Since 2010, the Canada Periodical Fund granted over $663 million to media. One company took 18%, another is US hedge fund-controlled, and the public tracking data is completely fragmented.
I have received Zoomer as part of my membership in CARP. I found it to be a glossy advertising flyer wrapped around some editorial content. I will not renew my CARP membership nor my subscription to Zoomer.
I don't actually remember, but it was probably something along the lines of the group's being an advocacy voice for seniors. But I also discovered that it was run by Moses Znaimer who is also the publisher of Zoomer and owner of zoomermedia and radio station CFZM. Also "CARP was criticized during the 2025 Canadian election for partisan activity when it hosted an event for Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre during which CARP chairman Moses Znaimer appeared to endorse Poilievre from the stage. In an exchange outside the event when Znaimer was criticized for hosting a "very partisan event", Znaimer replied "that's right" and when asked why he gave a glowing introduction to Poilievre, replied "because I agree with him."
And while I am certainly not going criticize to anyone's personal choices in politics, to do so on behalf a group of seniors whose political choices probably vary from far left to far right, and which group you are going to have to represent to which ever government is elected is just wrong.
The relationship between CARP and Zoomer Media is unusual. I dont know of any reason to believe government money given to Zoomer Medi is mis spent, though.
From CARP'S website:
"CARP, a national, not for profit corporation, operates independently of government funding. Instead, it relies on revenue generated from membership fees and contributions from educational partnerships to support its advocacy efforts. CARP has formed a reciprocally beneficial partnership with ZoomerMedia Limited."
This is an important contribution to public discourse, and the kind of investigative work that independent media does better than anyone right now.
I firmly believe in public support for Canadian local and regional publications. That support has a real history and a real purpose. But public money needs to serve public goals, and this piece makes clear the current formula is not doing that as well as it should.
When a program designed to help smaller publishers overcome market disadvantages ends up channelling the lion's share of funding to companies with billion-dollar market caps and profit margins in the double digits, something has gone sideways. Not through fraud or bad faith, but through criteria that haven't been revisited in fifteen years while the media landscape transformed around them.
The Postmedia situation is its own category of concern. A company majority-owned by an American hedge fund, carrying hundreds of millions in high-interest debt to that same fund, continuing to qualify for Canadian public support on a technicality of voting rights versus economic ownership: that gap alone warrants a policy review.
Smaller Canadian independents building local readership on shoestring budgets are exactly who this program should be prioritizing. Revising the criteria to better serve them isn't an argument against public support for journalism. It's an argument for spending that support wisely.
Thanks to Heidi and you for working on this. Something most Canadians don't know about, and naturally sometime most publications are not as incentivized to report on.
I have received Zoomer as part of my membership in CARP. I found it to be a glossy advertising flyer wrapped around some editorial content. I will not renew my CARP membership nor my subscription to Zoomer.
Interesting -- had not heard of them https://www.carp.ca/about/
While you note you aren't renewing, what drew you to this organization initially?
I don't actually remember, but it was probably something along the lines of the group's being an advocacy voice for seniors. But I also discovered that it was run by Moses Znaimer who is also the publisher of Zoomer and owner of zoomermedia and radio station CFZM. Also "CARP was criticized during the 2025 Canadian election for partisan activity when it hosted an event for Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre during which CARP chairman Moses Znaimer appeared to endorse Poilievre from the stage. In an exchange outside the event when Znaimer was criticized for hosting a "very partisan event", Znaimer replied "that's right" and when asked why he gave a glowing introduction to Poilievre, replied "because I agree with him."
And while I am certainly not going criticize to anyone's personal choices in politics, to do so on behalf a group of seniors whose political choices probably vary from far left to far right, and which group you are going to have to represent to which ever government is elected is just wrong.
edited to add 'criticize'
The relationship between CARP and Zoomer Media is unusual. I dont know of any reason to believe government money given to Zoomer Medi is mis spent, though.
From CARP'S website:
"CARP, a national, not for profit corporation, operates independently of government funding. Instead, it relies on revenue generated from membership fees and contributions from educational partnerships to support its advocacy efforts. CARP has formed a reciprocally beneficial partnership with ZoomerMedia Limited."
This is an important contribution to public discourse, and the kind of investigative work that independent media does better than anyone right now.
I firmly believe in public support for Canadian local and regional publications. That support has a real history and a real purpose. But public money needs to serve public goals, and this piece makes clear the current formula is not doing that as well as it should.
When a program designed to help smaller publishers overcome market disadvantages ends up channelling the lion's share of funding to companies with billion-dollar market caps and profit margins in the double digits, something has gone sideways. Not through fraud or bad faith, but through criteria that haven't been revisited in fifteen years while the media landscape transformed around them.
The Postmedia situation is its own category of concern. A company majority-owned by an American hedge fund, carrying hundreds of millions in high-interest debt to that same fund, continuing to qualify for Canadian public support on a technicality of voting rights versus economic ownership: that gap alone warrants a policy review.
Smaller Canadian independents building local readership on shoestring budgets are exactly who this program should be prioritizing. Revising the criteria to better serve them isn't an argument against public support for journalism. It's an argument for spending that support wisely.
Looking forward to Part Two.
Thanks to Heidi and you for working on this. Something most Canadians don't know about, and naturally sometime most publications are not as incentivized to report on.