A breakdown of media coverage found that CBC and CTV coverage promoting expensive Liberal government policies far overshadowed the few times the outlets reported on the programs’ cost to taxpayers.
Plus, Netflix is cutting its contributions to Canadian arts and film production as a way to weather the costs imposed by the Liberal government’s Online Streaming Act.
And the government of Manitoba has announced an extension to the gas tax holiday, initially implemented in January of this year and slated to last until the end of September.
Tune into The Daily Brief with Cosmin Dzsurdzsa and William MacBeath!
Municipal government performance is low in Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver with more residents disapproving of their mayors and city councils than those who support them.
The recent poll commissioned by CityNews with Maru Public Opinion showed that none of the aforementioned cities disapproved of their mayor or city council more than Calgary.
The survey commissioned between Aug. 29 and Sept. 6, 2024, showed that 74% of respondents in Calgary felt their mayor and council were out of touch, followed by Edmonton (72%), Vancouver (70%), and Toronto (61%).
Across the four cities, only one-quarter of residents felt their mayor deserved re-election. Olivia Chow had the most respondents who said she deserved re-election, with 36% saying she did and 58% thinking she was doing a good job.
Following Chow was Edmonton Mayor Amarjeet Sohi, with 26% saying he deserved re-election and 47% saying he was doing a good job.
Half of the Vancouver respondents said Ken Sim was doing a good job. However, only one-quarter said he deserved re-election.
In dead last was Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek, with only 18% of residents saying she deserved re-election and 41% saying she was doing a good job.
Gondek previously became one of Canada’s least popular political candidates, with her approval rating reaching an all-time low in June 2024, even below that of Justin Trudeau.
At the time, her approval rating was 26%, compared to Trudeau’s 28%.
Once touted as a 46-kilometre transit solution, the Green Line LRT had been dramatically scaled back to just 10 kilometres, while costs have ballooned from $4.65 billion to $6.2 billion, despite the LRT’s distance being reduced by over 78% and the number of stations by more than 75%.
“This new alignment would make the Green Line one of the most expensive and least effective LRT projects in North America,” said Alberta Transportation Minister Devin Dreeshen, echoing the frustrations of many residents.
Dreeshen said the track would cost Calgarian taxpayers $630 million per kilometre, seven times more than the $86 million per kilometre Montreal paid for its REM line.
Calgary also ranked last for city council approval.
Those in Vancouver were most likely to say that their city councils were doing a good job (55%), followed by Toronto (52%), Edmonton (44%), and Calgary last again at 42%.
Respondents were also asked whether they were proud of how their city operates. Calgary held their position anchored at the bottom of the list.
Vancouver residents were the most proud of their city, followed by Edmonton, Toronto, and Calgary was last place again.
Maru conducted various other polls on the four cities. Among every city, a predominantly negative view of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was held, with the majority of citizens feeling he and the Liberals were failing them.
Also, residents in all four cities felt that the federal government had a greater affect on inflation than other versions of lesser government.
When asked which federal party leaders would best address the needs in their city, every city answered either “Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives” or “None of them.”
The majority of citizens in all four cities advocated for change at the provincial level as well, with Premier David Eby having the best approval rating in Vancouver, at 42%.
Less than a month before British Columbia’s scheduled election, the BC Conservatives have pulled ahead of the incumbent provincial NDP party in another poll.
According to a Leger 360 poll shared with True North, B.C. Conservative leader John Rustad is slated to receive 45% of the vote in the coming election. Premier David Eby’s NDP currently has 43% support among decided voters.
The survey asked a statistically weighed sample of 1001 B.C. residents aged 18 years and older between Sept. 20 and Sept. 23 about their voting intentions for the upcoming provincial election on Oct. 19, 2024.
The sample was selected to represent the population of B.C. according to Canadian Census demographics. Though no margin of error can be associated with non-probability samples such as this, a probability sample of this size tends to have a margin of error of more or less than 3.1% 19 times out of 20.
The poll shows that the popularity of Rustad’s Conservatives has grown by 3% since Leger’s last survey on Sept. 16th, 2024. At the same time, the NDP lost a percentage point of support from decided voters.
Despite his party’s current poll lead, only 37% of B.C. residents approved of Rustad. In comparison, Eby received a 45% approval rating. 49% said Eby was the best fit to lead the province, and 38% said Rustad was.
Young BC residents aged 18-34 were more likely to support the BC Conservatives, with 46% saying they would and 43% reporting support for the BC NDP. Conversely, those aged 55 and older were more likely to support Eby, with 46%. 44% of decided voters in that age range said they would vote for Rustad’s Conservatives.
In Metro Vancouver, the NDP and Conservatives received nearly equal support, 44% and 45%, respectively. But Vancouver Island and the rest of BC told a different story. 54% of Vancouver Island residents said they would vote for Eby, while 52% of the rest of B.C. said they are voting for Rustad.
More than half, 54%, of participants said they believed B.C. was headed in the wrong direction, while over one-third, 38%, said things are going well for the province.
More than three-quarters of decided voters, 77%, said they would not likely switch their vote, while 15% said they were likely to. BC conservative voters were slightly more committed to their vote, with 57% saying they were “not likely at all” to switch, whereas 45% of NDP voters said the same.
According to the report, 85% of BC residents indicated they are likely to vote, while nearly two-thirds said they would “definitely” be hitting the polls.
At the end of August, the B.C. United Party announced a suspension of its campaign. Its leader, Kevin Falcon, endorsed the B.C. Conservatives, despite having criticisms about its candidates during his campaign. BC United has indicated that it will still run some candidates despite suspending its campaign.
Before suspending its campaign, BC United received 10% of the vote intention according to the Leger poll.
The same poll showed that voters care most about housing prices, affordability, inflation, rising interest rates, and healthcare. However, in a recent Save Our Streets poll, more than half of B.C. residents said they were concerned about crime and safety in the province.
Among all B.C. residents who were asked which party has the top plan to address the priority issues, Eby’s NDP and Rustad’s Conservatives are neck in neck for approval both getting 32% saying they have the best plan.
Of those who knew their opinion, 34.18% said the NDP had done a good job and should be re-elected. 24.05% said they have done a poor job but are still the best choice. And 41.77% said the government has done a poor job governing and either the Green Party or Conservatives should be elected.
CTV News has terminated two journalists following an internal investigation that revealed they manipulated footage of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, falsely portraying his comments during a media scrum.
An official statement from CTV News was released Thursday evening confirming that an investigation found that two members of the CTV News team were responsible for altering a video clip and manipulating it for a story.
“Their actions violate our editorial standards and are unacceptable. Those individuals are no longer members of the CTV News team,” reads the statement.
CTV News added that its duty is to provide independent, accurate, fair, and balanced coverage.
“We will continue our work to earn the trust of the millions of Canadians who turn to CTV News each and every day,” concluded the statement.
The controversy erupted after CTV broadcasted an edited clip on Sunday that appeared to show Poilievre advocating for a motion to defeat the Liberal government’s dental care program. However, the original footage revealed that Poilievre was discussing the carbon tax, not dental care.
During the Sunday night broadcast, CTV News anchor Christina Tenaglia reported, “Close to 650,000 Canadians have already received care. While the continuation of the plan appears safe for now, the events of the last week have raised new questions over the plan’s future,” leading into the altered clip.
The segment then showed Poilievre allegedly saying, “That’s why we need to put forward a motion.” However, he never said that.
The clip was manipulated by removing the first part of Poilievre’s statement, in which he said, “We need a carbon tax so Canadians can vote to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, and stop the crime with a common-sense Conservative government.” The broadcast then spliced this with his comment, “That’s why it’s time to put forward a motion for a carbon tax election.”
Following a letter from Poilievre’s media relations director, Sebastian Skamski, CTV issued a correction.
“Last night, in a report on this broadcast, we presented a comment by the Official Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre that was taken out of context. It left viewers with the impression the Conservative non-confidence motion was to defeat the Liberals’ dental care program,” the network said on Monday. “In fact, the Conservatives have made it clear the motion is based on a long list of issues with the Liberal government, including the carbon tax.”
CTV News’ post to X on Monday apologizing received overwhelmingly negative feedback. Conversely, the update on the firing had far more likes than comments, with many of the comments noting surprise at accountability in legacy media. However, there were many comments suggesting that CTV News used these two journalists as scapegoats.
The apology followed various Conservative MPs and pundits expressing outrage at CTV, with some calling it “interference” or accusing CTV of pushing propaganda on Canadians or spreading disinformation to please the Prime Minister who subsidizes them
Thursday’s statement reiterated the news network’s regret.
“We sincerely and unreservedly apologize for the manner this report went to air and the false impression it created,” reads the statement.
The two journalists who took the fall remain unknown.
Bill C-63 is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation in Canadian history. If passed, Justin Trudeau’s Online Harms Act will silence conservatives on social media for fear that they might end up in prison…that’s not a joke.
For spreading “hate speech” online, a Canadian could be given a life sentence. The Attorney General could force you to wear a tracking device if he believes you MIGHT commit “hate speech” offences in the future.
This is what is being debated right now on the floor on the House of Commons.
Watch the latest episode of Ratio’d with Harrison Faulkner.
A woman who was a prominent gender identity advocate and school counsellor has been charged by the PEI RCMP’s Major Crimes Unit with several serious sexual and other offences involving a minor.
The charges were filed at the provincial court in Charlottetown, and include sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching, which were revealed through an investigation initiated by the RCMP’s Major Crime Unit on Sept. 14.
Bethany Jean Toombs, who until recently was listed on the East Wiltshire Intermediate School’s website as a counsellor within the student services team, was arrested on September 24. According to CBC, her name was removed from the school’s staff list by the following morning.
As an activist, she has been a vocal advocate for topics related to gender ideology and has contributed to various educational modules in the Grade 9 PEI wellness and relationship choices curriculum, focusing on subjects like consent, gender stereotypes, and sexual assault.
“Through this presentation and lesson plan, students will develop a deeper understanding of sexual violence and the importance of consent through an exploration of gender (norms, stereotypes, roles, and expectations),” a model in which Toombs is listed as a contributor reads.
“Specifically, students will understand how complex social factors contribute sexual violence in our communities while also working to identify safe and effective alternatives to abusive behaviour.”
CBC News also featured Toombs as an expert on parenting children with anxiety.
“I think when we think of anxiety, we think of the traditional worrier and so we definitely see worrying happening with children at school,” said Toombs.
“Whether it’s the way that they’re talking, or trying to avoid things that scare them. So we definitely see that happening with elementary children including students refusing to come to school or coming to school and saying they need to come home.”
In 2013, Toombs was also listed as hosting an “interactive workshop” and sexual education for youth discussed “potential strategies for ensuring youth have the knowledge and skills they need for healthy decision-making regarding sexuality.”
Former students, identifying themselves on Reddit, have also mentioned Toombs’ role as the head of a Gay Straight Alliance, highlighting her influential position in discussions surrounding youth sexuality and identity.
Adding to the severity of her charges, Toombs faces an additional count of permitting a person under 19 to consume cannabis, contrary to the Cannabis Control Act.
True North reached out to Toombs via social media to allow her to respond to the charges.
The RCMP has reassured the public that they believe the case is isolated to one victim, and there is no ongoing threat to the broader community.
Toombs is scheduled to appear in court again on October 28.
A breakdown of media coverage found that CBC and CTV coverage promoting expensive Liberal government policies far overshadowed the few times the outlets reported on the programs’ cost to taxpayers.
According to a “machine content analysis” of government and media coverage, the two outlets spent more time covering the benefits of the government’s dental care, pharmacare, and childcare programs than they did on the programs’ costs for taxpayers.
A study released by the Fraser Institute on Thursday found that 4% of CBC and CTV television coverage of government programs noted the associated costs since 2021, when the federal childcare program, was announced.
The study used Wordstat an AI program, to analyze the content of the CBC and CTV broadcasts from Eureka, a database of television newscasts. It counted common phrases and individual word counts from the companies’ broadcasts on the dental care, pharmacare and childcare programs.
The Liberals’ childcare program was announced in Budget 2021. As part of the NDP-Liberal coalition deal, the dental-care program was announced Dec. 11, 2023, and pharmacare was announced Feb. 29, 2024. The programs were billed as an effort to make life more affordable for Canadians by further paying for healthcare costs.
Since 2021, the CBC mentioned the long-term cost impacts of the programs only five times, while CTV noted the permanent annual spending twice. The CBC dedicated 9.4% of its coverage of the programs on the budget and fiscal policies in general while CTV dedicated 15.3% of its coverage to budgetary issues.
In contrast, the study found that the majority of coverage was focused on the politics and politicians surrounding the decisions and not how much they were costing taxpayers. A total of 38.35% of the legacy media companies’ coverage was devoted to the provincial and federal government’s actions and ministers, 14.15% to opposition parties and 12.35% to the coalition agreement between the NDP and the Liberals.
In an interview with True North, report author Lydia Miljan said much of the two outlets’ coverage mirrored government news releases speaking about the program itself and its impact on individuals and Canadians.
“They didn’t ask whether or not taxes would increase, or whether they’d have deficit spending, and the media seem to be more interested in sort of the strategic maneuverings of politicians, rather than doing a critical evaluation of these new social programs,” Miljan said.
The CBC focused 10.2% of its coverage on the programs’ impact on Canadians and 7.2% on the programs. The CTV shared 6.4% of its total coverage on the programs on the impact they would have on Canadians, and 14.8% on the content of the programs. The report said 0.6% of the government’s reports focused on the cost of the programs, while 53% focused on the programs themselves.
“The government continues to be very adept at controlling their message, so when they downplay the costs of the social programs, the media followed suit,” Miljan told True North.
She said the lack of government transparency on funding does not reflect Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s statements during his first term.
“When Justin Trudeau got into power he famously said that the new government would be ‘open by default,’ and what we’ve seen over the last nine years is more secrecy, more hiding of crucial information,” she said. “The media lauded them when he publicized all the mandate letters.”
She said the mandate letters for Finance Minister Minister Chrystia Freeland were clear in saying Freeland needed to “avoid creating new permanent spending” and keep to the governments fiscal anchors and she said the two media companies have failed to hold her accountable for that.
Miljan said she found one direct quote in all the coverage challenging Freeland on the childcare program, where CTV’s Lisa Laflamme pressured the minister saying the childcare program was passing off the costs to the same children the program purports to help when they’re adults.
She hopes that after reading this report, the media will question the government more on its fiscal and financial health.
“CBC News takes a much broader perspective – beyond the financial numbers – as cost implications are just one aspect of any given program,” a CBC spokesperson told True North in an email. “Every day, our journalists hold politicians to account for how their programs, policies and initiatives will impact Canadians.”
In an email, Franco Terrazzano, the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, told True North that the government is failing its duty to be “totally transparent” with taxpayers about the cost of its “expensive schemes.”
“This isn’t a good look. The media loves to talk about holding politicians accountable, so the media should be holding politicians accountable for their massively expensive programs,” Terrazzano said. “The government should always be transparent with taxpayers about the price tag, and there’s no doubt that Canadians want to hear the media report on the taxpayer costs.”
The CTV did not respond to True North’s requests for comment.
One of Canada’s most prestigious post-secondary institutions has officially endorsed the Chicago Principles, a suite of guiding propositions designed to demonstrate a commitment to freedom of speech and freedom of expression on college campuses.
Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont. released a statement last week endorsing the Chicago Principles in the wake of “significant global and domestic events” which have inevitably made “themselves felt in our daily lives at Queen’s.”
The Chicago Principles were founded at the University of Chicago in 2014 in response to students at various schools attempting, often successfully, to prevent controversial figures from speaking on college campuses.
They were laid out to articulate the institution’s “overarching commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the University’s community.”
In the wake of ever-growing conflict in the Middle East, Queen’s Principal Patrick Deane expressed the institution’s inability to take a stance in a school-wide email last week.
Deane said Queen’s position regarding commenting on global and domestic affairs is to promote diverse understanding through research and dialogue.
While he acknowledged that ongoing conflicts are more likely to evoke strong emotions due to “personal, moral, or ethical conviction[s],” especially when individuals, family or friends are directly impacted, the university itself will not take a stance.
“The pressure to comment or adopt a position can be considerable, but the university, by definition and mission, is a diverse plurality: a large community that includes many different perspectives, which the institution considers and evaluates through dialogue and research,” reads the email.
Deane stressed that individual members of the Queen’s community are still encouraged to express their personal views, highlighting the university’s commitment to “free and open enquiry,” consistent with the Chicago Principles as well as the Magna Charta Universitatum, to which Queen’s is a signatory.
However, Deane said that regardless of the various approaches of other universities, Queen’s will limit institutional statements to only issues which directly affect the University itself.
“With these considerations in mind, Queen’s is adopting a standard practice of not issuing university statements that take an institutional position on global or domestic affairs. Faculties and departments are asked to mirror this approach,” said Deane.
While faculties and departments may continue to express their personal views, the principal noted that they are reminded to distinguish such views from being interpreted as official university positions.
“Together, our community can continue to foster a respectful and inclusive environment where ideas can be expressed and explored with openness, tolerance, and academic rigour. Your support in this matter is greatly appreciated,” said Deane.
Canada continues to deal with an immigration backlog that has now reached over 1,078,300 applications across different categories.
The backlog is up 7.57% on a month-on-month basis, according to data from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
The IRCC published its latest data on Tuesday, which offers a comprehensive look into the status of people at various procedural stages, including temporary residency applications, permanent residency and citizenship.
According to the latest figures, there were a total of 2,420,800 applications in process as of August 31, with a backlog of almost 1.1 million applications delayed.
The delays are across the citizenship, permanent residence, and temporary residence categories and present a significant problem for potential immigrants.
“The growing number of applications in the backlog is alarming, and the elephant in the room are those for temporary status, including visitor visas, study permits, and work permits,” specialist in citizenship and immigration law Sergio Karas told True North.
“Unless this category is addressed, the situation will continue to deteriorate. There is too much demand, and the federal government has already acknowledged that the current pace of application growth is unsustainable. A drastic reduction in the numbers is required until the balance is restored.”
Citizenship applications have decreased by 1.02% since July, while permanent residence applications have seen a slight 0.60% increase over that period, indicating better processing.
Temporary residence applications on the other hand have surged since July, up 11.21%.
These applications have seen by far the largest increase, due to the growing demand for international student, visitor and work visas.
“The growing number of study permits poses the main problem, because after graduation students may qualify for work permits, and most expect to apply for residency, putting further pressure on the system,” said Karas.
“Also, the skyrocketing number of refugee claimants adds to the pressure on the open work permit category.”
According to Karas, the government must “find ways to limit refugee claims and drastically reduce granting study permits while prioritizing work permits for those whose skills are urgently required by employers in skilled labor positions.”
Citizenship applications are processed within service standards, meaning the IRCC’s “commitment to process your application in a certain amount of time under normal circumstances” dropped by 1.50%, marking a continued trend in recent months.
Temporary residence applications also dropped by 7.77%, meaning the bulk of these applications are now likely in the backlog.
However, permanent residence applications processed within service standards increased by 8.04%.
According to the IRCC, 20-30% of applications in the backlog will be processed by the summer of next year. The agency projects that this can be achieved by expanding technological innovations and better resource allocation.
Additionally, the agency suggests making reforms to help streamline the application process.
However, the agency is also at the mercy of the increasing demand for temporary residence visas, as this category persists in having the largest backlog as well as total applications.
Applicants in the category are expected to experience extended processing times as the backlog currently holds around 738,900 applications.
“Although some measures to reduce study permits and low-wage work permits have been announced recently, they fall short of what is required to clear the backlog and reduce pressure on the adjudication process,” noted Karas.
“Many study permit holders whose post-graduate work permits are expiring and who have not been selected for residency are fabricating bogus refugee claims so they can apply for open work permits and remain in Canada for years to come. That is an abuse, it clogs the system and must be stopped immediately.”
An assortment of stakeholders representing civil society groups gathered in Ottawa to discuss Canada’s proposed internet censorship legislation, with some advocating more protections for free speech and others saying the bill doesn’t go far enough.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims and Open Media co-hosted the Digital Justice Summit in Ottawa on Monday. A diverse range of stakeholders and lawmakers gathered to learn, discuss and debate Bill C-63, also known as the Online Harms Act.
Spearheaded by Justice Minister and Attorney General Arif Virani, the Liberals argue that the bill, which is in its second reading in the House of Commons, is necessary to protect children and Canadians at large against “online harms such as hate speech, non-consensual sexual images and child pornography.
The Conservatives have put forward an alternative bill to replace the proposed legislation with Bill C-412. The bill is intended to protect children from harms outlined in the first part of Bill C-63 regarding sexual crimes and argue that existing hate speech laws can address online hate.
There was widespread consensus that part one of C-63, which protects minors from internet crimes, was worthwhile to pursue though many said it required further attention. The panel on the first part of the bill unanimously agreed that the bill ought to be split into two seperate pieces of legislation, although some in attendance disagreed.
“Part one is more fixable (than the later sections of the bill,)” Matt Hatfield, the executive director of Open Media told True North. “We need to make sure that (the commissions) order-making power is restricted to be used for its actual purposes and also that it doesn’t overstep. I’d like to see language that is very explicit, saying that any orders need to be proportionate and respectful of the privacy and free expression of internet users.”
Many attendees advocated that C-63 does not go far enough and argued for further restrictions on social media platforms and how Canadians use social media.
Green Party leader Elizabeth May, who is in support of the goals of the Online Harms Act and expects the bill to be split was a keynote speaker at the event. She advocated for designating social media companies as publishers so that courts could charge them for allowing libellous information on their platforms, making the legislation obsolete. She wanted laws to ensure law enforcement could identify people posting online more easily.
Others advocated for the government to influence social media algorithms to dampen the reach of potentially “harmful” content. They stated that the social media landscape is already heavily manipulated by algorithms, so having a regulatory body influence companies to tweak the algorithm would be a positive change.
“Open Media would not agree with that perspective. I think people should probably have some regulation on algorithms, but it should give users more choice over the algorithms affecting their feed, not to tilt the algorithm further,” Hatfield said.
Hatfield and others, such as Christine Van Geyn, the litigations director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, opposed C-63 and advocated for the removal of specific sections or narrower definitions in the bill to ensure the rights of Canadians’ free expression remain protected.
In an interview, Van Geyn told True North that the current bill would stifle Canadians’ freedom of expression and chill free discourse online. Her panel discussed the reintroduction of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which criminalized “hate messages” that were “likely to expose” a person or persons in an identifiable group prohibited from discrimination, hatred or contempt.
The section was removed from the CHRA in 2014 due to its potential abuse and stifling of free speech. Later sections of the Online Harms Act would codify the provision into law and Van Geyn thinks it should stay out.
The hate-speech provision was challenged after it was used against author and columnist Mark Steyn in a failed lawsuit against him following his criticism of Islam in various Op-Eds in between 2005 and 2007.
“The guardrails that the federal government has proposed do not provide adequate protections against the process being abused the way it was previously,” Van Geyn said.
She noted that it won’t cost hate-crime complainants a dime to flag speech they don’t approve of to the commission while anyone who wanted to fight the complaint could expect to pay hefty legal costs and fines of up to $70,000 if they lose. Van Geyn said most Canadians will opt to simply take their post down even if it’s valuable to public discourse.
