Business
The CBC prioritizes allyship over objectivity in Saskatchewan parental consent coverage – An empirical analysis

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute
By Dave Snow
Across 38 articles, the CBC quoted more than five times as many critics of Saskatchewan’s policy as supporters.
A common argument in favour of defunding the CBC is that its news content exhibits ideological bias. In particular, it has been subject to criticism that it is too progressive and Liberal-friendly, including for instance in its recent coverage of the Israel-Hamas war and Chinese interference in Canadian elections.
However, the assumption of the CBC’s progressive bias has rarely been tested empirically. To remedy this, I conducted an analysis of the CBC’s coverage of an issue that became a sustained national news story this past fall: Saskatchewan’s parental consent policy for children’s gender pronoun changes in schools.
The public debate around Saskatchewan’s pronoun policy involves complexity, competing perspectives, and evolving public opinion. It’s the sort of issue for which the role of the news media is presumably to establish and situate the facts, present the different points of view, and help Canadians work through the nuances. Yet, as my analysis shows, that’s not how the CBC’s reporting handled the issue.
Before describing the CBC’s coverage, it’s necessary to briefly describe the genesis and substance of the Saskatchewan government’s policy. In August, the government announced it would require parental consent for students under 16 to change their names or gender pronouns at school. The policy was challenged in court by the University of Regina Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity (“UR Pride”), and on September 28, Justice Megaw of the Court of King’s Bench issued an injunction pausing the operation of the policy because of “the potentially irreparable harm and mental health difficulty” for students “unable to find expression for their gender identity.”
Later that day, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced that his government would respond to the injunction with a law invoking the notwithstanding clause. On October 20, that law, called the Parents’ Bill of Rights, was passed. The law stipulates that if a child under 16 requests that a “new gender-related preferred name or gender identity be used at school,” teachers and school employees “shall not use the new gender-related preferred name or gender identity unless consent is first obtained from the pupil’s parent or guardian.”
As a high-profile issue involving a clash of rights, Saskatchewan’s pronoun policy serves as an ideal case study to examine how the CBC covers contentious social policy disputes. To do so, I conducted a content analysis of all of the CBC’s written articles about Saskatchewan’s pronoun policy from August 22, 2023, the day the government announced its initial policy, to October 22, 2023, two days after the Parents’ Bill of Rights became law. During this period, the CBC published 38 news stories in which Saskatchewan’s policy featured prominently, six of which were written by journalists working for the Canadian Press.
Even before reading the articles, the headlines betrayed the direction of the CBC’s coverage: while no headline made an explicit argument against the policy, fourteen (37 percent) contained what I call “attributed criticism” of Saskatchewan’s policy—denunciation from someone other than the reporter. Examples include “Families of trans kids, activists say they’re angered, scared, disgusted by Sask.’s pronoun law” and “Sask. Opposition says pronoun and naming policy motivated by politics, transphobia.” By contrast, not one of the 38 articles contained attributed praise of the policy; the closest, “Sask. premier touts survey showing support for informing parents of name, pronoun changes in school,” referenced the Premier himself.
As these headlines show, CBC reporters relied heavily on outside sources to describe the policy’s purported impact. To determine who those sources were, I coded every person or organization quoted in the 38 articles into three categories: supporters of the government’s policy, critics of the policy, and sources who were neutral towards the policy (I excluded quotes from the government, politicians, and the judicial injunction itself). I also distinguished between those whose opinions were clearly sought by the CBC and those whom the CBC quoted from the public record.
Across 38 articles, the CBC quoted more than five times as many critics of Saskatchewan’s policy as supporters (81 critics, 15 supporters, and five neutral). Moreover, supporters were grouped into a small number of articles, with six of the 15 supporters quoted in a single story about competing public rallies. Only 16 percent of the total articles (six of 38) quoted at least one supporter of the policy, compared to 95 percent of articles (36 of 38) that quoted at least one critic of the government’s policy. And support was never presented independent of criticism: all six articles that included a quote from a supporter also included at least one quote from a critic.
The critics quoted by the CBC were also far more likely to be in a position of authority, while supporters were almost entirely laypeople. Of the 59 critics whose opinions were sought out by the CBC, 26 were what I classify as “experts”—lawyers and legal scholars, professors, school board presidents, health professionals, and LGBTQ organizations—and a further six were teachers. The focus on expertise was even higher from those quoted from the public record: of the 22 critics who were quoted from the public record, twenty (91 percent) were experts or organizations representing experts. By contrast, CBC reporters did not seek out a single “expert” to speak in favour of Saskatchewan’s policy. Of the 15 quotes from supporters that were sought by the CBC, 11 were from community members or protestors at rallies, while four were from the leaders of three small socially conservative interest groups.
The only expert the CBC quoted in defence of the rationale behind Saskatchewan’s policy (from the public record) was Dr. Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist and a trans woman who presented an affidavit for the Saskatchewan government in court. The CBC article presented Dr. Anderson in a negative light, calling her a “vocal critic” of youth gender transition while failing to mention her decades of research and clinical experience. Most egregiously, the CBC article did not quote from Dr. Anderson’s affidavit even though the affidavit was the topic of the article (and even though much of it was quoted in the publicly available judicial injunction). Yet the same article included a quote from UR Pride’s legal counsel criticizing Dr. Anderson’s affidavit.
The selective presentation of content was even more apparent when it came to the CBC’s reporting on public opinion polls. Between August and October 2023, three Canadian polls were released regarding pronoun changes at schools. To understand the content of these polls, it is important to conceptualize of three policy options when it comes to informing parents when their child seeks to change gender pronouns at school. These fall along a continuum:
- Option A: Require that a child’s parents must be informed and require consent for any pronoun changes. This was the policy Saskatchewan ultimately chose.
- Option B: Require that parents be informed, but not require their consent.
- Option C: Neither inform parents nor require their consent.
On August 28, the Angus Reid Institute released a poll (though its data had been collected before Saskatchewan’s policy announcement). The poll showed that 50 percent of Saskatchewan residents believed parents should be informed of and provide consent for any changes (Option A); 36 percent of Saskatchewanians thought parents should be informed only (Option B); and only 10 percent said parents should be neither informed nor provide consent (Option C).
The day the poll was released, Saskatchewan’s Premier posted its results on X, highlighting that 86 percent of Saskatchewan residents support “some level of notification for parents when children want to change their gender identity in school.” This, of course, was a sleight-of-hand: Premier Moe’s statement elided the fact that only 50 percent of respondents thought parental consent should be required, which was his government’s policy.
Yet the CBC’s reporting engaged in a similar sleight-of-hand. In the CBC news story about this poll, its subhead read “Survey shows split on whether schools should require parental permission.” The CBC article framed the issue as permission vs. non-permission (Option A vs. Options B and C combined) where a 50-46 split indeed existed. However, none of the critics of Saskatchewan’s policy quoted by the CBC, in this article or in any other, recommended Option B. Of the 81 criticisms of Saskatchewan’s policy quoted across 38 CBC articles, not one said, “We think the Saskatchewan law goes too far, but we support a middle ground where informing parents should be a requirement.” By framing the survey results as “split,” but only giving voice to sub-position within one side of the split that had 10 percent support in Saskatchewan, the CBC overstated the extent to which critics of the law had public support for their position.
Even more concerning was how the CBC reported (or didn’t report) two subsequent polls. On October 12, polling firm Leger released survey results on gender identity and sexual orientation. Unlike the Angus Reid poll, this poll gave respondents only two options: “Schools should have to let the child’s parents know” about pronoun changes (combining Options A and B above), or “schools should not have to let the child’s parents know” (Option C). Although not as strong a divide as the Angus Reid poll, respondents still supported informing parents by an almost three-to-one margin, with 63 percent saying parents should be informed, 22 percent saying no, and the rest unsure.
As the Saskatchewan government had just invoked the notwithstanding clause to pass its law, the Leger survey also asked respondents “How much would you support or oppose your province using the ‘notwithstanding clause’ in the Constitution to ensure schools must inform parents if their child wishes to be identified by a different gender or have their gender pronoun changed?” Respondents supported the use of the clause by a roughly three-to-two margin: 46 percent supported the use of the clause, 31 percent opposed it, and 22 percent did not know.
A day before Leger released its poll, polling firm spark*insights had also released a poll commissioned on behalf of Egale Canada, an LGBTQ advocacy group that was involved in the litigation against Saskatchewan’s law. Unsurprisingly, this survey framed its questions rather differently. On the question of informing parents, spark*insights asked respondents whether a teacher should have “the discretion to not inform a parent if there is a credible risk to believe telling a parent could put the student at risk.” The inclusion of “credible risk” led to different results than the Leger results: 51 percent of respondents agreed that the teacher should have the discretion, while 49 percent said the teacher should have to inform the parent (the numbers for Saskatchewan residents were slightly more in favour of teacher discretion, 55 percent to 45 percent).
On the notwithstanding clause, the spark*insights survey prefaced its question by saying “A court has ruled that the policy will likely cause irreparable harm to affected children under the age of 16.” With the inclusion of the language of “irreparable harm,” only 27 percent of respondents agreed that Saskatchewan should “use legislative powers to immediately overrule the court and enact the law,” while 73 percent said the government “should allow the courts to review the policy before taking further action” (the numbers were 32 percent and 68 percent for Saskatchewan residents).
Of course, by inserting the language of “credible risk” and “irreparable harm,” the spark*insights survey is a textbook example of how not to frame unbiased polling questions. This is clear when the results are contrasted with the Leger poll released only a day later. Whereas Leger’s neutral framing showed a three-to-one ratio on informing vs. not informing parents, the spark*insights “credible risk” ratio was one-to-one; whereas Leger’s neutral framing showed a three-to-two ratio in favour of the notwithstanding clause, the spark*insights use of “irreparable harm” produced a nearly one-to-three ratio on the same topic.
Thus two surveys with differently-worded questions released a day apart produced very different results. How did CBC report on this disjuncture? Simple: it reported on the spark*insights poll, but not the Leger poll.
Whether deliberate or not, the omission of any mention of Leger’s poll was arguably the most damning aspect of the CBC’s coverage of Saskatchewan’s pronoun policy. Indeed, the CBC published 11 articles about Saskatchewan’s pronoun policy in the 10 days after Leger’s survey was released, none of which mentioned the poll. And it is not as if the poll flew under the national radar: it was the subject of a news story written by a Canadian Press reporter and published by CTV News, Global News, The Globe and Mail, and the Toronto Star. The CBC had even used a Canadian Press story about Saskatchewan’s pronoun policy by the same author a month earlier. Yet somehow, a poll that happened to complicate the CBC’s preferred narrative on Saskatchewan’s pronoun policy was simply not mentioned in the CBC reporting.
The above analysis lends empirical weight to what many have long suspected regarding the ideological tilt of the CBC’s news coverage. Perhaps even more troubling, however, is the lack of curiosity present in the CBC’s reporting on Saskatchewan’s pronoun policy. The 38 CBC articles were written by a combined 15 reporters, 13 of whom were CBC employees. Yet there was virtually no attempt to understand the justifications for a policy of informing parents about their children’s pronoun changes. The articles weren’t just one-sided; they were entirely predictable.
Perhaps this can explain why Canadians are increasingly shrugging their shoulders at the idea of a defunded CBC. If the CBC continues to push allyship over objectivity—and to do so in a way that leads to a less informed public—its $1.3 billion annual public subsidy will become increasingly harder to defend.
Dave Snow is an Associate Professor in Political Science at the University of Guelph.
Business
Sobering reality check – Trump is right: Canada’s economy can’t survive a fair trade agreement with the US

From LifeSiteNews
Canada’s economy has evolved to completely depend upon the good graces of the USA. If President Trump targets China with punitive tariffs, the Canadian economy will be collaterally damaged.
The current Canadian prime minister is genuinely a walking meme of a Canadian prime minister parody.
During his remarks to Parliament last Thursday, Prime Minister Carney waxed gleefully about the U.S. federal trade court ruling against President Trump’s tariffs, just moments before the federal appeals court stayed the opinion of the lower court. It’s a little funny.
Carney doesn’t seem to recognize the reality of the economic landscape before him. He complains about blocked access to the U.S. consumer base with a level of entitlement that’s genuinely humorous. Meanwhile, the Canadian economy around him is collapsing:
Background
Following the 2024 presidential election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled to Mar-a-Lago and said if President Trump were to make the Canadian government face reciprocal tariffs, open the USMCA trade agreements to force reciprocity, and/or balance economic relations on non-tariff issues, then Canada would collapse upon itself economically and cease to exist. In essence, in addition to the NATO defense shortfall, Canada cannot survive as a free and independent North American nation, without receiving all the one-way benefits from the U.S. economy.
To wit, President Trump then said, if Canada cannot survive in a balanced rules environment, including putting together its own military and defenses and meeting its NATO obligations, then Canada should become the 51st U.S state.
It was following this meeting that Trump started emphasizing this point and shocking everyone in the process. However, in the emotional reaction to Trump’s statements, no-one looked at the core issues outlined by Trudeau that framed Trump’s opinion.
Representing Canada, Trudeau was not expressing an unwillingness to comply with fairness and reciprocity in trade with the U.S., what Trudeau was expressing was an inability to comply.
Quite simply, after decades of shifting priorities, Canada no longer has the internal economic capability to comply with a fair-trade agreement (FTA). Trudeau was not lying, and Trump understood the argument, hence his 51st state remarks.
This is where it becomes important to understand the core reason why Trump, Ross, and Lighthizer (2017) did not structurally want to replace the NAFTA agreement with another trilateral trade deal. Mexico and Canada are completely different as it pertains to trade with the U.S. President Trump would rather have two separate bilateral agreements; one for Mexico and one for Canada.
Firstly, Canada is a NATO partner, Mexico is not. As Trump affirmed to Trudeau during the meeting, it would be unfair of Trump to discuss NATO funding with the European Union, while Canada is one of the worst offenders. Trump is leveraging favorable trade terms and tariff relief with the EU member states, as a carrot to get them into compliance with the 2.0 percent to 2.5 percent spending requirement for their military.
If NATO member states contribute more to their own defense, the U.S. can pull back spending and save Americans money. However, Canada is currently 26th in NATO funding, spending only 1.37 percent of its GDP on defense.
Canada would have to spend at least another $15 billion/yr on its defense programs in order to reach 2.0 percent. Trudeau told Trump that was an impossible goal given the nature of the Canadian political system, and the current size of its economy ($2.25 trillion).
Secondly, over the last 40 years Canada has deindustrialized its economy, Mexico has not. As the progressive political ideology of its politicians took control of Canada policy, the “climate change” agenda and “green” economy became the focus. The dirty industrialized systems were not compliant with the goals of the Canadian policy makers.
The dirty mining sector (coal, coking coal, ore) no longer exists at scale to support self-sufficient manufacturing. The dirty oil refineries do not exist to refine the crude oil they extract. Large industrial heavy industry no longer exists at a scale needed to be self-sufficient.
Instead, Canada purchases forged and rolled steel component parts from overseas (mostly China). Making the issue more challenging, Canada doesn’t even have enough people skilled to do the dirty jobs within the heavy manufacturing; they would need a national apprenticeship program. Again, all points raised by Trudeau to explain why bilateral trade compliance was impossible.
Thirdly, the trade between Canada/U.S. and Mexico/U.S. is entirely different. The main imports from Canada are energy, lumber, and raw materials. The main imports from Mexico are agriculture, cars, and finished industrial goods. Mexico refines its own oil; Canada ships its oil to the U.S. for refining. There are obviously some similar products from Mexico and Canada, but for the most part there is a big difference.
Fourth, U.S. banks are allowed to operate in Mexico, but U.S. banks are not allowed to operate in Canada. U.S. media organizations are allowed to broadcast in Mexico, but U.S. media organizations are regulated and not permitted to broadcast in Canada. The Canadian government has strong regulations and restrictions on information and intellectual property.
All of these points of difference highlight why a trilateral trade agreement like NAFTA and the USMCA just don’t work out for the U.S.
Additionally, if President Trump levies a tariff on Chinese imports, it hits Canada much harder than Mexico because Canada has deindustrialized and now imports from China to assemble into finished goods destined to the U.S. In a very direct way Canada is a passthrough for Chinese products. Canada is now more of an assembly economy, not a dirty job manufacturing economy.
When Trudeau outlines the inability of Canada to agree to trade terms, simply because his country no longer has the capability of adhering to those trade terms, a frustrated President Trump says, “then become a state.”
There is no option to remain taking advantage of the U.S. on this level, and things are only getting worse. Thus, the point of irreconcilable conflict is identified.
Because the Canadian government became so dependent on its role as an assembly economy, they enmeshed with China in a way that made them dependent. The political issues of Chinese influence within Canada are a direct result of this dynamic. In fact, China was the big winner from the outcome of the recent election because all of their investments into Canada are grounded on retaining Liberal government dependency.
If Trump targets China with punitive tariffs, the Canadian economy will be collaterally damaged. Canada will end up paying a tariff rate because they use cheap Chinese component parts in their finished goods. Canada has structurally designed its economy to do this over multiple years.
Understanding the unique nature of the Canadian economic conundrum, the only way to address the issue is to break out the USMCA into two separate bilateral trade agreements. One set of trade terms for Mexico that leverages border security, and one set of trade terms for Canada that leverages NATO security and border security. The only substantive similarity between them will be in the auto and agriculture sector.
If you think the multinational corporations, political leftists, and UniParty Republicans in the U.S. are strongly opposing Trump now, just wait until later this year when the Trump administration proposes the elimination of the trilateral North American trade agreement, USMCA.
According to the World Bank, the U.S. economy is $27.3 trillion. Canada is $2.1 trillion. Do the math!
From Politico:
The expectation, according to two people close to the White House, is that negotiations to permanently remove the threat of painful 25 percent tariffs on Canada – which Trump mostly rolled back earlier [in April] – and other sector-specific tariffs are likely to be folded into the upcoming review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. That review is due in 2026, but the Trump administration wants to accelerate to this calendar year.
“It makes sense to separate out Canada and Mexico from the rest because they are going to want to redo the USMCA,” said one of the people close to the White House, who were granted anonymity to discuss ongoing deliberations. “They’re going to have separate tariffs that focus specifically on Mexico and Canada, and they’re going to take some actions to squeeze them a little bit.”
Reprinted with permission from Conservative Treehouse.
Business
Ottawa must listen to the West

If Prime Minister Mark Carney doesn’t listen to the West, it’s going to cost Canada.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe are demanding that Ottawa stop stomping on their provinces’ natural resource production.
Smith is telling Carney to scrap the no more pipelines law, Bill C-69, lift the cap on Alberta’s energy and cancel the looming ban on the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles.
Moe is stepping in sync with Smith, listing Saskatchewan’s demands in a letter, calling for changes to the no more pipelines law, saying, “there are a few policies that are going to have to go.”
Moe is also taking aim at the industrial carbon tax saying “the tax can’t be charged on the electricity for Saskatchewan families.”
The new prime minister says he’s listening.
“I intend to govern for all Canadians,” said Carney in his election victory speech.
If that’s true, Carney must heed the demands of Smith and Moe, because Ottawa’s anti-West policies are damaging the economy and costing taxpayers a truckload of money.
How much?
Ottawa’s cap on oil and gas emissions – which creates a cap on production – will cost the Canadian economy about $20.5 billion and slash 40,000 jobs by 2032, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Canada has also seen nearly $670 billion in natural resources projects suspended or cancelled, since 2015.
To put that kind of money into perspective: $670 billion would pay for the salaries of hundreds of thousands of paramedics and police officers, for a decade.
That’s the equivalent to the value of more than one million houses in Alberta or almost two million homes in Saskatchewan.
That kind of money is worth the entire income tax bills for the populations of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba for about 10 years.
That’s just the lost money from natural resources.
Carney’s looming ban on the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles also has a huge price tag.
Canada’s vehicle transition could cost up to $300 billion by 2040 to expand the electrical grid, according to a report for Natural Resources Canada.
If Carney is serious about boosting the economy and governing for all Canadians, getting the government out of the way of natural resource projects and scrapping the expensive plan to stop people from buying new gas and diesel vehicles is a good first step.
The West has been firmly asking for Ottawa to mind its own business for years.
Cancelling the industrial carbon tax is another way for Carney to show that he’s serious about growing the economy and governing for all Canadians.
On the same day Carney scrapped the consumer carbon tax, the Saskatchewan government dropped its industrial carbon tax down to zero.
“By eliminating industrial carbon costs which are often passed directly on to consumers – the province is acting to protect affordability and economic competitiveness,” said the Saskatchewan government’s news release.
Alberta’s industrial carbon tax is now frozen. Increasing the tax above its current rate would make Alberta “exceptionally uncompetitive,” according to Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz.
Business groups in both provinces lauded each premier, saying it would make their industries more competitive and help bring down costs.
When Ottawa forces businesses like fuel refineries or fertilizer plants to pay the carbon tax, they pass on those costs on to taxpayers when they heat their homes, fill up their cars and buy groceries.
If companies are forced to cut production or leave the country because of the industrial carbon tax and policies like the energy cap, it’s regular Albertans and Saskatchewanians who are hurt the most through job losses.
If Carney intends to govern for all Canadians he needs to listen to Smith and Moe and scrap these policies that are set to cost taxpayers billions and slash tens of thousands of jobs.
Kris Sims is Alberta Director and Gage Haubrich is Prairie Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
-
Brownstone Institute8 hours ago
Anthony Fauci Gets Demolished by White House in New Covid Update
-
Business9 hours ago
Sobering reality check – Trump is right: Canada’s economy can’t survive a fair trade agreement with the US
-
Business10 hours ago
Ottawa must listen to the West
-
Crime7 hours ago
Mexican Cartels Expanding Operations in Canada, Using Indigenous Reserves as Factory Hubs
-
Fraser Institute11 hours ago
Declining stature of foreign affairs minister underscores Canada’s waning influence on world stage
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta’s Environmental Changemakers Shine at the 2025 Emerald Awards
-
Banks1 day ago
Liberal border bill could usher in cashless economy by outlawing cash payments
-
Business1 day ago
Beef is becoming a luxury item in Canada