tonnes of GHG emissions. For reference, that’s the equivalent to nearly 90 per cent of Canada’s annual GHG emissions. This type of approach reflects Canada’s existing strength as an energy producer and would address the fastest-growing sources of emissions, namely developing countries.

As the 2030 deadline grows closer, even top climate advocates are starting to emphasize a more pragmatic approach to climate action. In a recent memo, Bill Gates warned that unfounded climate pessimism “is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.” Even within the federal ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the tone is shifting. Despite the 2030 emissions goal having been a hallmark of Canadian climate policy in recent years, in a recent interview, Minister Julie Dabrusin declined to affirm that the 2030 targets remain feasible.

Instead of scrambling to satisfy short-term national emissions limits, governments in Canada should prioritize strategies that will reduce global emissions where they’re growing the fastest.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Artificial Intelligence

Lawsuit Claims Google Secretly Used Gemini AI to Scan Private Gmail and Chat Data

Published on November 19, 2025

Todayville

By Ken Macon

Whether the claims are true or not, privacy in Google’s universe has long been less a right than a nostalgic illusion.

When Google flipped a digital switch in October 2025, few users noticed anything unusual.

Gmail loaded as usual, Chat messages zipped across screens, and Meet calls continued without interruption.

Yet, according to a new class action lawsuit, something significant had changed beneath the surface.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

Plaintiffs claim that Google silently activated its artificial intelligence system, Gemini, across its communication platforms, turning private conversations into raw material for machine analysis.

The lawsuit, filed by Thomas Thele and Melo Porter, describes a scenario that reads like a breach of trust.

It accuses Google of enabling Gemini to “access and exploit the entire recorded history of its users’ private communications, including literally every email and attachment sent and received.”

The filing argues that the company’s conduct “violates its users’ reasonable expectations of privacy.”

Until early October, Gemini’s data processing was supposedly available only to those who opted in.

Then, the plaintiffs claim, Google “turned it on for everyone by default,” allowing the system to mine the contents of emails, attachments, and conversations across Gmail, Chat, and Meet.

The complaint points to a particular line in Google’s settings, “When you turn this setting on, you agree,” as misleading, since the feature “had already been switched on.”

This, according to the filing, represents a deliberate misdirection designed to create the illusion of consent where none existed.

There is a certain irony woven through the outrage. For all the noise about privacy, most users long ago accepted the quiet trade that powers Google’s empire.

They search, share, and store their digital lives inside Google’s ecosystem, knowing the company thrives on data.

The lawsuit may sound shocking, but for many, it simply exposes what has been implicit all along: if you live in Google’s world, privacy has already been priced into the convenience.

Thele warns that Gemini’s access could expose “financial information and records, employment information and records, religious affiliations and activities, political affiliations and activities, medical care and records, the identities of his family, friends, and other contacts, social habits and activities, eating habits, shopping habits, exercise habits, [and] the extent to which he is involved in the activities of his children.”

In other words, the system’s reach, if the allegations prove true, could extend into nearly every aspect of a user’s personal life.

The plaintiffs argue that Gemini’s analytical capabilities allow Google to “cross-reference and conduct unlimited analysis toward unmerited, improper, and monetizable insights” about users’ private relationships and behaviors.

The complaint brands the company’s actions as “deceptive and unethical,” claiming Google “surreptitiously turned on this AI tracking ‘feature’ without informing or obtaining the consent of Plaintiffs and Class Members.” Such conduct, it says, is “highly offensive” and “defies social norms.”

The case invokes a formidable set of statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Stored Communications Act, and California’s constitutional right to privacy.

Google is yet to comment on the filing.