Connect with us

Business

Trudeau government wants to give CBC more money

Published

6 minute read

From the Canadian Taxpayers Association

By Kris Sims

The CBC used to air The Simpsons after school.

One of the best episodes was the Cape Fear homage where an FBI agent is trying to change Homer’s last name to Thompson.

After hours of explanation, the kids have fallen asleep, Marge has given up and the agent says, “When I step on your foot and say: ‘Hello Mr. Thompson,’ you nod your head! Got it?!”

Homer did not get it.

The Liberal members of Parliament on the heritage committee still don’t get it either.

The committee has sent a report to the House of Commons urging the government to give the CBC even more money.

“That the Government of Canada provide a substantial and lasting increase in the parliamentary appropriations for CBC/Radio-Canada, allowing it to eliminate its paid subscription services and gradually end its reliance on commercial advertising revenues,” reads the report.

Really? More money? The CBC already takes $1.4 billion year from taxpayers. And that’s not enough?

That amount of money could already cover the salaries of about 7,000 police officers and 7,000 paramedics.

If Trudeau’s MPs want to give the CBC more money so that it can get rid of its advertising and subscription funding, that means a huge cost for taxpayers.

According it’s latest annual report, the CBC collected about $493 million in revenue other than government funding in 2023-24, the bulk being subscription fees and advertising.

This means these Trudeau government MPs want taxpayers to fund the CBC to the tune of about $2 billion per year.

This is the opposite of what needs to happen.

The CBC should be defunded for three key reasons.

The CBC is a huge waste of money, nearly nobody is watching it and journalists should not be paid by the government.

The committee knows this.

And we know they know because the Canadian Taxpayers Federation told them to their faces in testimony before the committee.

CBC CEO Catherine Tait repeatedly testified at the committee and each time she inadvertently made a stronger case to defund the CBC, due to her entitlement and lack of accountability.

Tait refused to say if she will take a severance when she leaves the CBC next year, claiming it’s a personal matter.

It’s not personal if it’s taxpayers’ money.

Documents obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation show Tait is paid between $460,000 and $551,000 this year, with a bonus of up to 28 per cent.

That’s a bonus of up to $154,448. That’s more than the average Canadian family earns in a year.

Just before Christmas last year, Tait cried broke to the committee and afterwards the CBC announced lay offs in its newsrooms.

Documents obtained by the CTF show the CBC handed out big bonuses that year anyway, costing taxpayers $18 million.

As the CBC fan group Friends of Canadian Media put it: “This decision is deeply out of touch and unbefitting of our national public broadcaster.”

It gets worse because the state broadcaster isn’t even doing a good job.

According to the CBC’s latest quarterly report, CBC News Network’s national audience share is 1.7 per cent.

Documents obtained by the CTF show the CBC’s supper hour newscast drawing microscopic audiences, with 0.7 per cent of Toronto watching the six o’clock news on CBC.

Journalists should not be paid by the government because it’s an obvious conflict of interest.

You can’t hold the powerful government to account if you’re counting on that government for your paycheque.

Such government funding of media has contributed to the rapid erosion of trust in the news media, with 61 per cent of Canadians saying they think journalists are “purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.”

CBC’s entertainment programming barely fares better. The Murdoch Mysteries, which is not produced by the CBC, pulls in its biggest audience with about 1.9 per cent of the population watching.

The politicians on the committee know all of this, and yet, like Homer Simpson, they are not getting the message.

If the CBC needs money, it should earn that money itself.

Taxpayers can’t afford the state broadcast’s bill now, let alone hundreds of millions more.

It’s time to defund the CBC.

Kris Sims is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and a former member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.

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

Agriculture

Canada’s supply management system is failing consumers

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Sylvain Charlebois

The supply management system is cracking. With imports climbing, strict quotas in place and Bill C202 on the table, we’re struggling to feed ourselves

Canada’s supply management system, once seen as a pillar of food security and agricultural self-sufficiency, is failing at its most basic function:
ensuring a reliable domestic supply.

According to the Canadian Association of Regulated Importers, Canada imported more than 66.9 million kilograms of chicken as of June 14, a 54.6 per cent increase from the same period last year. That’s enough to feed 3.4 million Canadians for a full year based on average poultry consumption—roughly 446 million meals. Under a tightly managed quota system, those meals were supposed to be produced domestically. Instead imports now account for more than 12 per cent of this year’s domestic chicken production, revealing a growing dependence on foreign supply.

Supply management is Canada’s system for regulating dairy, poultry and egg production. It uses quotas and fixed prices to match domestic supply with demand while limiting imports, intended to protect farmers from global price swings and ensure stable supply.

To be fair, the avian influenza outbreak has disrupted poultry production and partially explains the shortfall. But even with that disruption, the numbers are staggering. Imports under trade quotas set by the World Trade Organization, the Canada-United States Mexico Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership are running at or near their allowable monthly share—known as pro-rata
levels—signalling not just opportunity, but urgency. Supplementary import permits, meant to be used only in emergencies, have already surpassed 48 million kilograms, exceeding total annual import volumes in some previous years. This isn’t a seasonal hiccup. It’s a systemic failure.

The system, designed to buffer domestic markets from global volatility, is cracking under internal strain. When emergency imports become routine, we have to ask: what exactly is being managed?

Canada’s most recent regulated chicken production cycle, which ended May 31, saw one of the worst shortfalls in over 50 years. Strict quota limits stopped farmers from producing more to meet demand, leaving consumers with higher grocery bills and more imported food, shaking public confidence in the system.

Some defenders insist this is an isolated event. It’s not. For the second straight week, Canada has hit pro-rata import levels across all chicken categories. Bone-in and processed poultry, once minor players in emergency import programs, are now essential just to keep shelves stocked.

And the dysfunction doesn’t stop at chicken. Egg imports under the shortage allocation program have already topped 14 million dozen, a 104 per cent jump from last year. Not long ago, Canadians were mocking high U.S. egg prices. Now theirs have fallen. Ours haven’t.

All this in a country with $30 billion in quota value, supposedly designed to protect domestic production and reduce reliance on imports. Instead, we’re importing more and paying more.

Rather than addressing these failures, Ottawa is looking to entrench them. Bill C202, now before the Senate, seeks to shield supply management from future trade talks, making reform even harder. So we must ask: is this really what we’re protecting?

Meanwhile, our trading partners are taking full advantage. Chile, for instance, has increased chicken exports to Canada by more than 63 per cent, now accounting for nearly 96 per cent of CPTPP-origin imports. While Canada doubles down on protectionism, others are gaining long-term footholds in our market.

It’s time to face the facts. Supply management no longer guarantees supply. When a system meant to ensure resilience becomes a source of fragility, it’s no longer an asset—it’s an economic liability.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain. 

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Business

Prairie provinces and Newfoundland and Labrador see largest increases in size of government

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

recent study found that Canada has experienced one of the largest increases in the size of government of any advanced country over the last decade. But within Canada, which provinces have led the way?

The size of government refers to the extent to which resources within the economy are controlled and directed by the government, and has important implications for economic growth, living standards, and economic freedom—the degree to which people are allowed to make their own economic choices.

Too much of anything can be harmful, and this is certainly true regarding the size of government. When government grows too large it begins to take on roles and resources that are better left to the private sector. For example, rather than focusing on core functions like maintaining the rule of law or national defence, a government that has grown too large might begin subsidizing certain businesses and industries over others (i.e. corporate welfare) in order to pick winners and losers in the market. As a result, economic growth slows and living standards are lower than they otherwise would be.

One way to measure the size of government is by calculating total general government spending as a share of the economy (GDP). General government spending refers to spending by governments at all levels (federal, provincial, and municipal), and by measuring this as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) we can compare across jurisdictions of different sizes.

recent study compared the size of government in Canada as a whole with that of 39 other advanced economies worldwide, and found that Canada experienced the second-largest increase in the size of government (as a share of the economy) from 2014 to 2024. In other words, since 2014, governments in Canada have expanded their role within the economy faster than governments in virtually every other advanced country worldwide—including all other countries within the Group of Seven (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Moreover, the study showed that Canada as a whole has exceeded the optimal size of government (estimated to fall between 24 and 32 per cent of GDP) at which a country can maximize their economic growth. Beyond that point, growth slows and is lower than it otherwise would be.

However, Canada is a decentralized country and provinces vary as to the extent to which governments direct overall economic activity. Using data from Statistics Canada, the following charts illustrate which provinces in Canada have the largest size of government and which have seen the largest increases since 2014.

The chart above shows total general government spending as a share of GDP for all ten provinces in 2023 (the latest year of available provincial data). The size of government in the provinces varies considerably, ranging from a high of 61.4 per cent in Nova Scotia to a low of 30.0 per cent in Alberta. There are geographical differences, as three Atlantic provinces (Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick) have the largest governments while the three western-most provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia) have the smallest governments. However, as of 2023, all provinces except Alberta exceeded the optimal size of government—which again, is between 24 and 32 per cent of the economy.

To show which provinces have experienced the greatest increase in the size of government in recent years, the second chart shows the percentage point increase in total general government spending as a share of GDP from 2014 to 2023. It should be noted that this is measuring the expansion of the federal government’s role in the economy—which has been substantial nationwide—as well as growth in the respective provincial and municipal governments.

The increases in the size of government since 2014 are largest in four provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador (10.82 percentage points), Alberta (7.94 percentage points), Saskatchewan (7.31 percentage points), and Manitoba (7.17 percentage points). These are all dramatic increases—for perspective, in the study referenced above, Estonia’s 6.66 percentage point increase in its size of government was the largest out of 40 advanced countries.

The remaining six provinces experienced far lower increases in the size of government, ranging from a 2.74 percentage point increase in B.C. to a 0.44 percentage point increase in Quebec. However, since 2014, every province in Canada has seen government expand its role within the economy.

Over the last decade, Canada has experienced a substantial increase in the size of total government. Within the country, Newfoundland and Labrador and the three Prairie provinces have led the way in growing their respective governments.

Continue Reading

Trending

X