The Media Industry

With the CPP holding 10% of the lifetime earnings of most Canadians, one would expect frequent articles in the Canadian media about the CPP’s indisputable $257 billion surplus and how it should be distributed.

The following stories would be likely read voraciously by millions of struggling Canadians, delighted at both the possibility of a surplus distribution, and, for younger Canadians, the possibility of having $1.7 million more by age 65, at no extra cost.

Why the CPP should distribute some of its $257 billion surplus. Roughly 17 million Canadians deserve $10,000 each, on average. A large GDP increase, job creation, and deficit reduction would be corollary benefits. 

Most pension funds distribute funds when the surplus has reached 25%. The CPP’s surplus is arguably closer to 464%. The average Canadian is owed $10,000, based on standard pension protocol.

Why the 11% CPP Investments return over the last 11 years will likely continue. Recently, their private equity portfolio had a 37.3% return.

How investing their first $2,000 in contributions directly with CPP Investments could likely give, for example, all 25-year-olds $1.7 million more at age 65. Spiraling income inequality and homeowner/renter injustice could be somewhat solved. Older Canadians would also benefit...but the 1% would lose.

Should we trust our Chief Actuary when he has admitted to 500% in errors since 2009? Moreover, he claims an irrefutable $257 billion surplus does not exist.

“Our” Chief Actuary is the watchdog of 10% of our lifetime earnings. But no one audits his suspect work. One actuary says he “hide things at will.” Here is how and why.

Why does the CPP not have a representative Board of Governors like every other pension fund? Contributors and pensioners like you and I should make decisions, not just a deceitful, self-interested Chief Actuary.

With $10,000 at stake each, many readers would pressure politicians to distribute the surplus and allow direct investment with CPP Investments. And these stories would help increase readership in the struggling media industry.

We Canadians are devastated by COVID-19. Our entire country now has a distressing culture of suspicion, exacerbated by masks, over 30,000 deaths, fear of COVID wherever we go and many thousand job losses. We are starved of good news. How disgraceful are the owners of the Canadian media when they deprive us of the good news of 17 million Canadians being owed $10,000 each and a substantial solution to income inequality? It brings bile to my throat as they publish ads of “No fake news here”. A more accurate ad would state “Only news that helps the rich here.”

To be fair and unbiased, our Chief Actuary should be allowed to write a counter article with a title like “Why I recommend not distributing the CPP’s surplus”.

However, a google search will show that absolutely nothing has ever been published by the Canadian media about the CPP’s surplus and potential, despite several submissions from your author. Instead, the Canadian media has published a few skeptical articles about the CPP’s ability to even meet current pension commitments, let alone declare a surplus.

It finally took a respected international publication, The Economist, to write:

“Canada’s vast pension fund is gaining even more financial clout

The fund’s portfolio size has more than tripled over the past decade and is going to become only more gigantic.”

And since those words were published in January 2019, the fund has increased by another $190 billion when the Chief Actuary only specified a need for another $50 billion to fund all pensions for the next 75 years.

Since The Economist published the article, the surplus has increased by another $140 billion.

For perspective, using the traditional US/Canada 10 to 1 ratio, Canada’s $257 billion CPP surplus is equivalent to $2.57 trillion in the US. In the fall of 2021, a google search will show that hundreds of articles have been published regarding Mr. Biden’s infrastructure funding, which will cost $1 trillion.

Where is the Canadian media telling Canadians about the CPP’s $257 billion surplus, much larger than Mr. Biden’s bill on a per capita basis? Moreover, Mr. Biden’s bill relates to the US governments’ general account. The $257 billion CPP surplus is the sole property of 20 million members of the CPP.

Because a small number of companies own the entire Canadian media, selective censorship is much simpler. Wikipedia writes

“Media in Canada are primarily owned by a small number of companies: Bell, Corus, Rogers, Quebecor and the CBC.”

With respect to the CPP, there are only three companies that control the media. The CPP is not in Quebec. And the CBC is publicly owned.

Several outspoken media experts agree that the Canadian media is unprofitable and willing to sacrifice journalistic integrity for the sake of increased profits.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland should know about the media industry. At one time, she was Managing Director at Reuters, Deputy Editor at The Globe and Mail, and reported for The Financial Times, The Economist and The Washington Post. She explains why the Canadian media has published nothing on the CPP’s surplus in her book, Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-rich and the Fall of Everyone Else. The book describes how

“the super-rich have bankrolled a network of conservative think tanks, elite journals and mass media outlets to dominate the debate over economic policy.”

She implies the selfish, wealthy owners of the Canadian media are selectively publishing what is to their advantage, not what is newsworthy.

Award-winning John Miller was professor of journalism at Ryerson University for 23 years. For 10 years he was Chair of the School of Journalism, Canada’s top-ranked journalism school. Before Ryerson, he was managing editor of The Toronto Star. He feels the current Canadian media is

“cannibalistic...They’re chewing away bone marrow of their own properties in order to make them a profit, so the whole public service aspect of journalism has sort of taken a back seat…the overall quality of journalism has been lost.” 

Marc Edge is a Canadian journalist, academic and author. He recently stated

“Media are being financialized and bought up largely by hedge funds, which are only interested in making a profit. They don’t really care too much about journalism. It’s just a means to an end, and that end, of course, is making money, As a result, journalism is being squeezed for every possible dollar of profit.”

In a moment of candour, on Sept. 8, 2022, Globe and Mail journalist, Lawrence Martin, wrote “The online world is skewing social political patterns and thwarting democracy”. In the article, he stated:

“The crisis in our information complex is glaring, but it isn't being addressed. Mainstream media, while demanding transparency everywhere else, rarely applies this standard to itself. Despite its exponential growth in importance, the media industry gets only a small fraction of the scrutiny that other powerful institutions do.

Big issues go largely unexamined in Canadian media. We rarely take a look at the unfettered rise of media ownership monopolies. There is no overarching media institute to address the problems.”

One retired mainstream journalist, when asked to comment on the mainstream media’s failure to cover important topics stated,

“I do not disagree with you at all. It was challenging working within the confines of mainstream media, and I tried to push as hard as I could to cover stories that are important to 99% of Canadians (and not the wealthy 1%) but parochial, short-term thinking and market-driven journalism often thwarted my attempts.”

Even Albert Einstein, almost 75 years ago, predicted a failure in democracy because of a biased media controlled by the wealthy. In the inaugural May 1949 edition of socialist magazine Monthly Review, he argued that private capital

“tends to become concentrated in few hands, resulting in an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society.

Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education).

It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.”

Why are the Canadian media refusing to let Canadians know the good news about the CPP’s huge surplus? Investment firms provide an estimated 20% of advertising revenue to the Canadian media. They are worried that many investors, in search of profits, will transfer their investments to the highly profitable CPP Investments if voluntary contributions are allowed.

If most investors are flocking to CPP Investments, why would investment firms continue to advertise profusely in the media? This explains why the Canadian media obviously has an unwritten agreement to not cover the CPP’s “gigantic” surplus.

The media industry is not profitable. Ms. Freeland wrote in her book “Plutocrats” on page 267

“The publisher of the Financial Times once remarked ruefully that in a very good year the media group’s entire profit was equal to one midlevel Wall Street trader’s bonus”.

Consider The Toronto Star. It lost $52 million in its last year as a public company. How can the newspaper survive without assistance from other revenue sources? Why would two entrepreneurs purchase it for $60 million in May 2020 after its share price had tumbled 99% since 2004. Was there a supplementary source of revenue, possibly from the financial industry? Was it to, as Ms. Freeland states to “dominate the debate over economic policy”? Did The Star receive millions of undisclosed dollars to never discuss the CPP’s surplus?

Are there other hidden sources of revenue for The Star? Are there donations with strings attached from, for example, the financial industry? It would appear so, or The Star’s new owners would soon be bankrupt.

Few Canadians realize our Canadian media is completely owned by a few complicit companies. An independent publication, The Maple, is dedicated to publishing the truth. In a story titled “A Guide To The Ruling Class’s Domination And Destruction Of Canadian Media” they state

“News coverage and the opinion journalism of the largest newspapers in Canada has now been weaponized and monetized by the owners.”

In most areas, Canada is superior to the US. However, in unbiased media coverage, we are inferior.

US media companies like FOX, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and 60 Minutes are highly diverse in opinion. They each cover whatever they want, eager to increase their readership. There is no veto on certain topics like the Canadian media’s likely veto on covering the CPP’s surplus and potential to solve income inequality.

For example, in 2011, CBS News’ popular program, Sixty Minutes, published a story that showed how several US politicians had made millions of dollars by buying stock just before favourable legislation was passed. This story led to the STOCK Act, which vetoed such unethical behaviour.

The impact on Canadians of this news void in Canada is colossal. If the news of the CPP’s surplus and potential were published, it is likely 17 million Canadians would receive $170 billion. And millions of low-income Canadians might enter retirement financially secure.

Because the Canadian news media does not cover those topics that are newsworthy and crucial to Canadians, they pathetically must repeatedly fill the media with coverage that is often not crucial.

Consider the WE Charity “scandal”. The Trudeau government gave the We Charity $912 million to administer the Canada Student Summer Grant Program. The media alleged gross corruption and favouritism. It is alleged that there were 125,000 references in the Canadian media to the “WE scandal” in articles, podcasts, documentaries, and nightly broadcasts. The WE Charity was forced to abandon their efforts because of such devastating press.

Then, Canada’s Ethics Commissioner, after officially reviewing the campaign, wrote

“In my view, the creation and eventual ratification of the (Canada Student Services Grant) was not done improperly."  

Moreover, several prominent academics reviewed the alleged scandal and wrote, because the media’s flawed coverage forced the charity to dissolve

“WE Charity was prevented from fulfilling its commission, with thousands of youth volunteer tutors sidelined due to the appearance of scandal…A generation of young people lost the opportunity to volunteer and help their country in a time of need.”

To summarize, the Canadian media made 125,000 references to a $912 million scandal that did not exist. Meanwhile, they have never alluded to a $224 billion CPP surplus, even though such coverage could lead to 17 million Canadians receiving a deserved $10,000 each, and much more. In dollar terms, the coverage of the CPP’s $224 billion surplus is 245 times the $912 million our government gave the WE charity to help Canada’s young find summer employment.

The Canadian media needs to cover what is newsworthy and will impact on the lives of Canadians. This policy of the entire industry agreeing to cherry-pick only those stories that will not harm their industry needs to stop. We taxpayers substantially fund the struggling Canadian media industry. Trudeau’s 2019 budget gave the media $595 million in subsidies.

Media expert, Marc Edge, recently wrote:

“Newspaper profits are the highest in years thanks to this firehose of government assistance.”

What suckers we are. Most Canadians would likely agree that politicians need to step up and tell the media to cover all newsworthy stories or lose all funding.

In 2016, Finance Minister Morneau legislated revisions to the CPP. While ignoring a surplus of almost $100 billion, he gave Canadians a CPP that is essentially more-of-the-same.

In 2016, Mr. Morneau owned a large portion of Morneau Shepell who then employed 150 actuaries. He knew that CPP Investments would likely continue investing at a rate far above what our Chief Actuary specified for CPP fund stability. If so, a 25-year-old could enjoy a $100,000 CPP pension, in 2023 dollars. If this news reached Canadians, the need for other pension funds, and Morneau Shepell’s accompanying actuaries, would plummet.

Mr. Morneau was in a huge conflict-of-interest as he selfishly legislated CPP reform that protected his company’s lucrative actuarial department while depriving millions of Canadians of huge benefits.

In 2023, our media has published hundreds of articles identifying David Johnston’s appointment as a conflict-of-interest in investigating Chinese interference in Canadian democracy. Not one word has ever been published regarding Mr. Morneau’s conflict-of-interest, a conflict that cost Canadians and Canada huge benefits available from the CPP’s surplus.

To further confuse Canadian readers, roughly two years ago, CPP Investments changed their name from the CPPIB (Canada Pension Plan Investment Board) to CPP Investments. The media still calls it the CPPIB. Confused readers are probably wondering “Are these the same? How are the two related?”

All Canadian media have been made aware of the CPP’s “gigantic” surplus and potential to solve income inequality. The media’s failure to cover the CPP’s surplus is not from a lack of submissions.