Business
Journalists should not be paid by the government

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Author: Kris Sims
Trust in journalism is crumbling while government funding of the media ramps up.
The Trudeau government is currently in a spat with tech giants Google and Facebook which could cost taxpayers big money.
Bill C-18 is forcing internet companies to pay media corporations when links to news stories are posted. In retaliation, the companies are vowing to block news links from their services.
The brass from media companies say if their news links are banned, they will lose out on millions of dollars.
What happens if Big Tech refuses to pay?
This Trudeau government is eager to have a place in the newsrooms of the nation.
“We have to make sure that newsrooms are open, that (journalists) are able to do their job and (they) have the resources necessary,” Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez told reporters.
In government speak “resources” means taxpayers’ money.
It’s time to set out a fundamental truth: having the government sign the paycheques of journalists who are supposed to impartially cover that very same government is a massive conflict of interest.
Columnist Andrew Coyne penned it well back in 2019 when the so-called media bailout was first being hatched:
“Taking money from the people we cover will place us in a permanent and inescapable conflict of interest; that it will produce newspapers concerned less with appealing to readers than to grantsmen.”
Fast forward four years and those media bailout deals are coming up for renewal, with the funding set to run out at the end of the fiscal year.
According to the heritage minister wielding the taxpayer piggybank, it sounds like more government-funded media is on the way.
That’s the last thing we need.
The CBC already gets more than $1.2 billion in taxpayers’ money every year and the feds budgeted $595 million for the media bailout over the past four years.
This means taxpayers have poured about $5.3 billion into the CBC and private-sector newsrooms over the last four years.
That kind of money would buy a year’s worth of groceries for about 350,000 families. It could cover the annual income tax bill of more than 380,000 people – about the population of London, Ontario. It could buy about 7,400 homes.
This government-funded media scheme isn’t just a waste of money, and it’s not just a conflict of interest – it also isn’t supported by Canadians.
More than 59 per cent of Canadians surveyed said the government should not fund newsrooms “because it compromises journalistic independence.”
That “journalistic independence” is an endangered species.
A Trudeau government committee is deciding what a journalist is, what a qualified newsroom is and the government is paying journalists.
The term “free press” doesn’t mean newspapers were free to take off a newsstand. It means the press is free from government influence and censorship.
Journalists should not be paid by the government. Newsrooms should rely on money from advertising, subscriptions and free-will donations from people who support them.
Under Trudeau’s bailout program newsroom employees get 25 per cent of their salaries covered by the government, up to a maximum of $13,750 per person.
Imagine being a journalist and knowing a big chunk of your paycheque is covered by the same government you are covering.
That’s like referees saying they can call the game fairly while also making bets.
Even the perception of corruption or bias erodes trust and a majority of Canadians have lost trust in journalists.
According to a longstanding survey that gauges trust, 61 per cent of Canadians think “journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.”
Most Canadians now think journalists are trying to mislead them on purpose.
For journalists who believe their craft is a calling and that speaking truth to power is a nearly sacred task, that distrust is very tough to hear.
But we must listen. We can’t afford not to.
Kris Sims is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and a former longtime member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.
Banks
TD Bank Account Closures Expose Chinese Hybrid Warfare Threat

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Scott McGregor warns that Chinese hybrid warfare is no longer hypothetical—it’s unfolding in Canada now. TD Bank’s closure of CCP-linked accounts highlights the rising infiltration of financial interests. From cyberattacks to guanxi-driven influence, Canada’s institutions face a systemic threat. As banks sound the alarm, Ottawa dithers. McGregor calls for urgent, whole-of-society action before foreign interference further erodes our sovereignty.
Chinese hybrid warfare isn’t coming. It’s here. And Canada’s response has been dangerously complacent
The recent revelation by The Globe and Mail that TD Bank has closed accounts linked to pro-China groups—including those associated with former Liberal MP Han Dong—should not be dismissed as routine risk management. Rather, it is a visible sign of a much deeper and more insidious campaign: a hybrid war being waged by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) across Canada’s political, economic and digital spheres.
TD Bank’s move—reportedly driven by “reputational risk” and concerns over foreign interference—marks a rare, public signal from the private sector. Politically exposed persons (PEPs), a term used in banking and intelligence circles to denote individuals vulnerable to corruption or manipulation, were reportedly among those flagged. When a leading Canadian bank takes action while the government remains hesitant, it suggests the threat is no longer theoretical. It is here.
Hybrid warfare refers to the use of non-military tools—such as cyberattacks, financial manipulation, political influence and disinformation—to erode a nation’s sovereignty and resilience from within. In The Mosaic Effect: How the Chinese Communist Party Started a Hybrid War in America’s Backyard, co-authored with Ina Mitchell, we detailed how the CCP has developed a complex and opaque architecture of influence within Canadian institutions. What we’re seeing now is the slow unravelling of that system, one bank record at a time.
Financial manipulation is a key component of this strategy. CCP-linked actors often use opaque payment systems—such as WeChat Pay, UnionPay or cryptocurrency—to move money outside traditional compliance structures. These platforms facilitate the unchecked flow of funds into Canadian sectors like real estate, academia and infrastructure, many of which are tied to national security and economic competitiveness.
Layered into this is China’s corporate-social credit system. While framed as a financial scoring tool, it also functions as a mechanism of political control, compelling Chinese firms and individuals—even abroad—to align with party objectives. In this context, there is no such thing as a genuinely independent Chinese company.
Complementing these structural tools is guanxi—a Chinese system of interpersonal networks and mutual obligations. Though rooted in trust, guanxi can be repurposed to quietly influence decision-makers, bypass oversight and secure insider deals. In the wrong hands, it becomes an informal channel of foreign control.
Meanwhile, Canada continues to face escalating cyberattacks linked to the Chinese state. These operations have targeted government agencies and private firms, stealing sensitive data, compromising infrastructure and undermining public confidence. These are not isolated intrusions—they are part of a broader effort to weaken Canada’s digital, economic and democratic institutions.
The TD Bank decision should be seen as a bellwether. Financial institutions are increasingly on the front lines of this undeclared conflict. Their actions raise an urgent question: if private-sector actors recognize the risk, why hasn’t the federal government acted more decisively?
The issue of Chinese interference has made headlines in recent years, from allegations of election meddling to intimidation of diaspora communities. TD’s decision adds a new financial layer to this growing concern.
Canada cannot afford to respond with fragmented, reactive policies. What’s needed is a whole-of-society response: new legislation to address foreign interference, strengthened compliance frameworks in finance and technology, and a clear-eyed recognition that hybrid warfare is already being waged on Canadian soil.
The CCP’s strategy is long-term, multidimensional and calculated. It blends political leverage, economic subversion, transnational organized crime and cyber operations. Canada must respond with equal sophistication, coordination and resolve.
The mosaic of influence isn’t forming. It’s already here. Recognizing the full picture is no longer optional. Canadians must demand transparency, accountability and action before more of our institutions fall under foreign control.
Scott McGregor is a defence and intelligence veteran, co-author of The Mosaic Effect: How the Chinese Communist Party Started a Hybrid War in America’s Backyard, and the managing partner of Close Hold Intelligence Consulting Ltd. He is a senior security adviser to the Council on Countering Hybrid Warfare and a former intelligence adviser to the RCMP and the B.C. Attorney General. He writes for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Automotive
Major automakers push congress to block California’s 2035 EV mandate

MxM News
Quick Hit:
Major automakers are urging Congress to intervene and halt California’s aggressive plan to eliminate gasoline-only vehicles by 2035. With the Biden-era EPA waiver empowering California and 11 other states to enforce the rule, automakers warn of immediate impacts on vehicle availability and consumer choice. The U.S. House is preparing for a critical vote to determine if California’s sweeping environmental mandates will stand.
Key Details:
-
Automakers argue California’s rules will raise prices and limit consumer choices, especially amid high tariffs on auto imports.
-
The House is set to vote this week on repealing the EPA waiver that greenlit California’s mandate.
-
California’s regulations would require 35% of 2026 model year vehicles to be zero-emission, a figure manufacturers say is unrealistic.
Diving Deeper:
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing industry giants such as General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai, issued a letter Monday warning Congress about the looming consequences of California’s radical environmental regulations. The automakers stressed that unless Congress acts swiftly, vehicle shipments across the country could be disrupted within months, forcing car companies to artificially limit sales of traditional vehicles to meet electric vehicle quotas.
California’s Air Resources Board rules have already spread to 11 other states—including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon—together representing roughly 40% of the entire U.S. auto market. Despite repeated concerns from manufacturers, California officials have doubled down, insisting that their measures are essential for meeting lofty greenhouse gas reduction targets and combating smog. However, even some states like Maryland have recognized the impracticality of California’s timeline, opting to delay compliance.
A major legal hurdle complicates the path forward. The Government Accountability Office ruled in March that the EPA waiver issued under former President Joe Biden cannot be revoked under the Congressional Review Act, which requires only a simple Senate majority. This creates uncertainty over whether Congress can truly roll back California’s authority without more complex legislative action.
The House is also gearing up to tackle other elements of California’s environmental regime, including blocking the state from imposing stricter pollution standards on commercial trucks and halting its low-nitrogen oxide emissions regulations for heavy-duty vehicles. These moves reflect growing concerns that California’s progressive regulatory overreach is threatening national commerce and consumer choice.
Under California’s current rules, the state demands that 35% of light-duty vehicles for the 2026 model year be zero-emission, scaling up rapidly to 68% by 2030. Industry experts widely agree that these targets are disconnected from reality, given the current slow pace of electric vehicle adoption among the broader American public, particularly in rural and lower-income areas.
California first unveiled its plan in 2020, aiming to make at least 80% of new cars electric and the remainder plug-in hybrids by 2035. Now, under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the U.S. Transportation Department is working to undo the aggressive fuel economy regulations imposed during former President Joe Biden’s term, offering a much-needed course correction for an auto industry burdened by regulatory overreach.
As Congress debates, the larger question remains: Will America allow one state’s left-wing environmental ideology to dictate terms for the entire country’s auto industry?
-
Alberta15 hours ago
Premier Danielle Smith responds to election of Liberal government
-
International2 days ago
U.S. Army names new long-range hypersonic weapon ‘Dark Eagle’
-
Business2 days ago
Ottawa’s Plastics Registry A Waste Of Time And Money
-
Business2 days ago
Net Zero by 2050: There is no realistic path to affordable and reliable electricity
-
Addictions2 days ago
Four new studies show link between heavy cannabis use, serious health risks
-
COVID-192 days ago
Former Australian state premier accused of lying about justification for COVID lockdowns
-
Business2 days ago
Trump demands free passage for American ships through Panama, Suez
-
Automotive1 day ago
Major automakers push congress to block California’s 2035 EV mandate