Will Dove 0:00 There remains in Canada only one news outlet that is still doing honest investigative reporting on our government. Since 2012, Tom Korski, Managing Editor of Blacklock's Reporter, has been a member of the National Press Gallery. He is the only one of the some 300 members of the press in the gallery who does not accept money from the government through Freedom of Information requests, monitoring of bills at the House of Commons and the Senate, and through what has become an almost extinct art, investigative journalism, Blacklock's reports the truths about what our government is up to. Not long ago, the government tried to pass Bill C-36, which would have allowed them to tax you on the sale of your primary residence. It was Tom and Blacklock's Reporter who blew the whistle on this. As a direct result of bringing to light a bill that our government didn't want Canadians to know about until it was too late, that bill was defeated and you are still able to sell your home tax free. Tom has 43 years experience as a reporter. Originally from Brandon, Manitoba, he covered the Alberta Legislature for six years, then worked overseas for the South China Morning Post. For the past 12 years, Tom. through Blacklock's, has been keeping an eye on our government. And they, along with the members of the press who belong to state sponsored media had been trying very hard to silence him. But Tom will not be silenced. He has taken the government to court many times for copyright infringement when they stole his articles and reproduced them without permission. And Tom is old school. While accredited members of the press gallery can watch House of Commons proceedings from anywhere, Tom still shows up at Parliament Hill every day. And every day, he faithful reports on what our government doesn't want you to see. This interview is audio only. The computers in the press gallery do not have cameras. And Tom and I spoke early on a Monday morning when he was already at the press gallery. Tom also does not own a cell phone. He called me on a landline. Will Dove 2:22 Tom, welcome to the show. Tom Korski 2:24 Thank you. Will. Will Dove 2:25 It's a real pleasure to have you on, Tom, because I have been following Blacklock's Reporter for some time now. The work that you folks are doing is absolutely excellent. And it really does appear to me that you're just about the only independent news source out there that's keeping an eye on our government and what they're doing. Could you please describe for us how Blacklock's got started in your own history as a reporter. Tom Korski 2:46 The website started, we're now in our 12th year, Will. The main focus is we say to the degree it's possible, we'd have a Parliament Hill without the politics so bills, regulations, federal courts and tribunals, committees, public accounts, Freedom of Information, access to information, we do a lot of those requests. With a heavy focus on the money we like to follow the money. We think that's what the whole scenes about. That's why people elect to Parliament, to spend their money in it's, they spend a lot. We're up to half a trillion dollar annual budgets now, which is a large sum of money. So there's lots of work for anyone who wants to do it. I came out of the old apprenticeship system as a reporter. I started in Brandon, Manitoba, and covered the Waterfront School Board. So City Hall, municipalities, legislature, got work at the Alberta Legislature for seven years. Covered Parliament, worked overseas in China. And Blacklock's is owned and operated by reporters. Not a lot of punditry. We're not interested in a lot of commentary. And it's really just information, information and more information. Will Dove 3:58 Indeed, it is and when, your articles are very concise, very to the point. Something I thought was a little different, though, about Blacklock's, is your articles don't typically have an author on them. How many reporters do you have working and why are the authors not getting credit for the articles? Tom Korski 4:14 Well, that's an interesting point. We have a variety of contributors, we've had up to seven employees at one point. We have fewer now mainly through efficiencies. There are various contributors, but I can tell you as a sidelight, we've been involved in nine years of federal court litigation on copyright. And what we discovered was, in our copyright litigation, essentially 10 words or less the Federal Government was sharing passwords. If you really stealing our work, they would buy a single password and then they would use that to copy literally 1000s of articles and what they were doing was they were hauling in our reporters for, forgive me, very abusive cross examination by counsel with the Department of Justice. So we said the hell with that. And if anyone's going to be cross examined, it's going to be me as managing editor. That's happened numerous times. But it really became a, I'm sorry to say, it was a very unhappy experience involving government counsel, government lawyers, who were going to give our reporters a hard time, just to really, you know, this is law fair. Anyone who's been involved in lengthy civil litigation with the Government of Canada knows exactly what I'm talking about. That's why they don't have by lines, they just say by staff. Will Dove 5:39 Ah, interesting. So you've said that these cases, these copyright cases have been going on for some time now. When was the first one? Tom Korski 5:51 I believe that was filed in 2014. Will Dove 5:56 Okay, so that's... Tom Korski 5:57 I'm positive. It's been nine years. Yeah. Will Dove 6:00 Right. And that is significant, because that's prior to Trudeau and most of us, watching what Trudeau has been up to, and the censorship that he's trying to bring in, think it all came from him. But it's apparent from talking to you that the government has been trying to shut you up for longer than that. Tom Korski 6:16 They have. But I have to say, Will, though, we never take this personally. And I'll explain why. I don't think much of the torment that we put up with was unique to us. I know for a fact, there were other publishers that had their work ripped off. And I don't think the law fair they've subjected us to is unique to us. I know other plaintiffs in entirely different fields, commercial real estate, you name it, retail, who have had legal issues with the Government of Canada, they got the same treatment, these boys play rough. But that's fine. That's the business if you can't stand the heat, don't hang around the kitchen. I get that. In our case, it was we, I don't think the direction ever came from Cabinet. It came from middle managers. It came from communications divisions buried inside the departments. It came from senior bureaucrats, those kind of people. That's where the trouble starts. Will Dove 7:18 Okay, so the government is ripping off your material, and which is why the copyright suits and then they're hauling in the reporters to cross examine, them. What are they trying to achieve, Tom? Tom Korski 7:31 Oh, well, this is just vexatious. This is why they call it law fair. So what you do is you try to make it as unpleasant as possible. And when you're the Government of Canada Civil Litigation Branch of the Department of Justice, you have a couple of things going for you: one is limitless amount of money, and almost no scrutiny. So that's a real sociopath's holiday. My opinion, forgive my candor. So they want to bring in reporters just to give them a hard time. And they would ask them well, do you have moral rights to the story? Who owns this copyright anyway? Where did you write this? Why did you use that adjective? The whole point is to give them a hard time. What have we put up with? We've had Courts Administration Service edit our Wikipedia page. I'm not making that up. We had that documented. This is not the Zimbabwe High Court, Will, that's the Federal Court of Canada, edited our Wikipedia page as a plaintiff. We've had the Civil Litigation Branch block our website on the intranet service regarding Government of Canada employees, so government employees, many of whom happen to be subscribers could not see the stories. I mean, the Civil Litigation Branch filed a vexatious complaint against us as spammers that went to the CRTC, they had a quarter million complaints that year, guess which complaint went right to the top of the list, I was called in by, his name was Neil Barratt, who was head of that anti spam regulation office at the CRTC. I went to, I've sat in meetings with him. He didn't enjoy that. But we were threatened with a $10 million fine. These boys play rough. You talk to anyone, anybody who's been involved in civil litigation with the Government of Canada, and that's what they do. They have a lot of money. They have a lot of time, and they're gonna give you a hard time. Why would they do that to us, Will? Well, because we're the first publisher in Canadian history to sue the Government of Canada for copyright theft. They don't dispute that we own the copyright to the material. They don't dispute that they copied that without payment or permission. Nine years in federal court, my friend. Will Dove 9:55 Well, now you said that they changed, and this is the Federal Court, changed your Wikipedia page. What did they change? Tom Korski 10:04 Well, they put in some unflattering references. I believe they've subsequently been deleted. But I have to be honest, I haven't looked at our Wikipedia page in years. I never, we didn't put up our Wikipedia page. We have our own page. But they were hot, because, as you know, there is software available. There's, this was a third party notified us. And they spotted the URL code from courts administration, that were, was making edits. And if you could go back in a day, this goes back to about 2016. And you could go back and see the edits at the time. And it was drawn to our attention. Well, I got quite upset. And I had a very spirited exchange with the Director of Courts Administration Service, they said an unnamed employee was discipline. I wrote a letter of complaint to the Attorney General in the day. That was Jody Wilson-Raybould. I was pretty upset, Will. I don't think anybody in our country has to put up with that from those people. I'm a man of peace. But I'm not going to be hectored by those people in that way. And subsequently, there was no name. There was undisclosed discipline. But those boys play rough in those surprise to us, as long time reporters, but anyone should know if you want to get into it with the Government of Canada. Well, what am I saying? Ask people who donated to the Freedom Convoy, they play rough. Will Dove 11:43 Yes. And you made reference there to one fine, they wanted $10 million. Have they ever been able to make anything stick, Tom? Have you ever actually been successfully fined? Tom Korski 11:54 Never. No. Though it was completely vexatious. The point is to wear you down. But, you know, it cuts both ways. I get that. Like I said, we never take this personally. I've seen it happen to other publishers. And what other publishers do is they get tired. You say my life is too short. I don't need the stress and they move on. And we didn't. We got upset and said oh, okay, if it's going to be that way, the hell with you. And here we are nine years in federal court. But, Will, we didn't drag this out for nine years. We've been ready to go to trial on our amazing facts for nine years. It's it's the defendant that dragged this out for nine years. But that's what law fair is. And only the government is really good at that. Because they get an extra bail of money at the Department of Justice the start of every fiscal year on April 1. Will Dove 12:51 Yes. So essentially, they're rewarding the government lawyers for dragging cases out. And I've heard this from lawyers who are fighting the government. I interviewed not long ago, Umar Sheikh, who is working with the JCCF. I'm sure you're aware of what he's doing. And yes, he educated me on the fact that these government lawyers will go to great lengths to delay cases. So if you haven't been successfully fined, but you've had to spend, I'm sure, a great deal of time and money defending yourself. What would you estimate your legal bills have been? Tom Korski 13:23 Oh, easily half a million. Oh, sure. Easily. Will Dove 13:28 Wow. All right. Let's move on, please, Tom to the Press Gallery itself, because it's something, of course, that I and my viewers know very little about. I know the history of the Press Gallery that, once upon a time, there was an actual gallery in the House of Commons or in Parliament where the press would sit to observe the proceedings, but it doesn't work like that anymore. Could you please describe for us how it does work? Tom Korski 13:54 Essentially, in its function, the Press Gallery is there at a relevant wine and cheese club, but it does serve one purpose. It is the agency that is used to accredit reporters who want to cover Parliament Hill. Now, in our case, we belong to the Press Gallery because it's the only way that I can get sessional papers. Those are documents that are tabled in the House of Commons, believe it or not, they're public, but good luck getting them if you're not a member of the Press Gallery. You're a member of the Press Gallery you just go to a certain office, House of Commons, Commons Journals Branch, Senate Journals Branch, and say I need this, this was tabled 20 minutes ago, I'd like a copy of that and they have to give it to you. You're not a member, the public, good luck. So that's a crucial function. The Press Gallery performs and they will say this organization, this person is a reporter. They are not a lobbyist. They are not a historian. They have a reason to require daily access. That's their sole function. And that has been the case since Confederation. Will Dove 15:04 So to be a member of the Press Gallery, obviously you have to be an accredited reporter. But as we're going to get into in a bit here, you and the other members of the Press Gallery don't see eye to eye on many things. Who are you accredited with, Tom? Tom Korski 15:16 It is called the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery. It is, I am accredited as an individual, all our reporters are, all our contributors are. The Press Gallery accredits individuals, not corporations, crucial distinction, on the basis that there's an assumption that you are assigned by your employer, publisher, television, or radio station, to cover Parliament and require daily access. There is an allowance for freelancers who do not have an employer, but they, they face quite rigorous restrictions, you have to indicate that you are a working freelancer that has a certain volume of work with more than one client. And that's how it works. Will Dove 16:00 Now, I as I understand it. Now, I made reference to this earlier, the Press Gallery used to be an actual gallery in the House of Commons. But I think what it is now is that there's a room where the reporters are sitting and you're getting a feed, is that correct? Tom Korski 16:13 It is that it's called a newsroom. Reporters can still go to the Press Gallery if you want to, but it's really a waste of time that dates from the days when there were no audio feeds. There were no radio feeds from House of Commons. They've had radio feeds and television feeds since 1977. That means you can do more than, you can do, be in two places at once. And so, all over the House of Commons, you go on to the Press Gallery newsroom, which is in the National Press Building. Now it's across the street, used to be in the center block, which they've closed for a 10 year refit, the parliament buildings undergoing a very costly renovation about $5 billion. But you would, so you have these feeds, so that means you can do, like I say, more than one thing at once. One of our contributors worked in the Press Gallery before television, before 1977, and that you would have to assign a reporter to sit in the House of Commons chamber until they broke at two o'clock in the morning and they could do it again. All it's very time consuming and very costly. Now everyone really relies on these feeds, as I say, Will, you walk up and down Parliament Hill, when the House of Commons is in session, every MP's office, every security office, every newsroom would have these feeds running. Will Dove 17:29 So you don't necessarily have to be sitting in in the press room to access the feed. Tom Korski 17:35 No, you don't have to be at the arena to watch the hockey game. Exactly. Will Dove 17:39 Okay, Tom, how many members of the Press Gallery are there? And how many of them typically show up in the Press Gallery room? Tom Korski 17:50 There'd be over about 300, I'm guessing about three, last time I checked it, about 320 members. The vast majority of those are technicians, photographers, cameraman, uh, sound people. The vast majority would also be technicians with a handful of large corporations like Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CTV News, and Global, the television networks, very labor intensive. It'd be about I would estimate above 35 different news organizations that have people assigned to the Press Gallery. But as I mentioned that 325 or so is, is deceptively large. Because you know, I'm sure 100 of them work at the CBC. Will Dove 18:36 I want to... Tom Korski 18:37 You work in the Press Gallery every day, how many show up in the National Press Building? Well, I can tell you that through the pandemic, there was us. We were the only ones every day, day after day. We were the only ones who showed up in this newsroom to do our work. Everyone was, you remember people were freaking out working from home and and with increasing technology. Some people like to work from home. We don't. Will Dove 19:04 You said 300 members, but that's a deceptively large figure. You said about 35 different organizations. How many reporters do you think there are? Tom Korski 19:15 Yeah, that's that's very few. I would guess that 60 would be generous. Will Dove 19:20 And out of those 60, how many on average would show up in the Press Gallery room on a given day. And versus how many are... Tom Korski 19:30 Do you say post pandemic? Yeah, these days, post pandemic, Will, I would say there's, there would be approximately five or six, others would work at their own company newsrooms. Some choose not to work in the Press Gallery newsroom. They have their own company offices that are one or two, three blocks away from Parliament Hill. But I would say there would be about a half dozen on a daily basis. Will Dove 19:52 A half a dozen in the actual Press Gallery room and and I know this is going to be, you can't do any more than guess at this: how many reporters are actually watching the proceedings? Because, of course, many of them as you just said, they don't have to be in the Press Gallery room to do that. Tom Korski 20:08 Oh, I'm going to be very candid and say very few. There are a large number of air quotes. There are a large number of reporters, air quotes, who spend their entire careers going from news conferences, to scrums to news conferences being fed with a cup and a spoon. The number that follow the legislative proceedings, similar to the number that read public accounts or access to information is very few. That's why we're in business. Will. Will Dove 20:32 Yeah, so they both say that, that makes a great deal of sense. If they're all sitting out there, as you said, being fed with a cuo and a spoon, basically, taking whatever the government representatives are telling them, versus actually watching the proceedings, doing Freedom of Information requests, reading the bills, you're gonna get a very different picture. Tom Korski 20:51 Absolutely, yeah. There's no, there's no question about it. Our job is to depict reality, this is the problem. And now there are mechanical reasons. I know that people often say what you, why is there uniform coverage out of Parliament Hill? Why is it uniformly mediocre? There are, maybe it's generational, I always look for a mechanical reason for failure. I think there are mechanical reasons for that. But there's no question that there are a large number of air quotes reporters assigned to Parliament Hill, who could not tell you the first thing about what happened in Parliament today. What did they do with your money? What happened with that committee report? Why is that regulation important? They would be the last to know. Will Dove 21:42 Now you've got, you've just painted a picture for us of some half a dozen reporters on a given day who are actually showing up to the Press Gallery room, and I've gotten the impression from speaking to you, and we've spoken previously, that you often do go to the Press Gallery room. How many days a week would you say you spend there? Tom Korski 22:01 Every day. Will Dove 22:02 So, you're Tom Korski 22:03 We never miss a day. Will Dove 22:03 So you're always there. Now, you've got another case going on right now, where the Press Gallery is giving you a hard time. Could you give us the details on that, or at least as much as you're allowed to discuss? Because I think the case is still live. Tom Korski 22:18 I'm happy to. Litigation pending in Ontario Superior Court, right now we are going into the examination for discovery stage. And that's the interesting, that's where you produce your documents supporting your case, and you can compel them under questioning, under threat of perjury when they are under oath, to examine exactly what happened, what did happen. Once again, I never take this personally, Will. I've seen this happen to other news organizations and other reporters. The Press Gallery is a volunteer board. I described it as a wine and cheese club, that's my opinion, if that's derogatory or insulting, well, there you have it. And anyone who's served on a volunteer board of any kind knows the problem is you can't fire them. Volunteers. So you get busy bodies, and you will get ax grinders and score settlers. We're all competitors. This is the key. We're competitors. And the Press Gallery for years has given Blacklock's a hard time. We had to get a lawyer's letter to get accreditation when we started Blacklock's. We were already members of the Press Gallery, Will. We had to get a lawyer's letter because they wanted quite, they had a bunch of questions about our financing. I said it's none of your business. You just accredit us like just like any other news agency, just like Canadian Press, Bloomberg or Reuters, to hell with that. And we did. So they they've given us the grief for 12 years. Part of that is competitive pressure. Part of it may be something else, I think it's reprisal. But we're going to find out on examination for discovery when we get these people under oath, they are not going to enjoy it, it's going to be very probative. That's going to happen in 2024. Well, what did they do? All of a sudden, there's mirrors, essentially I, my claim to fame, I am the first reporter in history to be evicted from the National Press Building. Well, how great is that? Will Dove 24:19 I'd say that means you're doing your job, Tom. Tom Korski 24:22 Well, when the kids ask me, you know, in the twilight, what did you ever do, Papa, I could say, well, there was that time I was evicted. And there was a bunch of manufactured complaints and some of them were just frankly outrageous. So one of the complaints was I propped open a door during the pandemic, a door to the newsroom, guilty. Another complaint was that I was listening to the English audio feed from the House of Commons, not the French one, guilty. So this was built up into a complaint. Now we're going to get to the bottom of this. There's civil litigation. And we're going to find out what happened. But, Will, this has happened to others. As I mentioned, there have been other publishers who have had their work ripped off under the Copyright Act. There have been other news organizations that have had a hard time from the Press Gallery, because of this culture of the volunteer board. And some uniformity, we must be frank, some conformity in World [unintelligible] and political thought, let's be frank. And I have told others I can tell you I knew at least two others who had grief with the Press Gallery in the past. I said, Well, you got to sue them? Well, I don't know that seems complicated, it's going to cost money, well, then don't but if you're not going to get into it, then you're not going to get into it. If they want to get into it, I say then we're getting into it. Very plain. I'm from Manitoba, only province take up arms against the federal government, I maybe it's our culture, I don't know. But I if I wanted to work for the government, I would work for the government. If I wanted to take orders from the press gallery, I wouldn't work at Blacklock's. Anyway, we're going to litigate this, Will, we're going to be candid. And I told them at the time, take it as a plaintiff, nine years and copyright court before a federal judge, if you guys want to get into it, then that's exactly what's going to happen. And they're discovering that now. Will Dove 26:38 Now, you said you're you've got this claim to fame of being the only reporter ever to be ejected from the Press Gallery. But I think you have another one, the government, because of course, they're they're handing money out to the press in this country like it was candy. My understanding is that you are the only member of the press gallery who does not accept money from the government. Tom Korski 27:01 We're the only eligible ones. So well, there are criteria. They're quite generous criteria. But one of the criteria is you have to be Canadian organization. So for instance, there are small American US agencies, one of them is market news, most people will not have heard of it. They don't qualify for subsidies, so they don't get subsidies. They're accredited in the press gallery. We're the only accredited Canadian news agency in the Press Gallery that will not take the government money. And that's been a point of contention. There's a whole history of that. Some of our contemporaries and our competitors in the Press Gallery we've been absolutely, bullheaded on that, you cannot be independent of government control and take government money at the same time. That's see Spot Run, you take their money, and you drink from the poisoned cup, you're finished. It's very simple. You cannot face your reader, viewer, or listener. You cannot look them in the face when they say isn't it so that you did that story or did not run that story because you're answering to your paymaster. So I'm simple minded enough, Will. Our attitude was don't take the money. And if our readers think we are partisan, incompetent, or stupid, they will know we were just born that way. And if we're not bought and paid for, very straightforward. This is hot. Will the press gallery members pretend it's not an issue? I can tell you I have been in bureau chief meetings with other bureau chiefs in the Press Gallery. And I've told them, you don't want to talk about that. But don't you think it's not a burning issue because it is and it's fatal. And you will find that out in time. Will Dove 29:05 How much money is each individual accredited member getting from the government every year? Tom Korski 29:12 Well, it's tough to pull it down to that level. But let's talk generally. Under the half million dollar media bailout amendments to the Income Tax Act, the publishers are eligible for a payroll rebate of up to just under $14,000 a year. That's $14,000 a year per newsroom employee. If you are an accredited Canadian journalism organization, by the way, my goodness how do you become accredited, will you apply to the Canada Revenue Agency and the Minister of Revenue or her agents will decide if they like the cut of your jib. Well, how corrupt is that. So on the individual, there is the $14,000 rebate that goes to their employer. But there's more. There's. and have been for years, a de facto subsidy [unintelligible] in contracts, they used to call it media monitoring. Media monitoring is a payment from the Government of Canada to a publisher. And that would be for officially monitoring clips and your articles. On our case, they'd give us the single subscription $314 and then copy it 1000s of times. That's why we're in court. There are other cases I can tell you, for instance, there's an environmental website, it's called the National Observer, it quotes the Minister of Environment with authority. The Minister of Environment loves the National Observer. Now, the cabinet loves the National Observer so much that they have awarded a quarter million dollar clipping contract to the publisher of the National Observer. Where I'm from, Will, that's just a subsidy. Because the National Observer subscription is not worth a quarter million to anybody. It's not worth a fraction of that, they sell it for for pennies. They're begging you to go to their website. This has gone on, really, I would say, in the last five, six years, it's one rent. Absolutely red hot. What's my point? Anytime the government is putting money on the table, they are invoking a system of reward and punishment. So you have a bunch of failing websites that are relying on these extraordinary six figure clipping contracts. Plus, the payroll rebates of $14,000 produced from employee plus their subscribers get a 15% tax credit. Ours don't because we don't take corporate welfare. How fair is that? But they do. What is it all add up to? Well, during the pandemic, when there were general wave subsidies? There were publishers like the Winnipeg Free Press, God bless them, one of the worst papers in the English speaking world in my opinion. That was getting a million dollars alone on payroll rebates, plus a clipping contract, plus pandemic wage subsidies. Will, government corporate welfare was over 50% of the company's pre tax revenues. You're not a business anymore. Now you're [unintelligible] you're a house organ for the Government of Canada. Will Dove 32:50 Yes, state sponsored media. So, Tom, something has occurred to me as you've been explaining all of that, your [unintelligible] just for the moment, let's just talk just about that $14,000 a year per accredited member. And earlier in the interview, we discussed that there's probably some 300 accredited members from all these various news organizations. But on any given day, there's a very, very small number of reporters who are actually paying attention to the proceedings. So it seems to me what they're doing is they're gaming the system. They're throwing all these accredited people and who you've said a lot of them are just technicians cameraman sound people who obviously are not they are doing what you're doing. But they're getting the same 14,000 per person. Even though they're really not doing anything. Tom Korski 33:34 You know, the irony, though, Will, the irony is, these news companies are so mismanaged that a lot of these money losing news corporations, you know, if you knew what you if you had any brains, you wouldn't need subsidies in the first place. Did you know as generous as the newsroom corporate welfare program is, it's actually under subscribed. They couldn't even make a go of it, Will, getting a $14,000 rebate per newsroom employee. They've actually cut jobs and I when I say they, I refer to the members of News Media Canada, this former Canadian Newspaper Association. Those are the members that successfully lobbied for corporate welfare in the first place in 2019. They have cut jobs, the Department of Canadian Heritage that runs the program, not the Canada Revenue Agency that gives a what a good boy are you gold star to to their favorite news organizations that apply, but the Department of Canadian Heritage runs the program came up with criteria and monitors that we've seen to their internal memos. It didn't work. They're the first ones to say now it didn't work. Zero job creation. Think about that. A half billion dollars. It didn't go to widows and orphans. It didn't go to sick kids hospitals, it didn't go to wheelchair ramps at the old soldiers home. It went to incompetent money losing publishers who are so off the beam, they don't even know how to make money anymore. And they got the payroll rebate. You tell that to any cattleman, rancher, or small business person in this country: how would you like a $14,000 rebate per employee so you can stumble into drywall 52 weeks a year? Unbelievable. Will Dove 35:32 Yes. Now, Tom, I want to move on to doing the job right. And in my opinion, from what I've seen, Blacklock's is the only organization left in this country that is, and we talked earlier about Freedom of Information requests about following the bills. One specific question I have is because anybody can go to LEGISinfo, and they can look up the government bills. But you described earlier the situation where you can be sitting there you can be watching the proceedings and bill gets tabled, you can walk into a room and say I want a copy, and 20 minutes later, you can have it. So you're getting it right away? How long does it take before that bill shows up on LEGISinfo? Tom Korski 36:09 It varies. Sometimes it can be certainly hours. And sometimes it can be a matter of days. If it's more than 48 hours, there's a problem. But it's not a responsive service. The the website is not great. Will Dove 36:23 Right. Now, other than the Freedom of Information request, following the bills, what other methods are you using to keep an eye on what the government is doing? ...without... Tom Korski 36:34 ...information is absolutely crucial. Yeah. And the other point is committees, we follow committees exhaustively. Why do we do that? Well, there's a couple of reasons. Number one is it's the only point of contact between the Government of Canada, and either the general public or the general public's representatives, that is Members of Parliament and Senators. That's important. That's the only point where the bureaucracy is subject to scrutiny. They don't like it. But it's important. That's not about process or inside baseball. This is crucial. When you hear from an Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance that he didn't know they charge GST on the carbon tax, you say, Wow. Are you kidding me? That explains a lot, that happens in committee. There's something else that happens in committee that's important. There are MPs and Senators assigned to committee, who, frankly are there so long, they know more about the subject matter than the witnesses. Now, this is extraordinary, because that means you are having very knowledgeable people very often, longtime MPs and senators with committee appointments, who know more than the minister, the cabinet ministers assigned to that duty, who are able to question in a probative, relentless and unfeeling way, what happened to your money? That's why we covere committees like they do. Will Dove 38:06 So, Tom, with all of this work that you've done, for over a decade now, could you give us some highlights on things that you've found out about, that our government really didn't want people to know? Tom Korski 38:20 Well, I can tell you my favorite. And it's the in a way it's the dog that didn't bark. But it mattered and I was discussing this with some people who were involved in this with us. Not quite recently. Home Equity Tax. What's that? Well, there's a reason most people have never heard of it because it didn't happen, but they wanted it to, my opinion. We saw through access to information and various obscure documents, there's always a paper trail, Will, you must follow the paper. It's not joyful work. It's often drudgery, but there is no substitute for it. Cabinet had a fetish about a Home Equity Tax. What does that mean? What is it over a trillion dollars in home equity, this mother and father got the stucco bungalow, paid it down. And they're finally mortgage free. It's the only equity they'll have in their life. They know it. It's the only money they'll ever have and a principal residence is tax free in our country under the Income Tax Act. There's no death tax. And there is no tax on a principal residence as a mother and father paid off down that mortgage built up their equity so they would have some income to pay for their children's education or so they didn't die in the street when they got sick, too old to work. And all that trillion in equity was sitting out there and it was driving the Government of Canada crazy and an interesting thing happened. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the federal insurer, decided it was going to be like a federal housing department and they started funding research into Home Equity Tax. In fact, when they came up with a list of research projects under the National Housing Strategy Act that passed in 2019. This was the number one research project. How do we tax home equity? Why would they want to do that? Well, because they want to get those billions of dollars. And they want to divvy it up. Somehow they had this connection. This was the big part. They were going to take all that money and solve the housing crisis. I don't think so. Well, I think they just wanted the money. The grief we got when we started running those stories. It was absolutely amazing. Evan Siddall, God bless him, Chief Executive Officer of CMHC, went on social media and he said we were sloppy reporters, we were liars, we were making it up, worst reporting I've ever seen. He was 100% wrong. Cabinet went on social media, said there goes Blacklock's making it up, don't, don't trust them with the... What happened, my opinion, I think there were members, the Ontario Caucus, one of them was Adam Vaughan and a parliamentary secretary. We can name names. They had a fetish for this. They wanted to tax home equity like no one's business. And one of our sources on this, I was talking to him, as I mentioned, only a few weeks ago, we were walking down memory lane. I said, you know, no one's ever gonna know. But you saved the homeowners of this country hundreds of billions of dollars. And he said, Well, you too, buddy. But anyway, Will, that's one of my all time favorites, because that was absolutely profound. Will Dove 41:35 Right. Tom, let's talk briefly about the censorship that's going on in our country. And it's it's ironic, because I did want to have this discussion with you regardless. And yet, just this morning in my inbox from Blacklock's Reporter, an article titled Fear Incorrect Political Beliefs, talking about the Digital Citizen Initiative, a $7.1 million a year program to censor information. Where do you see this country going, Tom, with with all of this going on? We used to live in a country where there was a free press where it was expected that you were going to tell people the truth. And if the government didn't like people hearing that truth, well, too bad. But now we've got Trudeau and his cronies trying to shut people like you, want to stop you from telling people the truth. How concerned are you about this? Tom Korski 42:24 Well, the cabinet did, in 2021, did table a bill in the dying days of the sitting. It was called C-36. And it was, it could have been, unbelievable. They were going to appoint, I love the names, They were going to appoint a Digital Safety Commissioner, that's what they call it. It was really a federal sensor. And the Digital Safety Commissioner was going to have blocking orders and the ministers of the day, the Attorney General and the Minister of Heritage of the day, they they'd both been reassigned. They spoke quite openly about how we need blocking orders because there's misinformation out there. And some of the misinformation that, I'm quoting them accurately, some of the misinformation, as you mentioned, Will, was about incorrect political beliefs, whatever that means. Some of it involved generating content for public institutions and, Will, I mean, I've been in technical briefings with the Department of Canadian Heritage, I've told them to look at, like I get up in the morning to discredit public institutions. Why do you think I'm coming to work? Right? Did you guys think I was here to give you an attaboy, we're here we're looking for problems, because that's the only way you find solutions. But I will say this, in the words of a wise old federal judge never ascribe to maliciousness that which is merely incompetent. And I think there's some of that. Will, I don't want to chew your ear off. I'm going to keep this short. Remember, I spoke about is there a mechanical reason why do you see uniformity of coverage? Why is it uniformly quite often mediocre and irrelevant? Why would you not see the story you just mentioned that the Department of Canadian Heritage says it needs more money to keep track of incorrect political beliefs. Why wouldn't you read that? Well, there's a few reasons. When I started in the Press Gallery, there were, you talked about bureaus, reporters, there was a reporter here for the Vancouver Sun, the Calgary Herald, the Edmonton Journal, the Regina Leader-Post, when Windsor Star had a man here, I remember him, Halifax Chronicle Herald, those are all gone. Now, the Windsor Star and the Regina Leader-Post did not have the same worldview. But they do now because they're owned by the same chain, Postmedia. So with consolidation corporations took over all this independence, independent voices were lost. That's strike one. And then strike two was they consolidated the news gathering through assignment desk. When I worked at it for daily newspapers, I did for years, there's an outfit called the city desk and that's where you call in your copy as a reporter generally by four o'clock in the afternoon, you tell your editor, I have this and this and that. And they would get together with a sports editor, news editor, photography editor, general managing editor, and they would decide what the newspaper was going to look like tomorrow morning. Well, that's all gone now. What happens with consolidation is now the assignment desk calls down to the reporter in the field to do this, or that, well, you would say, well, if most of the assignment desks are in Toronto, and they are, how the hell would they know what a reporter should cover in Ottawa, or Regina? And the answer is, they don't. So they watch one or two wire feeds, Canadian Press, or they watch CBC. And that's why you see, all of a sudden, everyone has a story about how Trudeau wears sexy socks. Weed can be $1.40 a bushel and Regina, people can be tearing their hair out, but you're going to read the sexy sock story because that's what someone in Toronto decided, that's what happens with consolidation. That's strike two. Strike three. When I started through the apprenticeship system, Will, by the time I hit Ottawa, I'd been a reporter for 15 years. And we'd covered everything that's possible to cover from softball tournaments, to Utility Board hearings, I knew what a mill rate was. Under consolidation, when these companies especially are losing money, everyone knows labor is the biggest component cost of most businesses. They decided to get them cheap, green, and cheap. I do not exaggerate when I tell you. There are reporters whose first job was covering Parliament Hill, are you kidding me? No wonder they do stories about Trudeau's socks. No wonder you lead them around by the mitten strings so they can go to a news conference. Here's the cup. Here's the spot. That's the problem. Will Dove 47:06 Tom, I want to thank you just not just for the time for this interview, but especially for the excellent work that Blacklock's is doing. And you've been watching our government for a very long time. And of course, the last few years have been especially egregious in terms of the government's behavior. What final thoughts would you have for our audience? Tom Korski 47:26 Well, I worry about the money. Maybe it's my age. I worry about the kids and the money. I think they I think what the feds have done, I think it's going to be their longest, most far reaching legacy. I think it's a very selfish and almost a mean-spirited thing to do to spend the kids' inheritance, but that's what they've done. We suggest only now once again, cabinet missed their financial targets deficit. 16%. Bigger than that's borrowed money. Well, none of these programs, the wonderful programs they talk about, are fully funded. It's all borrowed money, and they borrowed and spent and borrowed and spent were so deep down the hole. They increased the debt ceiling 56%. Guess what, that's another story you didn't read. We covered it. But that's another story. You did. The kids didn't report on while they were doing the cup and a spoon routine 56% increase in the debt ceiling. I think that's very far reaching and I think the kids are going to be paying the interest on those bonds for 40 years. It makes me sad just to say it. Will Dove 48:32 Right. Tom, thank you so much for your time today and for giving us this inside look on the Press Gallery and the workings of the government's and the work that you are doing. Tom Korski 48:43 Well, my pleasure, Will, thank you for having me.