Liberals to increase CBC funding to nearly $2 billion per year

The Department of Canadian Heritage promised funding to offset the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s nearly 10 percent drop in ad revenue last year despite an audience share of 1.7 percent, meaning over 98 percent of the country is not watching the network.

The Liberal government has promised to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to compensate CBC-TV for ads that the network cannot sell.

According to information released January 20 by Blacklock’s Reporter, the Liberal-run Department of Canadian Heritage will give CBC millions more, bringing the network’s total parliamentary grant near $2 billion a year.

“The CBC has been grappling with a range of financial pressures that are challenging its ability to maintain programming and service levels,” Liberals argued, adding that their department will be “providing additional funding to make it less reliant on private advertising with a goal of eliminating advertising during news and other public affairs shows.”

“The CBC is a pillar of Canada’s creative economy, a key provider of programming made by and for Canadians and a significant source of trusted news and information,” Liberals claimed.

“This government is committed to ensuring the sustainability of the CBC so that it can continue to create public value and adapt to the needs and expectations of Canadians,” the department continued.

The increased government subsidies come after an October report found that CBC’s advertising revenue dropped nearly 10 percent last year.

Furthermore, CBC’s own quarterly report found that its network audience share is only 1.7%, meaning more than 98% of Canadians are not watching CBC.

However, Liberals have chosen to ignore the fact that Canadians are not watching CBC, instead spending millions of dollars to prop up the failing outlet.

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.

Last November, Prime Minister Justin 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.

That amount 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.

However, many have pointed out that the obscene amount of money thrown at CBC by Liberals is a ploy to buy the outlet’s loyalty.

Furthermore, in October, Canadian Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge’s department admitted that federally funded media outlets buy “social cohesion.”

Additionally, 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 an arm of the Liberals.

Gould’s comments were in reference to Poilievre’s promise to defund the CBC if elected prime minister. Poilievre is a longtime critic of government-funded media, especially the CBC.

Related Topics:#ClareMarieMerkowsky #GovernmentSpending #LifeSiteNews CBC$2BillionFunding CBCFunding

Up Next

The Deplorable Ethics of a Preemptive Pardon for Fauci

Don't Miss

Trump promises new era of government efficiency with DOGE

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

The EU Insists Its X Fine Isn’t About Censorship. Here’s Why It Is.

Health / 2 hours ago

CDC Vaccine Panel Votes to End Universal Hep B Vaccine for Newborns

Agriculture / 5 hours ago

Canada’s air quality among the best in the world

Business

The EU Insists Its X Fine Isn’t About Censorship. Here’s Why It Is.

Published on December 8, 2025

Todayville

By Christina Maas

Europe calls it transparency, but it looks a lot like teaching the internet who’s allowed to speak.

When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”

They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.

The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.

It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.

The first target is Elon Musk’s X, and the list of alleged violations look less like user safety concerns and more like a blueprint for controlling who gets heard, who gets trusted, and who gets to talk back.

The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.

None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.

Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.

The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.

The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.

Reclaim The Net is sustained by its readers.

Your support fuels the fight for privacy, free speech and digital civil liberties while giving you access to exclusive content, practical how to guides, premium features and deeper dives into freedom-focused tech.

Become a supporter here.

However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.

The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.

Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.

Under the new X rules, everyone is on a level playing field.

Government officials and agencies now sport gray badges, symbols of credibility that can’t be purchased. These are the state’s chosen voices, publicly marked as incorruptible. To the EU, that should be a safeguard.

The second and third violations show how “transparency” doubles as a surveillance mechanism. X was fined for limiting access to advertising data and for restricting researchers from scraping platform content. Regulators called that obstruction. Musk called it refusing to feed the censorship machine.

The EU’s preferred researchers aren’t neutral archivists. Many have been documented coordinating with governments, NGOs, and “fact-checking” networks that flagged political content for takedown during previous election cycles.

They call it “fighting disinformation.” Critics call it outsourcing censorship pressure to academics.

Under the DSA, these same groups now have the legal right to demand data from platforms like X to study “systemic risks,” a phrase broad enough to include whatever speech bureaucrats find undesirable this month.

The result is a permanent state of observation where every algorithmic change, viral post, or trending topic becomes a potential regulatory case.

The advertising issue completes the loop. Brussels says it wants ad libraries to be fully searchable so users can see who’s paying for what. It gives regulators and activists a live feed of messaging, ready for pressure campaigns.

The DSA doesn’t delete ads; it just makes it easier for someone else to demand they be deleted.

That’s how this form of censorship works: not through bans, but through endless exposure to scrutiny until platforms remove the risk voluntarily.

The Commission insists, again and again, that the fine has “nothing to do with content.”

That may be true on a direct level, but the rules shape content all the same. When governments decide who counts as authentic, who qualifies as a researcher, and how visibility gets distributed, speech control doesn’t need to be explicit. It’s baked into the system.

Brussels calls it user protection. Musk calls it punishment for disobedience. This particular DSA fine isn’t about what you can say, it’s about who’s allowed to be heard saying it.

TikTok escaped similar scrutiny by promising to comply. X didn’t, and that’s the difference. The EU prefers companies that surrender before the hearing. When they don’t, “transparency” becomes the pretext for a financial hammer.

The €120 million fine is small by tech standards, but symbolically it’s huge.

It tells every platform that “noncompliance” means questioning the structure of speech the EU has already defined as safe.

In the official language of Brussels, this is a regulation. But it’s managed discourse, control through design, moderation through paperwork, censorship through transparency.

And the louder they insist it isn’t, the clearer it becomes that it is.

Reclaim The Net Needs Your Help

With your help, we can do more than hold the line. We can push back. We can expose censorship, highlight surveillance overreach, and amplify the voices of those being silenced.

If you have found value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.

Your support does more than keep us independent. It also gives you access to exclusive content, deep dive exploration of freedom focused technology, member-only features, and practical how-to posts that help you protect your rights in the real world.

You help us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this fight.

Please become a supporter today.

> Become a Supporter <

Thank you for your support.

Business

Loblaws Owes Canadians Up to $500 Million in “Secret” Bread Cash

Published on December 7, 2025

Todayville

Yakk Stack

Sheldon Yakiwchuk

(Only 5 Days Left!) Claim Yours Before It’s GONE FOREVER

Hey, all.

Imagine this…you’re slicing into that fresh loaf from Loblaws or just making a Wonder-ful sammich, the one you’ve bought hundreds of times over the years, and suddenly… ka-ching!

A fat check lands in your mailbox.

Not from a lottery ticket, not from a side hustle – from the very store that’s been quietly owing you money for two decades of illegal price fixing.

Sound too good to be true?

It’s real.

It’s court-approved.

And right now, on December 7, 2025, you’ve got exactly 5 days to grab your share before the door slams shut. Don’t let this slip away – keep reading, feel that spark of possibility ignite, and let’s get you paid.

Back in 2001, you were probably juggling work, kids, or just surviving on that weekly grocery run. Little did you know, while you were reaching for the President’s Choice white bread or those golden rolls, Loblaws and their cronies were playing a sneaky game of price-fixing. They jacked up the cost of packaged bread across Canada – every loaf, every bun, every sneaky sandwich slice. For 20 years. From coast to coast to coast.

And now…the courts have spoken. $500 million in settlements to make it right. That’s not pocket change – that’s your money, recycled back into your life.

Given the number of people who will be throwing in a claim…this ain’t gunna be life-changing cash…but also, given the cost of food in Canada, it’s better than sweet fuck all, which you will receive by NOT doing this.

If you’re a Canadian resident (yep, that’s you, unless you’re in Quebec with your own sweet deal), and you’ve ever bought bread for your family – not for resale, just real life – between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2021… you’re in.

No receipts needed.

No fancy proofs.

Just you, confirming your story, and boom – eligible.

Quick check: Were you under 18 back then?

Or an exec at Loblaw?

Nah, skip it.

But for the rest of us everyday schleps…Jackpot.

Again…the clock’s ticking on this.

Claims opened on September 11, 2025, and slam shut on December 12, 2025.

That’s this Friday.

Payments roll out in 2026, 6-12 months later, straight to your bank or mailbox.

Here’s what you need to do…

Breathe deep, click → HEREQuebec frens →HERE
10 second form that’s completed by your autofill…30 seconds off of a mobile device.
Hit submit and wait for that sweet cash to hit your account.

Again…this won’t be life saving money and most certainly ain’t gunna hit your account before Christmas.

And before you go out an Griswald yourself into a depost on pool in the backyard…you may only end up with enough cash for the Jam-of-the-Month…the gift that truly does give, all year round…just be a little patient.

If you end up with a couple of backyard steaks in time for summer…

Some treats for the children or grandchildren…

Maybe just a donation to the foodbank…

This is what’s owed to you. Your neighbors. Friends. Family.

Take advantage!