Federal government’s latest media bailout another bad idea

If the value of local radio stations, as measured by how much revenue they generate, is higher than the costs of running those stations, no subsidies are needed to keep them going. Conversely, if the costs are higher than the benefits, it doesn’t make sense to keep those radio stations on the air.

The governmentalization of the news media in Canada continues apace. According to a recent announcement by the Trudeau government, the “CRTC determined that a new temporary fund for commercial radio stations in smaller markets should be created.” Now, radio stations outside of Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa-Gatineau will be eligible for taxpayer subsidies.

Clearly a bad idea. Firstly, there’s no obvious market failure the government will solve. If the value of local radio stations, as measured by how much revenue they generate, is higher than the costs of running those stations, no subsidies are needed to keep them going. Conversely, if the costs are higher than the benefits, it doesn’t make sense to keep those radio stations on the air.

The government said the new funding is “temporary” but as economists Milton and Rose Friedman famously observed, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” Taxpayers may can reasonably expect that subsidies to local radio news stations will become an ongoing expense instead of a onetime hit to their wallets.

Indeed, the Trudeau government has a history of making temporary or “short-term” costs permanent. Before coming to power in 2015, the Liberals proposed “a modest short-term deficit” of less than $10 billion annually for three years; instead this fiscal year the Trudeau government is running its 10th consecutive budget deficit with the cumulative total of more than $600 billion.

Secondly, the governmentalization of media will likely corrupt it. Here again an observation from Milton Friedman: “Any institution will tend to express its own values and its own ideas… A socialist institution will teach socialist values, not the principles of private enterprise.” Friedman was talking about the public education system, but the observation applies equally to other sectors that the government increasingly exercises control over.

A media outlet that receives significant government funding is less likely to apply healthy skepticism to politicians’ claims of the supposed widespread benefits of their large spending initiatives and disbursements of taxpayer money. The media outlet’s internal culture will naturally lean more heavily towards government control than free enterprise.

Moreover, conflict of interest becomes a serious issue. To the extent that a media outlet gets its revenue from government instead of advertisers and listeners, its customer is the government—and the natural inclination is always to produce content that will appeal to the customer. Radio stations receiving significant government funding will have a harder time covering government in an unbiased way.

Finally, as a general rule, government support for an industry tends to discourage innovation, and radio and other media are no exception. When new companies and new business models enter a sector, the government should not through subsidies try to keep the incumbents afloat.

“The media, like any other business, continually evolves,” noted Lydia Miljan, professor of political science at the University of Windsor and a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, in a recent essay. “As each innovation enters the market, it displaces audiences for the legacy players. But does that innovation mean we should prop up services that fewer people consume? No. We allow other industries to adapt to new market conditions. Sometimes that means certain industries and companies close. But they are replaced with something else.”

To summarize—there are three major problems with the Trudeau government’s new fund for radio stations. First, it will impose costs on taxpayers that, despite the government’s label, may not be “temporary” and the compensating benefits will be lower than the costs. Second, increased government funding will damage the ability of those radio stations to cover the government with neutrality and healthy skepticism. And third, the new fund will discourage innovation and improvement in the media sector as a whole.

Author:

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute #MatthewLau FederalGovernmentMediaBailout RadioStationsTaxpayerSubsidies

Up Next

Canada’s department of government efficiency: A blueprint

Don't Miss

First Amendment Blues

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

Cover up of a Department of Energy Study Might Be The Biggest Stain On Biden Admin’s Legacy

International / 51 mins ago

Vice President Vance, Second Lady to visit Greenland on Friday

2025 Federal Election / 1 hour ago

Poilievre to let working seniors keep more of their money

2025 Federal Election

Poilievre to let working seniors keep more of their money

Published on March 26, 2025

Todayville

By Franco Terrazzano

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation welcomes the Conservative Party’s promise to boost the basic personal amount for working seniors and calls on all parties to commit to further tax relief.

“Many seniors are working because they’re struggling to pay the bills and this tax relief will help them,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Letting working seniors earn an extra $10,000 tax-free is a good thing and it will make their golden years more affordable.”

Today, Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre announced he would expand the tax-free portion of seniors’ incomes.

Poilievre said he would “increase the basic personal amount for working seniors to $25,000, meaning seniors will be able earn an additional $10,000 of employment income tax free.”

Poilievre estimates this would “save a working senior making $35,000 a year an extra $1,300.”

The Conservative Party also promises income tax relief that would save a two-income family up to $1,800. The Liberal Party promises income tax relief that would save a two-income family up to $825.

“The best way the government can make life more affordable is to let people keep more of their own money,” Terrazzano said. “All parties should commit to further tax relief, especially for Canadian businesses which need to be competitive in the wake of American tariffs.”

2025 Federal Election

Voters should remember Canada has other problems beyond Trump’s tariffs

Published on March 26, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Canadians will head to the polls on April 28 after Prime Minister Mark Carney called a snap federal election on Sunday. As the candidates make their pitch to try and convince Canadians why they’re best-suited to lead the country, Trump’s tariffs will take centre stage. But while the tariff issue is important, let’s not forget the other important issues Canadians face.

High Taxes: As many Canadians struggle to make ends meet, taxes remain the largest single expense. In 2023, the latest year of available data, the average Canadian family spent 43.0 per cent of its income on taxes compared to 35.6 per cent on food, shelter and clothing combined. High personal income tax rates also make it harder to attract and retain doctors, engineers and other high-skilled workers that contribute to the economy. Tax relief, which delivers savings for families across the income spectrum while also improving Canada’s competitiveness on the world stage, is long overdue.

Government Debt: At the end of March, Canada’s total federal debt will reach a projected $2.2 trillion or $52,094 for every man, woman and child in Canada. The federal government expects to pay $53.7 billion in debt interest costs in fiscal year 2024/25, diverting taxpayer dollars away from programs including health care and social services. The next federal government should rein in spending and stop racking up debt.

Red Tape: Smart regulation is necessary, but the Canadian economy is plagued by a costly and excessive regulatory burden imposed by governments. Regulatory compliance costs the economy approximately $12.2 billion each year, and the average business dedicates an estimated 85 days towards compliance. The next federal government should cut undue red tape and make Canada an easier place to do business.

Housing Affordability: Canadians across the country are struggling with the cost of housing. Indeed, Canada has the largest gap between home prices and incomes among G7 countries, and rents have spiked in recent years in many cities. In short, there’s not enough housing to meet demand. The next federal government should avoid policies that stoke further demand while working with the provinces and municipalities to remove impediments to homebuilding across Canada.

Collapsing Business Investment: Business investment is necessary to equip workers with the tools, technology and training they need to be more productive, yet business investment has collapsed. Specifically, from 2014 to 2021, inflation-adjusted business investment per worker fell from $18,363 to $14,687. Declining investment has helped create Canada’s productivity crisis, which has led to a decline in Canadian living standards. Clearly, Ottawa needs a new policy approach to address this crisis.

Declining Living Standards: According to Statistics Canada, inflation-adjusted per-person GDP—a broad measure of living standards—dropped from the post-pandemic peak of $60,718 in mid-2022 to $58,951 by the end of 2024. The next government should swiftly reverse this trend by enacting meaningful policy reforms that will help promote prosperity. The status quo simply will not suffice.

Tariffs are a clear threat to the Canadian economy and should be discussed at length during this election. But we shouldn’t forget other important issues that arose long before President Trump began this trade war and will continue to hurt Canadians if not addressed.