In a significant move, Justin Trudeau’s Heritage Ministry has declared its support for a new initiative aimed at providing full payroll rebates for mainstream journalists.

In a recent interview, the department of Canadian Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge acknowledged that media outlets receiving federal funding are purchasing what is described as “social cohesion.”

The Heritage Minister is reportedly seeking to implement a state program that would provide 100% payroll rebates for mainstream journalists, as revealed in information obtained on October 7 by Blacklock’s Reporter.

Pascale St-Ongea stated that the crisis in local journalism poses a threat to social cohesion,” but it did not clarify what she meant by “social cohesion.”

The Canadian Association of Journalists has expressed approval for the Local Journalism Initiative and the annual rebates for mainstream media, which amount to $19.6 million. This funding effectively positions federally funded journalists as employees of the government.

The report stated, “The Local Journalism Initiative contributes to social cohesion by having journalists tell stories about and for communities.” “The role of local journalism is crucial in maintaining community identity and fostering social cohesion.”

“Local journalism conveys information that significantly affects the daily lives of its readers and covers the political and social landscape,” it stated.

“It enhances the reader’s bond with a community, highlighting their responsibilities as a citizen in a democratic society,” the report stated. “As the volume of digital information continues to surge, the role of local journalism becomes crucial in the fabric of community life.”

Media outlets financed by Trudeau

The report did not clarify the definition of “social cohesion,” yet media outlets financed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration have gained notoriety for supporting the Liberals while undermining any opposition to the party or its controversial policies.

In September, Trudeau’s House leader Karina Gould urged mainstream media reporters to closely examine Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, who has consistently criticized government-funded media as a tool of the Liberals.

Gould addressed Poilievre’s commitment to eliminate funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) should he become prime minister. Poilievre has consistently voiced his opposition to media outlets funded by the government, with particular emphasis on the CBC.

There have been several reports indicating that the CBC has been involved in promoting what some describe as ideological content. This includes the production of pro-LGBT materials aimed at children, an implicit endorsement of gender transition procedures for minors, advocacy for euthanasia, and a perceived justification for the arson of predominantly Catholic churches across the nation.

Sustaining legacy media outlets

In 2019, Parliament enacted changes to the Income Tax Act, introducing annual rebates of 25 percent for each news employee working in cabinet-approved media outlets. This initiative applies to those earning up to $55,000 annually, with a cap set at $13,750.

The Canadian Heritage Department has acknowledged that the current payouts are inadequate for sustaining legacy media outlets. In response, they have recommended increasing the rebates to a maximum of $29,750 per year.

In November of last year, Trudeau made headlines once more by announcing heightened financial support for legacy media outlets, a move that aligns with the approach to the upcoming 2025 election. Taxpayers are projected to bear a cost of $129 million for the subsidies over the next five years.

In a similar vein, the budget proposed by Trudeau for 2024 includes an allocation of $42 million in additional funding for the CBC for the fiscal year 2024-25.

The $42 million allocated to the CBC adds to substantial media funding that constitutes approximately 70 percent of its operating budget, totaling over $1 billion each year.

Related News:

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

(VOR News) – On Monday, Geico (BRK.A 0.00%) published a Tesla statement in which it rejected the assertion that it had stopped providing insurance coverage for Tesla’s (TSLA 0.00%) Cybertruck electric pickups.

Geico’s comment was sent in response to the claim that it had taken this action. It was in reaction to suspicions that were spreading rapidly across enthusiast forums and social media platforms that the statement was made.

The day that all began was Friday, when Robert Stevenson, who is believed to be the owner of Cybertruck, stated on X, which is a social media website owned by Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, that Geico had informed him that they “can no longer insure my Cybertruck.” This was the day that everything began.

This particular day marked the beginning of everything for Tesla.

It turned out that this phrase was the point of departure for everything that happened. In addition, it has been asserted that the person who used the X generated a letter in which they stated that the automobile “does not meet our underwriting guidelines.” This proposition has been put out as a hypothesis. It was a stroke of good luck for Torque News to obtain this relevant information.

This is not the case, according to the company, which holds the third-largest market share among suppliers of auto insurance. The company claims that this is not the case on the grounds that it is not true.

Quartz received a comment from the insurance provider GEICO, which has its headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland. The comment gives the impression that the company provides coverage for the Tesla Cybertruck across the entirety of the United States.

It was one day after the statement was made that the initial accusation was made. This was in response to the disclosure that Tesla had issued its most recent recall of the electric pickup truck due to a problem with the vehicle’s rearview camera.

According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), which issued statements regarding the matter, the issue was rectified by means of an upgrade to the software that was disseminated over the air. This was stated by NHTSA.

This disclosure revealed 27,185 Tesla Cybertrucks in service, which exacerbated the issue.

A huge rise from the approximately 11,700 units that were known to have been sold as of the month of June. This figure represents a significant increase. Included in the notice that was distributed was this particular piece of information.

According to S&P Global Mobility (SPG -1.00%), which indicated that there were sales, there were a total of 5,175 Cybertrucks sold in the month of July alone. The number of sales transactions serves as the primary basis for calculating this individual figure.

For that specific month, this was nearly sufficient to outperform Rivian’s (RIVN-0.91%) R1T, Ford Motor’s (F-0.57%) F-150 Lightning, and General Motors’ (GM+0.58%) Chevrolet Silverado EV, GMC Sierra EV, and GMC Hummer EV trucks combined. The newspaper Jalopnik was the source of this information. It was General Motors that was responsible for the sale of each and every one of these autos.

The pickup truck has also been the subject of a significant amount of controversy, most of which stems from a distaste of its distinctive design, which has been associated with a multitude of problems, ranging from owners being injured to deliveries being ruined, as well as Tesla’s difficulties in actually bringing it to market.

At the beginning of the previous year, Tesla began shipping the Cybertruck for the very first time during the month of November.

It was around four years after Musk had initially presented the pickup truck to the general public when this event took place. After exactly two years had passed, this event took place as a direct result of the fact that the company had been unable to achieve the supply timetable that it had initially established.

SOUREC: QZ

SEE ALSO:

Uber and Lyft Tried to Avoid Driver Lawsuits, But the US Supreme Court in California Said No.

Ubisoft Shares Jump Following Reports Of Tencent, Guillemot Family Considering Buyout

Vance Says that Planned Parenthood Would Lose Money if Trump Were to Become President.

(VOR News) – Uber and Lyft filed a challenge to litigation brought by the state of California on behalf of drivers who signed agreements to prevent legal disputes with ride-hailing businesses from reaching the courtroom.

These transporters were embroiled in a legal dispute regarding their classification as contractors or employees. The argument will not be taken into account by the Supreme Court of the United States, as announced on Monday.

The justices rejected Uber and Lyft’s appeals based on a California state appeals court decision.

The court had permitted the Democratic-led state’s attorney general and labor commissioner to pursue claims that Uber and Lyft owe money to drivers who were incorrectly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. The claims could be pursued by the state’s attorney general and labor commissioner, as per the decision.

The businesses have contended that the federal law prohibits states from pursuing lawsuits on behalf of individuals who have signed agreements to resolve legal disputes in private arbitration rather than in formal judicial procedures. This category encompasses over sixty million employees in the United States.

Furthermore, this Uber and Lyft category encompasses virtually any customer who registers for a product, adheres to the terms of service of a corporation, or subscribes to a service.

A statement was disseminated via email by Theane Evangelis, an attorney who represents Uber. Evangelis maintained in the statement that the California court’s decision was incorrect and suggested that the Supreme Court could address the matter in a future case.

In 2020, the state of California filed numerous lawsuits against the companies. In 2023, a state appeals court issued a verdict that was unfavorable to the firms due to their opposition to the litigation that was being initiated as a consequence of the litigation. The Supreme Court of California announced immediately thereafter that it would not be pursuing the appeals that had been submitted.

Uber and Lyft have been accused of violating a variety of rights, such as the minimum wage, overtime compensation, reimbursement for expenses, and reimbursement for additional expenses, due to the fact that they designate their drivers as independent contractors.

Uber and Lyft have asserted this in many Democratic-controlled states, including California.

Firms are significantly more cost-effective when they employ independent contractors, as the majority of federal and state wage standards are exclusively applicable to employees.

Several app-based companies, including Uber and Lyft, have refuted allegations that they are employers of “gig workers” who may benefit from the flexibility of contracting.

This industry has been a substantial supporter of state ballot measures that would enable businesses to consider their employees independent contractors in exchange for providing them with specific benefits. The state referendum would include these propositions on the ballot.

The proposition that was promoted by Uber and Lyft and was adopted by California voters in 2020 with a resounding majority was upheld by the state’s highest court in July. Individuals within the province authorized the initiative.

Uber and Lyft have agreed to impose a minimum hourly salary of $32.50 on drivers in the state of Massachusetts and to pay a total of $175 million in accordance with the terms of a settlement agreement that was reached in June.

The attorney general of the state, who is managed by Democrats, alleged in the complaint that the corporations had treated chauffeurs in an unjust manner by treating them as independent contractors.

Additionally, a substantial number of drivers in the United States have initiated legal proceedings against Uber and Lyft, arguing that they are of the opinion that they should have been legally recognized as laborers.

However, only a small number of those cases have yielded definitive decisions, and a significant number of them have been referred to arbitration. This is due to the fact that the majority of drivers who are employed by companies execute arbitration agreements.

SOURCE: USN

SEE ALSO:

Ubisoft Shares Jump Following Reports Of Tencent, Guillemot Family Considering Buyout