Federal Journalism Tax Credit Reaches $71M as Reported Subsidized Jobs Decline

A federal tax credit program aimed at supporting journalism has reached approximately $71 million in total claimed benefits, according to reporting on the program’s latest figures.

The program, designed to provide financial relief to qualifying news organizations through refundable tax credits, has been positioned by the federal government as a way to help sustain journalism in Canada amid ongoing financial pressures in the media sector.

However, critics of the program argue that the structure of subsidies raises questions about long-term sustainability and its impact on the industry. They point to reported data suggesting that the number of journalism jobs supported through subsidized positions has declined to roughly 3,300.

Those raising concerns argue that while total spending through the tax credit continues to rise, it is not clear whether the program is stabilizing newsroom employment or simply offsetting broader structural declines in the sector.

Supporters of the policy maintain that direct financial assistance helps preserve journalism outlets that might otherwise struggle to survive in a changing media environment, particularly as advertising revenues continue to shift toward digital platforms.

At the same time, policy critics argue that reliance on public subsidies could increase government influence over the media landscape, while doing little to reverse long-term employment trends in journalism.

The debate reflects broader tensions over how best to support news organizations in Canada, balancing concerns about media independence, market disruption, and the financial viability of journalism in the digital age.

The federal government has defended its suite of journalism support measures, stating that they are intended to strengthen access to reliable news and ensure the continued availability of journalism services across the country.

Feds Triple Streaming Tax, Making Life More Expensive

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is urging Prime Minister Mark Carney to reverse a newly announced increase to Canada’s streaming levy following a decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to raise the rate from 5 per cent to 15 per cent of Canadian revenues.

According to the CRTC, the updated levy will apply to major online streaming platforms with annual Canadian broadcasting revenues exceeding $25 million, including services such as Netflix, Prime Video, and Disney+, as reported by CBC News.

Franco Terrazzano, Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said the increase runs counter to efforts to improve affordability for Canadians. He argued that higher business costs could ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher subscription prices.

Industry representatives and policy analysts have also raised concerns about the potential impact of the decision. The Motion Picture Association of Canada warned that the increased levy could significantly raise operating costs for streaming services in Canada, potentially discouraging investment and innovation in the sector.

Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, similarly cautioned that the policy could lead to higher prices for consumers and make Canada a more expensive market for streaming companies to operate in.

Critics of the decision argue that increasing regulatory costs on digital services may add pressure to an already inflation-sensitive economy, with potential consequences for both consumers and industry competitiveness.

Terrazzano said the federal government should reconsider the policy direction, emphasizing that increased taxation on digital services risks making everyday entertainment more expensive for Canadians.

In response, the federal government has stated that it is currently reviewing the CRTC’s decision.

The CRTC has framed the measure as part of its broader regulatory approach to the broadcasting sector, while debate continues over its economic impact and implications for consumers and industry investment.

Federal Gun Confiscation Program Faces Scrutiny Over Lack of Evidence

If someone were about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a major public program, most people would expect at least some evidence that it works.

Critics say that expectation does not appear to have been met in Ottawa’s firearms confiscation initiative.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation submitted an access-to-information request to Public Safety Canada, the department overseeing the federal firearms buyback and confiscation program. The request asked for any internal analysis on whether the “assault-style firearms compensation program” would improve public safety or reduce crime.

According to the department’s response, no such analysis exists within Public Safety Canada.

That disclosure has raised concerns among critics, who argue that the federal government is advancing a costly program without producing evidence of its effectiveness.

The program has been budgeted at a minimum of $742 million, though some estimates place its total cost in the billions. Despite this, critics point out that there appears to be no publicly available departmental analysis demonstrating measurable safety benefits.

Federal officials have previously defended the policy on public safety grounds, arguing that reducing the number of firearms in circulation would reduce violence.

However, opponents say that claim is not supported by available research or expert opinion.

Some law enforcement representatives and researchers have questioned the program’s likely impact. Clayton Campbell, president of the Toronto Police Association, has said the initiative would likely have “essentially zero impact” on gun crime in Toronto. University of Toronto professor Jooyoung Lee has similarly noted that firearms buyback programs tend to attract lawful owners rather than individuals engaged in criminal activity, limiting their effect on violent crime.

Participation from police services across Canada has also been limited, with several agencies opting not to take part in implementation.

International comparisons are also frequently cited in the debate. New Zealand’s 2019 firearms buyback program, which removed more than 50,000 weapons from circulation, has been referenced by critics who note that violent firearm crime reportedly increased following the initiative, though analysts caution that multiple factors can influence crime trends.

At the provincial level, the program has also faced resistance. Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew has expressed concerns about its effectiveness and administrative burden, while Ontario Premier Doug Ford has emphasized support for law-abiding firearms owners and questioned the policy’s focus.

Alberta and Saskatchewan have gone further, passing legislation intended to block enforcement of federal confiscation efforts within their jurisdictions. Most provinces and territories, with the exception of British Columbia and Quebec, have declined to participate in implementation, citing concerns about effectiveness and cost.

Public opinion polling, including surveys conducted by Leger, suggests Canadians may prefer increased enforcement against firearms smuggling and illegal trafficking over confiscation efforts targeting licensed owners.

Taken together, critics argue that the program faces skepticism from multiple directions—law enforcement, provincial governments, and segments of the public—while lacking publicly available federal analysis demonstrating its expected outcomes.

They say that without clear evidence of effectiveness, the cost and scope of the program remain difficult to justify.

The federal government, meanwhile, maintains that its firearms policies are designed to improve public safety and reduce gun violence across Canada.

New Report Urges Repeal of Human Rights Speech Offence Provisions Across Canada

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has released a new report titled Speech on Trial: Censorship by Human Rights Commissions, authored by veteran journalist and public policy analyst Nigel Hannaford and Justice Centre President John Carpay. The report examines how certain sections of provincial human rights legislation that prohibit expression deemed “discriminatory” or likely to expose individuals to “hatred or contempt” are being applied to investigate and penalize lawful speech by Canadians.

According to the report, these provisions allow human rights commissions and tribunals to pursue cases involving expression itself, rather than focusing solely on discriminatory actions or conduct. It argues that this has led to situations where individuals are drawn into lengthy and costly legal proceedings over statements of opinion or belief.

The report further contends that respondents often face significant financial and personal burdens, even when complaints are ultimately dismissed. It raises concerns about procedural fairness, noting that human rights tribunals may not offer the same safeguards typically found in traditional court systems.

Several recent cases are highlighted as examples of how these laws are being applied. In British Columbia, former Chilliwack school trustee Barry Neufeld was ordered by the BC Human Rights Tribunal in February 2026 to pay $750,000 in damages following comments related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) policies in schools. In Alberta, business owner Karen Richert is currently facing a complaint related to flyers opposing a proposed rainbow crosswalk in her community. The report also references other cases involving comedy, political commentary, and personal expression.

To address these concerns, the report calls for the repeal of specific provisions in provincial human rights statutes that it says enable the regulation of lawful speech. It identifies the following sections for removal:

Section 7 of British Columbia’s Human Rights Code;
Section 3 of Alberta’s Human Rights Act;
Section 14 of Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code;
Section 18 of Manitoba’s Human Rights Code;
Section 11 of Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms;
Section 7 of New Brunswick’s Human Rights Act;
Section 5(f) and Section 7 of Nova Scotia’s Human Rights Act;
Section 19 of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Human Rights Act;
Section 12 of Prince Edward Island’s Human Rights Act;
Section 13 of the Northwest Territories’ Human Rights Act.

The report argues that removing these provisions would not weaken core human rights protections. It notes that existing laws against discrimination in employment, housing, and the provision of goods and services would remain intact, as would Criminal Code provisions addressing the wilful promotion of hatred. Instead, it suggests the changes would refocus human rights legislation on its original purpose while strengthening protections for freedom of expression.

Commenting on the issue, co-author Nigel Hannaford said human rights commissions were established to address genuine discrimination, not to regulate lawful opinions or enforce ideological conformity.

He added that when Canadians face prolonged legal proceedings and significant financial consequences for expressing lawful views, many may become discouraged from participating in public discourse.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms describes itself as Canada’s leading civil liberties organization focused on defending Charter rights through the courts and public advocacy. Founded in 2010, the organization states that it relies entirely on voluntary donations and provides official tax receipts to supporters.

New Report Warns Government-Controlled AI Could Threaten Privacy and Freedom in Canada

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has released a new report titled The Danger of Government-Controlled Artificial Intelligence, authored by veteran journalist and public policy analyst Nigel Hannaford. The report explores increasing proposals in Canada to regulate or even nationalize artificial intelligence systems in the aftermath of the February 2026 Tumbler Ridge mass shooting, cautioning that such measures could bring Canadians’ private AI interactions under greater government oversight.

While acknowledging that public safety is a legitimate policy goal, the report argues it should not become a justification for weakening privacy rights, freedom of expression, or individual autonomy. It warns that extensive state control over AI platforms—whether through ownership or heavy regulation—could open the door to government access to private conversations, personal research, and sensitive user data.

Among its primary concerns, the report highlights the possibility that government oversight of AI systems could lead to surveillance of private usage, including the monitoring or compelled disclosure of user interactions. It suggests this could undermine expectations of confidentiality when engaging with AI tools.

It also raises the prospect of a chilling effect on free expression, where individuals may avoid asking controversial or exploratory questions out of concern that their interactions could be reviewed by authorities. In addition, the report warns that state influence over AI systems could introduce political bias, potentially shaping outputs or limiting access to certain viewpoints based on prevailing policy priorities.

The report further points to Canada’s proposed Bill C-22, also known as the Lawful Access Act, arguing it could expand law enforcement’s ability to obtain subscriber data and metadata from digital service providers, including AI companies. It cautions that mandatory metadata retention—potentially up to one year—could enable the creation of detailed behavioural profiles of users, raising additional privacy concerns.

It also questions whether tighter regulation or government control of AI would have meaningfully altered the outcome of the Tumbler Ridge incident, suggesting that deeper systemic issues in existing public safety frameworks may be more relevant.

In response, the report recommends that Parliament reject proposals to nationalize or centrally control AI systems and oppose provisions in Bill C-22 that expand compelled data access and metadata retention. It further urges that any lawful access to private digital information remain subject to strict judicial oversight and be limited to serious, imminent threats.

The report calls for narrowly tailored regulatory approaches that address safety concerns without resorting to broad surveillance frameworks, while emphasizing the importance of protecting freedom of thought and inquiry in the digital age. It argues Canadians should be able to engage with emerging technologies without fear of routine monitoring or political interference.

Author Nigel Hannaford states that public safety must be pursued in a way that does not undermine foundational civil liberties, adding that Canadians require assurance their Charter rights remain protected even as technology evolves.

The Justice Centre concludes by encouraging Canadians to oppose government-controlled AI systems and resist legislation that would expand state access to private communications, framing these issues as central to safeguarding privacy, freedom of expression, and personal autonomy in Canada’s digital future.

Founded in 2010, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms describes itself as Canada’s leading civil liberties organization, supporting legal challenges in defence of Charter rights and relying on voluntary donations to fund its work.

Ottawa Spent $275 Million On Health Care For Rejected Asylum Claimants Since 2016

Canadian taxpayers have spent more than $275 million over the past decade providing health coverage to asylum seekers whose refugee claims were ultimately rejected, according to newly released federal figures.

The spending, disclosed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in response to a parliamentary order paper question, covers the period from 2016-17 through 2024-25. It applies to claimants whose cases were denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board, but who continued receiving federally funded health benefits under the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP).

The IFHP was created to provide temporary, limited health coverage to refugee claimants and other eligible non-citizens who are not yet covered by provincial or territorial health plans. It pays for essential medical care, including doctor visits, hospital services, and certain prescription medications.

What has drawn scrutiny is that eligibility for IFHP coverage can continue even after a refugee claim has been rejected. Under current rules, rejected claimants may remain covered while awaiting removal or while pursuing further legal avenues, such as a pre-removal risk assessment. In many cases, coverage only ends once the individual leaves Canada or becomes eligible for another public health plan.

The issue has become increasingly contentious as the overall cost of the program continues to rise alongside record levels of asylum claims and growing backlogs in the immigration system. Delays in processing mean many claimants remain in Canada—and on federally funded benefits—for extended periods, even after an initial rejection.

Critics argue that the arrangement places an added burden on taxpayers at a time when millions of Canadians struggle to access primary care. Supporters, however, contend that basic health coverage is necessary to protect public health and ensure humane treatment while legal processes are completed.

The federal government has already moved to curb rising costs. Beginning May 1, 2026, most IFHP beneficiaries will be required to contribute toward supplemental benefits, including prescription drugs, dental care, vision services, and counselling. Basic medical care, however, will remain fully covered.

The $275 million figure is likely to intensify debate over the balance between humanitarian obligations, fiscal responsibility, and the integrity of Canada’s immigration system. As asylum claims continue to climb, questions about the long-term sustainability of the program are unlikely to fade.