Youth Unemployment in Canada Reaches Levels Rarely Seen Outside Recessions

A new report is raising concerns about the state of Canada’s labour market after finding that youth unemployment has climbed to levels typically associated with economic downturns.

According to research released by the Fraser Institute, the unemployment rate among Canadians aged 15 to 24 rose from 10 per cent in 2022 to 13.8 per cent in 2025, marking the fastest three-year increase ever recorded outside of a recession. The report describes the trend as an extraordinary deterioration in employment prospects for young workers.

The study found that more than 437,000 young Canadians were unemployed in 2025, with the gap between youth and adult unemployment widening significantly. While unemployment among adults stood at 5.7 per cent, the youth rate reached 13.8 per cent, creating an 8.1-percentage-point difference—one of the largest disparities on record.

Recent Statistics Canada data suggests the challenge has continued into 2026. Youth unemployment remained near 14 per cent through the early months of the year after peaking at approximately 14.6 per cent in late 2025.

The report also highlights a growing divergence between Canada and the United States. While youth unemployment in the U.S. remained near 10 per cent in 2025, Canada’s rate was nearly four percentage points higher, representing one of the widest gaps between the two countries in decades.

Researchers point to several possible factors behind the increase, including heightened competition for entry-level positions, rising labour costs, and a growing supply of low-skill workers. The report argues these conditions have made it increasingly difficult for young Canadians to secure their first jobs and gain valuable workplace experience.

Economists have long warned that prolonged periods of youth unemployment can have lasting effects on earnings, career development, and workforce participation. As the number of jobless young Canadians continues to grow, the findings are likely to add pressure on policymakers to address barriers facing those entering the labour market.

With unemployment among young Canadians remaining near historic highs outside of recessionary periods, the report suggests Canada’s youth employment challenges may be becoming a significant economic issue rather than a temporary labour market fluctuation.

Parliamentary Records Show Local Journalism Funding Flowed to Major Canadian News Outlets

Parliamentary records suggest that federal funding intended to support underserved communities through Canada’s Local Journalism Initiative has been distributed to a number of large, well-established media organizations.

The program, originally introduced as a way to strengthen coverage in regions lacking sufficient local news reporting, has been presented by the federal government as a means of addressing “news deserts” and improving access to civic information in smaller communities.

However, documents tabled in Parliament following a written question from Conservative MP Arpan Khanna indicate that significant portions of funding have gone to major urban newsrooms, including outlets such as the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, Winnipeg Free Press, and Winnipeg Sun, among others.

Khanna’s request sought detailed information on the program since 2019, including how funds were distributed, which intermediary organizations administered payments, and the final recipients, along with associated amounts, dates, and locations.

The response revealed that funding was delivered through intermediary organizations, including News Media Canada and the Community Radio Fund of Canada, which then allocated resources to participating media outlets.

Among the reported recipients were a mix of regional and national publications, including:

  • $408,468 to Le Droit
  • $347,172 to The Hamilton Spectator
  • $338,880 to Winnipeg Free Press
  • $282,062 to Telegraph-Journal
  • $257,576 to The Telegram
  • $236,844 to The Guardian
  • $202,152 to Winnipeg Sun
  • $171,664 to Peterborough Examiner
  • $158,277 to Toronto Star
  • $138,125 to Daily Gleaner
  • $30,750 to The Globe and Mail

Critics argue that the inclusion of major metropolitan newspapers raises questions about how “local” need is defined within the program, given its original emphasis on underserved or rural communities.

The initiative’s structure, which relies on third-party organizations to distribute funds rather than direct federal payments to media outlets, has also drawn attention. Supporters say this model helps administer funding efficiently across a broad range of applicants, while critics argue it reduces transparency around final allocations.

News Media Canada, one of the intermediary organizations involved, has previously described the initiative as essential for sustaining local journalism, particularly in smaller communities where newsrooms face financial pressure.

The Local Journalism Initiative was initially scheduled to conclude in 2024 but has since been extended, with additional federal funding approved to continue the program.

The broader debate over the initiative reflects ongoing tensions in Canada’s media policy landscape, including questions about how to define local journalism, how funding should be distributed, and what role government should play in supporting news organizations.

While supporters argue the program helps preserve access to journalism in communities that might otherwise go unserved, critics contend that the inclusion of large, established outlets complicates the program’s stated purpose and raises concerns about fairness and accountability in media subsidies.

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.