Business
Trudeau gov’t suggests federal funding of media outlets an attempt to buy ‘social cohesion’

From LifeSiteNews
The Liberal-run Heritage Department is backing a program that offers 100% payroll rebates for mainstream journalists.
Canadian Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge’s department admitted that federally funded media outlets buy “social cohesion.”
According to information obtained October 7 by Blacklock’s Reporter, the Canadian Association of Journalists praised a program from Canada’s Heritage Department, run by the Liberal St-Onge, that offers 100% payroll rebates for mainstream journalists.
“The crisis in local journalism is a threat to social cohesion,” the report claimed, failing to explain what it meant by “social cohesion.”
The report praised the Local Journalism Initiative and the rebates for mainstream media up to $19.6 million annually, effectively making federally funded journalists government employees.
“The Local Journalism Initiative contributes to social cohesion by having journalists tell stories about and for communities,” the report continued. “Local journalism helps to preserve a sense of community identity and social cohesion.”
“Local journalism relays information that has an impact on the daily lives of readers and reports on the political and social situation,” it claimed.
“It strengthens the reader’s connection to a community, emphasizing their role as a citizen in a democracy,” the report continued. “With the ever-increasing influx of digital information, local journalism is of paramount importance in the life of a community.”
While the report failed to explain exactly what “social cohesion” means, media funded by the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has become infamous for propping up the Liberals while tearing down any opposition to the party or its radical agendas.
In fact, in September, House leader Karina Gould directed mainstream media reporters to “scrutinize” Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, who has repeatedly condemned government-funded media as being an arm of the Liberals.
Gould’s comments were in reference to Poilievre’s promise to defund the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) if elected prime minister. Poilievre is a longtime critic of government-funded media, especially the CBC.
Indeed, there have been multiple instances of the CBC pushing what appears to be ideological content, including the creation of pro-LGBT material for kids, tacitly endorsing the gender mutilation of children, promoting euthanasia, and even seeming to justify the burning of mostly Catholic churches throughout the country.
Despite this, 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.
The Canadian Heritage Department since admitted that the payouts are not even sufficient to keep legacy media outlets running and recommended that the rebates be doubled to a maximum of $29,750 annually.
Last November, Trudeau again announced increased payouts for legacy media outlets that coincide with the leadup to the 2025 election. The subsidies are expected to cost taxpayers $129 million over the next five years.
Similarly, Trudeau’s 2024 budget outlined $42 million in increased funding for the CBC in 2024-25.
The $42 million to the CBC is in addition to massive media payouts that already make up roughly 70 percent of its operating budget and total more than $1 billion annually.
Business
Over two thirds of Canadians say Ottawa should reduce size of federal bureaucracy

From the Fraser Institute
By Matthew Lau
From 2015 to 2024, headcount at Natural Resources Canada increased 39 per cent even though employment in Canada’s natural resources sector actually fell one per cent. Similarly, there was 382 per cent headcount growth at the federal department for Women and Gender Equality—obviously far higher than the actual growth in Canada’s female population.
According to a recent poll, there’s widespread support among Canadians for reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy. The support extends across the political spectrum. Among the political right, 82.8 per cent agree to reduce the federal bureaucracy compared to only 5.8 per cent who disagree (with the balance neither agreeing nor disagreeing); among political moderates 68.4 per cent agree and only 10.0 per cent disagree; and among the political left 44.8 per cent agree and 26.3 per cent disagree.
Taken together, “67 per cent agreed the federal bureaucracy should be significantly reduced. Only 12 per cent disagreed.” These results shouldn’t be surprising. The federal bureaucracy is ripe for cuts. From 2015 to 2024, the federal government added more than 110,000 new bureaucrats, a 43 per cent increase, which was nearly triple the rate of population growth.
This bureaucratic expansion was totally unjustified. From 2015 to 2024, headcount at Natural Resources Canada increased 39 per cent even though employment in Canada’s natural resources sector actually fell one per cent. Similarly, there was 382 per cent headcount growth at the federal department for Women and Gender Equality—obviously far higher than the actual growth in Canada’s female population. And there are many similar examples.
While in 2025 the number of federal public service jobs fell by three per cent, the cost of the federal bureaucracy actually increased as the number of fulltime equivalents, which accounts for whether those jobs were fulltime or part-time, went up. With the tax burden created by the federal bureaucracy rising so significantly in the past decade, it’s no wonder Canadians overwhelmingly support its reduction.
Another interesting poll result: “While 42 per cent of those surveyed supported the government using artificial intelligence tools to resolve bottlenecks in service delivery, 32 per cent opposed it, with 25 per cent on the fence.” The authors of the poll say the “plurality in favour is surprising, given the novelty of the technology.”
Yet if 67 per cent of Canadians agree with significantly shrinking the federal bureaucracy, then solid support for using AI to increasing efficiency should not be too surprising, even if the technology is relatively new. Separate research finds 58 per cent of Canadian workers say they use AI tools provided by their workplace, and although many of them do not necessarily use AI regularly, of those who report using AI the majority say it improves their productivity.
In fact, there’s massive potential for the government to leverage AI to increase efficiency and control labour expenses. According to a recent study by a think-tank at Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly known as Ryerson), while the federal public service and the overall Canadian workforce are similar in terms of the percentage of roles that could be made more productive by AI, federal employees were twice as likely (58 per cent versus 29 per cent) to have jobs “comprised of tasks that are more likely to be substituted or replaced” by AI.
The opportunity to improve public service efficiency and deliver massive savings to taxpayers is clearly there. However, whether the Carney government will take advantage of this opportunity is questionable. Unlike private businesses, which must continuously innovate and improve operational efficiency to compete in a free market, federal bureaucracies face no competition. As a result, there’s little pressure or incentive to reduce costs and increase efficiency, whether through AI or other process or organizational improvements.
In its upcoming budget and beyond, it would be a shame if the federal government does not, through AI or other changes, restrain the cost of its workforce. Taxpayers deserve, and clearly demand, a break from this ever-increasing burden.
Business
Former Trump Advisor Says US Must Stop UN ‘Net Zero’ Climate Tax On American Ships

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Later this week the United Nations will hold a vote on a multi-billion climate-change tax targeted squarely at American industry. Without quick and decisive action by the White House, this U.N. tax on fossil fuels will become international law.
This resolution before the International Maritime Organization will impose a carbon tax on cargo and cruise ships that carry $20 trillion of merchandise over international waters. Roughly 80% of the bulkage of world trade is transported by ship.
The resolution is intended to advance the very “net zero” carbon emissions standard that has knee-capped the European economies for years and that American voters have rejected.
This tax is clearly an unnecessary restraint on world trade, thus making all citizens of the world poorer.
It is also an international tax that would be applied to American vessels and, as such, is a dangerous precedent-setting assault on U.S. sovereignty. Since when are American businesses subject to international taxes imposed by the United Nations?
The U.S maritime industry believes the global tax would cost American shippers more than $100 billion over the next seven years if enacted.
Worst of all, if the resolution passes, it will require the retirement of older ships and enable a multi-billion-dollar wealth transfer to China, which has come to dominate shipbuilding in recent years. China STRONGLY supports the tax scheme, even though, ironically, no nation has emitted more pollutants into the atmosphere than they have. Yet WE are getting socked with a tax that indirectly pays for THEIR pollution.
Despite the fact that we pay a disproportionate share of the tax, the U.S. has almost no say on how the revenues are spent. This is the ultimate form of taxation without representation.
Even if the United States chooses not to implement the tax on domestic shipping, it will still be enforced by foreign ports of origin or destination as well as by flag states. As a result, American importers and exporters will be required to pay the tax regardless of domestic policy decisions.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy have jointly stated that America “will not accept any international environmental agreement that unduly or unfairly burdens the United States or our businesses.” They call the financial impact on the U.S. of this global carbon tax “disastrous, with some estimates forecasting global shipping costs increasing as much as 10% or more.”
The U.S. maritime industry complains that although American vessels carry only about 12% of the globally shipped merchandise, U.S. flag vessels would bear almost 20% of this tax. No wonder China and Europe are for it. The EU nations get 17 yes votes to swamp the one no vote out of Washington.
Unfortunately, right now without White House pressure, we could lose this vote because of defections by our allies.
To prevent this tax, the White House should announce a set of retaliation measures. This could include a dollar-for-dollar reduction in U.S. payments to NATO, the U.N., IMF and World Bank.
At a time when financial markets are dealing with trade disputes, the last thing the world — least of all the United States — needs is a United Nations excise tax on trade.
Stephen Moore is co-founder of Unleash Prosperity and a former Trump senior economic advisor.
-
Energy1 day ago
Indigenous Communities Support Pipelines, Why No One Talks About That
-
Business1 day ago
Finance Committee Recommendation To Revoke Charitable Status For Religion Short Sighted And Destructive
-
Alberta1 day ago
Oil Sands are the Costco of world energy – dependable and you know exactly where to find it
-
Health23 hours ago
Colorado gave over 500 people assisted suicide drugs solely for eating disorders in 2024
-
Business2 days ago
Finance Titans May Have Found Trojan Horse For ‘Climate Mandates’
-
International23 hours ago
Number of young people identifying as ‘transgender’ declines sharply: report
-
Alberta22 hours ago
The Technical Pitfalls and Political Perils of “Decarbonized” Oil
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Utah Republican Senator Planning To Attend Big Globalist Climate Shindig Despite Trump’s Energy Policies