National
Trudeau’s Senate Power Grab – How Every Province is Now Under Ottawa’s Thumb
First, let’s talk about who these new senators are. Dr. Kristopher Wells is one of them. Wells is a well-known activist in the 2SLGBTQ+ community, a vocal advocate for every liberal cause under the sun. He’s been busy pushing for policies that promote radical gender ideology in schools, criticizing Alberta’s conservative stance at every turn. Now, Trudeau wants us to believe that Wells, who has made a career out of progressive activism, will somehow be an “independent” voice in the Senate? Give me a break.
Let’s be absolutely clear here, folks: Daryl Fridhandler is no impartial figure. He’s a corporate lawyer who’s spent years involved in organizations pushing left-wing agendas under the guise of community service. And what does that really mean? He’s a leftist activist, plain and simple.
And now, Trudeau wants us to believe Fridhandler’s Senate appointment is “independent”? Give me a break. This guy has funneled nearly $80,000 into the Liberal Party—($79,968.77, to be exact). The Senate shouldn’t be for sale to the highest bidder or most loyal crony. This is a classic Trudeau move, stacking the Senate with his cronies and turning it into a rubber stamp for his radical agenda. It’s not just political maneuvering; it’s an outright attack on our democratic institutions.
The Senate is supposed to serve as a check on power, a place for sober second thought, not a Liberal lapdog doing Trudeau’s bidding. This is the kind of corrupt backroom dealing that erodes public trust and undermines the very fabric of our democracy.
Now, let’s turn to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. She’s not happy, and frankly, who can blame her? She called out these appointments for what they are—another shameless attempt by Trudeau to undercut the democratic will of Albertans. Smith points out that Alberta has a system for electing senators-in-waiting, who are meant to represent the interests of Albertans in Ottawa. Yet, Trudeau has completely ignored these elected representatives. Instead, he has handpicked his own cronies. And make no mistake, these so-called “independent” senators are Justin Trudeaus cronies and will vote whichever way he tells them too.
Smith’s objection isn’t just about these specific appointees. It’s about the broader pattern we’ve seen from this government— a total disregard for Alberta’s democratic choices. Remember, folks, Alberta has repeatedly elected conservative senators-in-waiting, people who actually represent the interests of their province. But Trudeau doesn’t care about that. No, he’d rather install people who are loyal to him, not to the people of Alberta.
This brings us to the so-called Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments. Trudeau loves to talk about how this board is “independent,” how it’s all about merit-based criteria, blah, blah, blah. But let’s get real for a second. This board isn’t independent at all. The members are nominated by Trudeau. They report to Trudeau. They recommend candidates to Trudeau. And then Trudeau appoints his picks, all while pretending there’s some kind of impartial process at play. It’s a total sham!
Let’s break it down even further. The whole process is designed to look like it’s fair and transparent, but in reality, it’s just another way for Trudeau to exert control. The so-called independent senators are anything but. They might not wear Liberal Party badges, but make no mistake—they’re marching to the beat of Trudeau’s drum. This isn’t about finding the best people to serve Canadians. It’s about finding the best people to serve Justin Trudeau and his agenda.
This isn’t just my opinion—look at the facts. Since 2016, Trudeau has made 86 appointments to the Senate, all under this “independent” system. And surprise, surprise, the Senate has drifted further and further left, rubber-stamping Trudeau’s policies with little resistance. The whole thing is a farce, and Trudeau’s latest picks just prove it.
And here’s the proof that the Senate isn’t independent: Bill C-18. This so-called “Online News Act” is Trudeau’s failed attempt at news censorship. The bill mandates that tech giants like Google and Meta (formerly Facebook) pay Canadian news publishers for content shared on their platforms. It sounds nice on paper, but what’s the result? Meta decided to ban all news content in Canada. That’s right. Canadian independent media lost its voice because they’re no longer being shared on the platforms where people actually get their news.
Ask yourself: if the Senate was truly independent, truly balanced with some business-savvy, right-leaning representatives, do you really think a bill like C-18 would have passed? No chance. Any senator with a shred of common sense would recognize that forcing tech companies into these kinds of deals doesn’t solve the problem; it just pushes these companies to cut ties with Canadian news entirely. But this Senate, filled with Trudeau’s picks, rubber-stamped it without a second thought.
The Senate was designed to be a place of independent judgment, a check on whoever’s in power—be it Liberal, Conservative, or otherwise. It’s supposed to ensure that no single party can bulldoze their agenda without scrutiny. But what happens when Trudeau stacks the Senate with his cronies? The whole system collapses! Even if the Conservatives take power tomorrow, Trudeau’s liberal foot soldiers will be there, blocking, stalling, and pushing his leftist agenda from the shadows of the Senate.
So, where does this leave Canada? It leaves us with a Senate that is increasingly a tool of the Prime Minister’s Office, rather than a chamber for balanced debate and regional representation. Every province, not just Alberta, is now at the whims of Ottawa, Justin Trudeau, and his handpicked cronies. The Senate no longer reflects the diverse interests of Canadians; instead, it mirrors the ideological leanings of one man. Provinces across the country are left sidelined, their democratic choices ignored, and their voices muted under Trudeau’s centralized control.
Danielle Smith is right to be furious. Albertans are right to be furious. And every Canadian who cares about democracy and fairness should be furious too. The Senate is supposed to be an independent body, a check on the power of the Prime Minister, not a rubber stamp for his agenda. But as long as Trudeau is in charge, it looks like that’s exactly what it’s going to be. And that’s not just a shame—it’s a scandal.
For the full experience, subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
Business
Canadians largely ignore them and their funding bleeds their competition dry: How the CBC Spends its Public Funding
If we want to intelligently assess the value CBC delivers to Canadians in exchange for their tax-funded investment, we’ll need to understand two things:
- How CBC spends the money we give them
- What impact their product has on Canadians
The answer to question #2 depends on which Canadians we’re discussing. Your average young family from suburban Toronto is probably only vaguely aware there is a CBC. But Canadian broadcasters? They know all about the corporation, but just wish it would lift its crushing hobnailed boots from their faces.
Stick around and I’ll explain.
For the purposes of this discussion I’m not interested in the possibility that there’s been reckless or negligent corruption or waste, so I won’t address the recent controversy over paying out millions of dollars in executive benefits. Instead, I want to know how the CBC is designed to operate. This will allow us to judge the corporation on its own terms.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
CBC’s Financial Structure
We’ll begin with the basics. According to the CBC’s 2023-24 projections in their most recent corporate plan strategy, the company will receive $1.17 billion from Parliament; $292 million from advertising; and $209 million from subscriber fees, financing, and other income. Company filings note that revenue from both advertising and legacy subscription pools are dropping. Advertising is trending downwards because of ongoing changes in industry ad models, and the decline in subscriptions can be blamed on competition from “cord-cutting” internet services. The Financing and other income category includes revenue from rent and lease-generating use of CBC’s many real estate assets.
The projected combined television, radio, and digital services spending is $1.68 billion. For important context, 2022-23 data from the 2022-2023 annual report break that down to $996 million for English services, and $816 million for French services. 2022-23 also saw $60 million in costs for transmission, distribution, and collection. Corporate management and finance costs came to around $33 million. Overall, the company reported a net loss of $125 million in 2022-23.
The corporation estimates that their English-language digital platforms attract 17.4 million unique visitors each month and that the average visitor engages with content for 28 minutes a month. In terms of market relevance, those are pretty good numbers. But, among Canadian internet users, cbc.ca still ranked only 43rd for total web destinations (which include sites like google.com and amazon.ca). French-language Radio-Canada’s numbers were 5.2 million unique visitors who each hung around for 50 minutes a month.
Monthly engagement with digital English-language news and regional services was 20 minutes. Although we’re given no visitor numbers, the report does admit that “interest in news was lower than expected.”
CBC content production
All that’s not very helpful for understanding what’s actually going on inside CBC. We need to get a feel for how the corporation divides its spending between programming categories and what’s driving the revenue.
The CRTC provides annual financial filings for all Canadian broadcasters, including the CBC. I could describe what’s happening by throwing columns and rows of dollar figures at you. In fact, should you be so disposed, you can view the spreadsheet here. But it turns out that my colorful graph will do a much better job:
As you can see for yourself, CBC spends a large chunk of its money producing news for all three video platforms (CBC and Radio-Canada conventional TV and the cable/VOD platforms they refer to as “discretionary TV”). The two conventional networks also invest significant funds in drama and comedy production.
The chart doesn’t cover CBC radio, so I’ll fill you in. English-language production costs $143 million (roughly the equivalent of the costs of English TV drama/comedy) while the bill for French-language radio production came in at $94 million (more or less equal to discretionary TV news production).
CBC Content Consumption
Who’s watching? The CBC itself reported that viewers of CBC English television represented only 5.1 percent of the total Canadian audience, and only 2.0 percent tuned in to CBC news. By “total Canadian audience”, I mean all Canadians viewing all available TV programming at a given time. So when the CBC tells us that their News Network got a 2.0 percent “share”, they don’t mean that they attracted 2.0 percent of all Canadians. Rather, they got 2.0 percent of whoever happened to be watching any TV network – which could easily come to just a half of one percent of all Canadians. After all, how many people still watch TV?
According to CRTC data, between the 2014–15 and 2022–23 seasons, English language CBC TV weekly viewing hours dropped from 35 million to 16 million. That total would amount to less than six minutes a day per anglophone Canadian. Specifically, news viewing fell by 52 percent, sports by 66 percent, and drama and comedy by 51 percent.
CBC Radio One and CBC Music only managed to attract 14.3 percent of the Canadian market. What does that actually mean? I’ve seen estimates suggesting that between 15 and 25 percent of all Canadians listen to radio during the popular daily commute slots. So at its peak, CBC radio’s share of that audience is possibly no higher than 3.5 percent of all Canadians.
A recent survey found that only 41 percent of Canadians agreed the CBC “is important and should continue doing what it’s doing.” The remaining 59 percent were split between thinking the CBC requires “a lot of changes” and was “no longer useful.” Those numbers remained largely consistent across all age groups.
It seems that while some Canadian’s might support the CBC in principle, for the most part, they’re not actually consuming a lot of content.
CBC Revenue sources
CBC’s primary income is from government funding through parliamentary allocations. Here’s what those look like:
Advertising (or, “time sales” as they refer to it) is another major revenue source. That channel brought in more than $200 million in 2023:
But here’s the thing: the broadcast industry in Canada is currently engaged in a bitter struggle for existence. Every single dollar from that shrinking pool of advertising revenue is desperately needed. And most broadcasters are – perhaps misguidedly – fighting for more government funding. So why should the CBC, with its billion dollar subsidies, be allowed to also compete for limited ad revenue?
Or, to put it differently, what vital and unique services does the CBC provide that might justify their special treatment?
It’s possible that CBC does target rural and underserved audiences missed by the commercial networks. But those are clearly not what’s consuming the vast majority of the corporation’s budget. Perhaps people are watching CBC’s “big tent” drama and comedy productions, but are those measurably better or more important than what’s coming from the private sector? And we’ve already seen how, for all intents and purposes, no one’s watching their TV news or listening to their radio broadcasts.
Perhaps there’s an argument to be made for maintaining or even increasing funding for CBC. But I haven’t yet seen anyone convincingly articulate it.
Subscribe to The Audit.
Economy
Canadians should understand costs of expanding Old Age Security
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
In yet another high-stakes maneuver in the fall session of Parliament, the Bloc Québécois recently tabled a motion urging the Trudeau government to support Bill C-319, which would increase Old Age Security (OAS) payments for seniors aged 65 to 74 by 10 per cent. The motion passed and the Bloc is threatening to trigger an election if the Trudeau government doesn’t give the bill final approval before October 29.
Meanwhile, according to a new poll, 79 per cent of Canadians “support or somewhat support” the OAS increase. But crucially, the poll provided no information to respondents about the costs associated with expanding OAS, even though Canadians should understand the costs before they pledge support for any government program.
Consider this—according to past polling, more than two-thirds of Canadians expressed support for the Trudeau government’s national dental care, $10-a-day daycare, and pharmacare programs. Yet once respondents were made aware of potential tax increases (specifically, increases to the GST), support plummeted to less than 50 per cent for all three programs.
Clearly, support for government programs can change dramatically once Canadians understand the costs since they ultimately must pay those costs. So, that being said, what are the costs of a 10 per cent increase in OAS payments for seniors aged 65 to 74?
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux, the policy would cost more than $3 billion a year, with a five-year price tag of $16.1 billion—a “significant chunk of change” in his words.
Based on its latest budget, the Trudeau government expects to run deficits of at least $20.0 billion for the next five years and rack up more than $400 billion in new debt by 2028/29. If the government borrows more money to pay for increased OAS benefits, that debt number will grow even larger.
And again, Canadians will ultimately bear the costs of an expanded OAS through higher taxes in the future because Canadians must pay interest on government debt. This fiscal year (2024/25) federal debt interest costs are already expected to reach $54.1 billion—which is equal to the entire amount raised by the GST. These are taxpayer dollars that won’t go towards any services or programs for Canadians, and interest costs will continue to grow as the government adds more and more debt.
Finally, in addition to being costly, the plan is poorly targeted. While some programs such as the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) provide additional income support to low-income seniors, OAS provides support to many upper middle-income seniors. Indeed, based on current thresholds, individual seniors (aged 65 to 74) earning up to $148,451 per year are eligible to receive OAS (though seniors earning more than $90,997 of income don’t receive the full amount). Therefore, if Bill C-319 becomes law, a senior couple with a combined household income of nearly $300,000 will receive an increase in their OAS payments.
Increasing OAS payments will cost billions each year while supplementing the income of many seniors who aren’t in need. Despite the political theatre in Ottawa, Canadians are ultimately the ones who will foot the bill.
Authors:
-
Business2 days ago
Bureaucrats are wasting your money faster than you can say “bottoms up!”
-
Business1 day ago
What Inter-Provincial Migration Trends Can Tell Us About Good Governance
-
Economy1 day ago
Canadians should understand costs of expanding Old Age Security
-
International2 days ago
Barron Trump Shut Out by Bank Amid Cancel Culture Accusations
-
Community1 day ago
First Battle of Alberta this NHL season to bring big boost to Child Advocacy Centre!
-
Brownstone Institute20 hours ago
Cut the Truth Out of Our Heads
-
Crime12 hours ago
‘Do You Hear Yourself?’: JD Vance Stunned After Raddatz Minimizes Migrant Gang Takeover Of Apartment Complexes
-
Crime12 hours ago
Police say they’ve thwarted third assassination attempt: Man Arrested Near Trump Rally