Business
Trudeau government wants to give CBC more money
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.
Business
Essential goods shouldn’t be taxed
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
By Jay Goldberg
The Trudeau government’s two-month GST holiday on certain items has been called many things.
Former finance minister Chrystia Freeland resignation letter suggests she thinks it’s a “gimmick.”
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has called it a “tax trick.”
But here’s a more fundamental question: If the government thinks Canadians needs a sales tax holiday on certain items, why are those basics taxed in the first place?
Items like car seats, diapers, and pre-prepared foods are all taxed by the feds. They’re all also subject to the federal government’s sales tax holiday, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says was triggered because Canadians are having a hard time making ends meet.
“Our government can’t set prices, but we can give Canadians, and especially working Canadians, more money back in their pocket,” said Trudeau at his GST holiday announcement.
At least Trudeau seems to know it’s bad for governments to set prices. But the government does raise prices by adding sales tax on top of goods Canadians have to buy.
And you don’t need to be a parent to know that car seats and diapers are among the most essential goods on a parent’s shopping list.
Take a car seat. A mid-tier car seat costs around $250. The federal sales tax, which is currently at five per cent, adds $12.50 to the final cost of that car seat.
Parents across the country are no doubt asking why things like car seats and diapers were taxed by the feds in November, will be taxed again by the feds in March, but aren’t being taxed right now.
What justification can the government possibly give to parents on Feb. 16, 2025 – the day this sales tax holiday ends – for once again taxing things like car seats and diapers?
The same goes for pre-prepared meals. Many Canadians buy pre-prepared food at grocery stores to bring to work for lunch or to eat on the go. Why are the ingredients for that pre-prepared meal not taxed but the final meal is? And why take the tax off a grocery store deli sandwich now but not a few months from now?
There’s even more of an argument to be made on this front because many provinces don’t tax a lot of the items that are part of the feds’ sales tax holiday.
Take Ontario as an example.
Canada’s most populous province doesn’t tax things like books, children’s clothing, car seats, and diapers. Some pre-prepared foods aren’t taxed either.
If provinces don’t tax these items, why do the feds?
The Trudeau government took inspiration from the NDP when it comes to the GST break. It ought to also take inspiration from the party’s call to make relief permanent.
Trudeau’s GST announcement came just days after NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh called for the permanent removal of the federal sales tax on items like pre-prepared meals, diapers, and car seats. Singh’s proposal actually went much further, and included ending the GST on home heating, as well as internet and phone bills.
In touting his proposal, Singh argued that “those taxes never should have been there in the first place.”
Singh is right. Essential goods shouldn’t be subject to the GST. Period.
Just days after Singh’s announcement, Trudeau played copycat with one of his own.
But a two-month reprieve pales in comparison to permanent relief.
If the Trudeau government wants to deliver real relief to struggling Canadian families, essential items that most provinces already don’t tax, such as diapers, car seats, and pre-prepared meals, should be permanently exempt from the GST.
Permanent sales tax relief is more than doable. The feds could deliver on it without hiking the deficit by taking a sledgehammer to the more than $40 billion a year they hand out in corporate welfare.
Anything less than a permanent sales tax break simply won’t cut it when it comes to cutting costs for Canadians.
Business
US Expands Biometric Technology in Airports Despite Privacy Concerns
Biometric systems promise efficiency at airports, but concerns over data security and transparency persist.
If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.
Biometric technology is being rolled out at US airports at an unprecedented pace, with plans to extend these systems to hundreds more locations in the coming years. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is driving a significant push toward facial recognition and other biometric tools, claiming improved efficiency and security. However, the expansion has sparked growing concerns, with privacy advocates and lawmakers voicing concerns about data security, transparency, and the potential for misuse of such technology.
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has already implemented its Biometric Facial Comparison system at 238 airports, including 14 international locations. This includes all CBP Preclearance sites and several major departure hubs. CBP says its Biometric Exit program is rapidly gaining traction, with new airport partners joining monthly and positive feedback reported from passengers.
Meanwhile, the TSA has equipped nearly 84 airports with its next-generation Credential Authentication Technology (CAT-2) scanners, which incorporate facial recognition. This rollout is part of a broader effort to bring biometrics to over 400 airports nationwide. These advancements are detailed in a TSA fact sheet aimed at building public awareness of the initiative.
Opposition and Privacy Concerns
Despite assurances from TSA and CBP, critics remain skeptical. Some lawmakers, led by Senator Jeff Merkley, argue that the TSA has yet to justify the need for biometric systems when previous technologies already authenticated IDs effectively. Privacy advocates warn that the widespread use of facial recognition could set a dangerous precedent, normalizing surveillance and threatening individual freedoms.
The debate is closely tied to the federal REAL ID Act, introduced two decades ago to standardize identification requirements for air travel. As of now, many states have failed to fully implement REAL ID standards, and only a portion of Americans have acquired compliant credentials. Reports indicate that fewer than half of Ohio residents and just 32 percent of Kentuckians have updated their IDs, even as the May 7, 2025, deadline approaches.
Biometric Adoption on the Global Stage
Beyond the US, biometric systems are gaining momentum worldwide. India’s Digi Yatra program has attracted 9 million active users, adding 30,000 new downloads daily. The program processes millions of flights while emphasizing privacy by storing data on users’ mobile devices rather than centralized databases. Plans are underway to expand the program further, including international pilots scheduled for mid-2025.
While biometric technology offers alleged benefits, such as faster boarding and enhanced security, it also poses serious risks. Privacy advocates caution against unchecked implementation, especially since, one day, this form of check-in is likely to be mandatory.
The TSA’s aggressive push for biometrics places the United States at the forefront of this global shift.
-
Economy10 hours ago
When Potatoes Become a Luxury: Canada’s Grocery Gouging Can’t Continue
-
Energy5 mins ago
Canada’s Most Impactful Energy Issues in 2024
-
COVID-195 hours ago
New Study Finds COVID-19 ‘Vaccination’ Doubles Risk of Post-COVID Death
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy11 hours ago
Global Warming Predictions of Doom Are Dubious
-
Health6 hours ago
Wellness Revolution
-
Censorship Industrial Complex12 hours ago
Here’s How The Trump Admin Could Help Crush The Censorship Industry
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
Opponents coordinating campaign to discredit RFK Jr.
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
2024 In Review: The Year Woke Fever Broke