Author: Ronnie

Posted on

Vaccine Choice Canada Makes First Court Appearance, 2 1/2 Years Later

Many had been wondering what had happened to that high profile case with Vaccine Choice Canada. After a highly publicized launch in 2020, and a fundraising blitz, details were scant. There was no progress shared with people because there was nothing to report.

Above is what shows now. Below is what it showed until recently.

Vaccine Choice Canada is finally in Court for its July 6, 2020 lawsuit. This is the case that generated nationwide attention across the alternative media. 2 1/2 years after it was filed, they were finally before a Judge. This was January 17, 2023. Many had been asking what the delay was about.

That’s right: 2 1/2 years to make a first appearance.

Of course, there’s Vaccine Choice’s other lawsuit that was filed in October of 2019. That’s been dormant for about 3 years, and hasn’t gone past the pleadings stage.

It wasn’t difficult to look for this. Anyone can SEARCH ONLINE FOR FREE, by clicking the link to see what’s happening with various cases. Don’t accept the word of anyone here, but check it out for yourselves. Call the Court, or visit in person if that’s a feasible option.

Now for the bad news. This isn’t a Trial or anything. This wasn’t some major appearance, or famous international expert about to testify. It was an appearance to initiate a Motion to Strike (throw out) the pleadings as frivolous and vexatious.

For a more in-depth explanation of the pleading defects:
(a) Pleading Are Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial
(b) Was This Case Brought For Improper Purposes?
(c) Even More Errors In Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit

Why has this case sat dormant for years? That’s a great question, and something that the Plaintiffs have never given a meaningful answer to. They’ve never been able to explain any of the serious issues that are outlined above.

To be clear, this wasn’t the hearing that people might be expecting. Instead, this was a CPC (Civil Practice Court) session to set down dates. It took approximately 10 minutes. The real fun won’t happen for another year. There were 2 full days set aside: January 30 and February 1, 2024.

  • June 30, 2023 – Moving Party Motion Record
  • July 28, 2023 – Responding Motion Record
  • October 31, 2023 – Cross Examinations (if Affidavits submitted)
  • November 17, 2023 – Moving Party Factum (arguments)
  • December 8, 2023 – Responding Factum
  • December 22, 2023 – Reply Factum
  • January 30, February 1, 2024 – Hearing

In fairness, there may not be any cross examinations, since this Motion is supposed to just be questions of law. For these purposes, the allegations themselves may be largely irrelevant.

However, the sweeping accusations that fill the 191 page Claim may be a problem. Making such assertions without pleading a factual basis does tend to get cases struck. It was a major problem with Action4Canada.

On the topic of costs: when somebody sues a lot of people, often, a lot of lawyers will get involved. On January 17th, there were 5 of them representing various clients:

  1. Wajid Ahmed, Windsor-Essex County
  2. Nicola Mercer, County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph
  3. City of Toronto, John Tory, Eileen De Villa
  4. Ontario Defendants
  5. Federal Defendants

For clarity, there were 5 lawyers at this appearance. There are many, MANY more names of the other paperwork. When this Claim is eventually struck, expect a stiff costs award.

The Motion is based on Rules 21.01 and 25 of Civil Procedure for Ontario. Quite simply, the Defendants want to throw the case out on a preemptive challenge.

Where Available
.
To Any Party on a Question of Law
.
21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
.
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
.
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,

Action Frivolous, Vexatious or Abuse of Process
.
21.01 (1)(d) the action is frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court

Striking out a Pleading or Other Document
.
25.11 The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,
.
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court.

That’s what this Motion is about: to throw the case out so that it never reaches Trial. And again, why has it taken 2 1/2 years to get to this point?

One possible explanation for this absurd delay is that many Parties may not have been served at the time, if they ever were at all. Looking at the Statement of Claim:

Those are all the service addresses listed. However, that’s not nearly all the people who were listed as Defendants. In fact, CBC claims that it wasn’t served, but only that they “obtained an unredacted copy” of the Statement of Claim. Now, CBC could be lying about that, but who knows?

Another question that frequently came up was why no effort to force Default Judgement ever took place. If the Defendants don’t respond, the Court can issue a ruling against them. At a minimum, it would force them to file replies in order to avoid such a decision.

Vaccine Choice Canada answers this (sort of) by claiming that they have an “undisclosed litigation strategy”, and that it’s not in their interest to release it. That comes across as extremely suspicious, to say the least.

Since July 6, 2020, all that’s happened is that Nicola Mercer filed a Statement of Defense, and that CBC was dropped as a Defendant when they threatened to bring an anti-SLAPP Motion.

What’s the point of this anymore? Considering the overwhelming majority of the population has had the shots, and the damage of lockdowns is done, what’s to be accomplished?

Also, consider the ONTARIO LIMITATIONS ACT. Section 4 is the Basic Limitation Period. In short, people have 2 years to commence an Action, with some limited exceptions. Even if the Plaintiffs were to discontinue here, and file a new Claim — one that’s properly written — they may be barred by Statute. In short, they’ve run out the clock on themselves.

Let’s be blunt. The Vaccine Choice suits (actually, both of them) are so poorly drafted neither will ever get to Trial.

Remember Action4Canada, and their 391 page Notice of Civil Claim? It was struck in its entirety for not even following the basics of Civil Procedure in British Columbia. The same thing will happen here.

2 1/2 years, just to make a first appearance. Absurd.

Isn’t an explanation owed to members of the organization? What about to the various Plaintiffs? How about the donors who contributed in good faith?

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(2) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2002-c-24-sch-b/latest/so-2002-c-24-sch-b.html

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(5) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA LAWSUIT (2019):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit

Posted on

(U.S.) HR 61: Bill To Expand Scope Of Hate Crimes Introduced

Remember the mass shooting in Buffalo last year that was supposedly based on the “replacement theory”? It had been predicted that this would lead to more calls for gun control, and it did.

But the other shoe has dropped. House Resolution 61 has been introduced to expand hate crime laws within the U.S., and to specifically target a certain type of crime. It was sponsored by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas.

What’s particularly alarming is how many of the terms in this Bill are not clearly defined. (See archive.) This makes it difficult to enforce, but enables it to be selectively applied. In a practical sense: it has the potential to make debate much trickier, and easier to shut down.

Yes, this is in the United States, but something similar could easily come to Canada in the not too distant future. Don’t dismiss the possibility.

To state the obvious: this is only focused on one group of people.

A BILL
To prevent and prosecute white supremacy inspired hate
crime and conspiracy to commit white supremacy in-
spired hate crime and to amend title 18, United States
Code, to expand the scope of hate crimes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Leading Against White
5 Supremacy Act of 2023’’.
6 SEC. 2. WHITE SUPREMACY INSPIRED HATE CRIME.
7 (a) IN GENERAL.—A person engages in a white su-
8 premacy inspired hate crime when white supremacy ide

2
1 ology has motivated the planning, development, prepara-
2 tion, or perpetration of actions that constituted a crime
3 or were undertaken in furtherance of activity that, if effec-
4 tuated, would have constituted a crime.
5 (b) CONSPIRACY.—A conspiracy to engage in white
6 supremacy inspired hate crime shall be determined to
7 exist—
8 (1) between two or more persons engaged in the
9 planning, development, preparation, or perpetration
10 of a white supremacy inspired hate crime; or
11 (2) between two or more persons—
12 (A) at least one of whom engaged in the
13 planning, development, preparation, or per-
14 petration of a white supremacy inspired hate
15 crime; and
16 (B) at least one of whom published mate-
17 rial advancing white supremacy, white suprema-
18 cist ideology, antagonism based on ‘‘replace-
19 ment theory’’, or hate speech that vilifies or is
20 otherwise directed against any non-White per-
21 son or group, and such published material—
22 (i) was published on a social media
23 platform or by other means of publication
24 with the likelihood that it would be viewed
25 by persons who are predisposed to engag-

3
•HR 61 IH
1 ing in any action in furtherance of a white
2 supremacy inspired hate crime, or who are
3 susceptible to being encouraged to engage
4 in actions in furtherance of a white su-
5 premacy inspired hate crime;
6 (ii) could, as determined by a reason-
7 able person, motivate actions by a person
8 predisposed to engaging in a white suprem-
9 acy inspired hate crime or by a person who
10 is susceptible to being encouraged to en-
11 gage in actions relating to a white suprem-
12 acy inspired hate crime; and
13 (iii) was read, heard, or viewed by a
14 person who engaged in the planning, devel-
15 opment, preparation, or perpetration of a
16 white supremacy inspired hate crime.
17 (c) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AUTHORITY, EN-
18 FORCEMENT, MONITORING, AND REPORTING.—The De-
19 partment shall have authority to conduct operations and
20 activities pursuant to this section, specifically—
21 (1) with regard to information or evidence ob-
22 tained by the Department of any action cited in this
23 section, the Department shall have the authority to
24 investigate, intercede, and undertake other actions
25 that it deems necessary and appropriate to interdict,

4
•HR 61 IH
1 mitigate, or prevent such action from culminating in
2 violent activity;
3 (2) the Department shall have the authority to
4 prosecute persons who engaged in actions cited in
5 this section; and
6 (3) the Uniform Crime Reporting Program in
7 the Department of Justice shall maintain records of
8 white supremacy inspired hate crimes and related
9 actions cited in this section, and enforcement actions
10 in response thereto.
11 The Department shall provide annual reports to the ap-
12 propriate committees in Congress that shall include infor-
13 mation cited in this paragraph.
14 SEC. 3. CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
15 Section 249(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
16 amended—
17 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)
18 by inserting after ‘‘race, color, religion, or national
19 origin of any person’’ the following: ‘‘, or because of
20 a white supremacy based motivation against any
21 person’’; and
22 (2) in subparagraph (B)—
23 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the
24 end;

5
•HR 61 IH
1 (B) in clause (ii), by striking the period
2 and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and
3 (C) by adding at the end the following:
4 ‘‘(iii) the offense was in furtherance of
5 a white supremacy based motivation.’’.
6 SEC. 4. FINDINGS.
7 Section 4702 of the Matthew Shepard and James
8 Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 249
9 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
10 ‘‘(11) Mass shootings and other hate crimes
11 motivated by white supremacy have been increasing
12 in frequency and intensity. These heinous and viru-
13 lent crimes are inspired by conspiracy theories, bla-
14 tant bigotry, and mythical falsehoods such as ‘‘re-
15 placement theory’’. All instances must be prevented
16 and severe criminal penalties must be applied to
17 their perpetrators.’’.

There is a section in HR 61 that states: Department of Justice shall maintain records of white supremacy inspired hate crimes and related actions cited in this section. Does this mean that groups that talk about the ongoing replacement in the West will be looked at? (As if they aren’t already).

Also, will law enforcement to more than simply monitor and keep records? Will there be active involvement in setting up undercover operations or honeypots?

The Bill also talks about postings on the internet which people who are “susceptible to being encouraged” might read or view the content. This is another slippery slope. It seems designed to force authors to water down whatever they say because of what some random person “might” say or do.

Census data — Government distributed — in countries across the West have shown considerable demographic changes (or replacement, depending on your slant) over the last 60 or so years. Was it racist to have generated this information in the first place? Is it racist to openly and honestly discuss what is happening?

Moreover, the mainstream media has addressed this topic many times in the last few decades. It’s openly predicted that most countries in the West will be majority non-white by the end of this century, if not sooner. This is hardly a secret.

Hate crimes are already illegal in the U.S. So, why is this specific Bill necessary?

To play devil’s advocate here: this could simply be about grandstanding. It wouldn’t be the first time a politician put forth legislation they never planned to advance in order to score points. Then again, it may not be the case.

The vague and undefined definitions and explanations are possibly the worst part, as there are no actual standards to be applied.

(1) https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr61/BILLS-118hr61ih.pdf
(2) BILLS 118 House Resolution 61
(3) https://www.congress.gov/member/sheila-jackson-lee/J000032
(4) https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/1099034094/what-is-the-great-replacement-theory
(5) https://www.businessinsider.com/buffalo-mass-shooting-latest-linked-to-great-replacement-theory-2022-5?op=1

Posted on

Declaration on the North American Partnership for Equity and Racial Justice

It’s the most harmless sounding names that are most chilling.

The Government of Canada has announced a new agreement with the United States and Mexico: The Declaration on the North American Partnership for Equity and Racial Justice. Mélanie Joly, Foreign Affairs Minister, also tweeted about it.

While this sounds fine enough, the vague wording of much of the text is cause for concern.

Considering the lengths that these countries have gone in establishing equal rights, it seems unproductive to keep pushing the narrative that there’s all these hate groups and institutions. It comes across as having the effect of making peaceful co-existence impossible, and maybe that’s the point.

It’s unclear what exactly “racial justice” would involve. If it were simply equal rights, then it would be very different to oppose. But would it be reparations? This idea has been floated in recent years. Perhaps it involves affirmative action or quotas in various institutions.

To address the obvious: this document doesn’t advocate for “equality”. That would be equal rights and opportunities between people. That would be fine. Instead, it calls for “equity”, which is equality of outcome, and sounds pretty much like Communism.

There’s a bit of a bait-and-switch here as the document calls on partners to: “root out the barriers to equal opportunity”. However, they are pushing equity (equality of outcome), while attempting to persuade others that it’s about equal opportunity.

Declaration between the Government of the United Mexican States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of the United States of America.

Across our three nations, generations of leaders have fought to build democracies where people from richly diverse histories and cultures share the equal promise of freedom and inclusion. Our diversity is North America’s greatest strength, as it boosts innovation, leads to economic growth, enriches our democracies, and advances our security.

Yet in spite of our progress, many across North America continue to face intersecting forms of systemic racism, discrimination and hate because of who they are, whom they love, the language they speak, their nation of origin, the color of their skin, and their religion or beliefs. Discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability, religion, belief, language, and socio-economic status persist throughout our region and in each of our countries. Tribal Nations and Indigenous peoples, who have lived in North America since time immemorial, continue to face unacceptable disparities and barriers, as do other communities with lived experience of discrimination and racism. Systemic racism, expressions of white supremacy and discrimination in all forms diminish our economic growth, limit our prosperity, undermine national and regional security, and threaten the durability of our democracies. To unleash North America’s full and vast potential, we must comprehensively address these barriers and challenges.

Building on efforts in our respective countries to advance equity and racial justice, at the 2021 North American Leaders’ Summit President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. declared their commitment to building just, inclusive, and equitable democracies that combat systemic racism and discrimination in all forms. Following that declaration, we committed to working together to create a North America in which every individual has an equal opportunity to achieve their full potential and equal participation in social, cultural, economic, and political life.

We now establish this North American Partnership as a reflection of our common commitments to advancing equity and racial justice within our countries, and our intent to work collaboratively to address systemic forms of discrimination and honor the diverse tapestry of histories, customs, cultures, languages, identities, ethnicities, abilities, and beliefs that make North America strong.

In recognition of our close ties and shared vision, the Participants in this Partnership will:

(1) Work within our own countries to affirmatively advance equity and racial justice, and to comprehensively root out the barriers to equal opportunity that marginalized communities continue to face.

(2) Establish a Trilateral Racial Equity and Inclusion Expert Network to facilitate the exchange of information to share best practices and innovative strategies developed across our three countries for advancing equity and racial justice in our public policies and societies, and to help identify further action areas for the Partnership. In establishing this expert exchange, we will seek opportunities to engage communities with lived experience of racism and discrimination on driving solutions to protect the rights of members of marginalized communities; advance health equity and economic inclusion; address racial and other disparities in the justice system, access to the ballot, and educational opportunities; and reflect the diversity of our nations in our federal public services workforce.

(3) Collaborate together to advance equity and racial justice through our participation in regional and multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations and other fora. This includes advancing the rights and aspirations enshrined in multilateral commitments, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the International Decade for People of African Descent, the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and other joint undertakings.

Discrimination against people “for who they love”, is presumably referring to adults of the same sex. However, it wouldn’t take much to expand that to include pedophilia, as the language is very vague. As for gender identity, many would agree that this has been forced on the public far too much already.

“Reflect[ing] the diversity of our nations in our federal public services workforce” is code for hiring quotas. Most people can agree that a merit-based civil service is the best way to have it. Social engineering shouldn’t push that principle aside

As for “address racial and other disparities in the justice system”, does this mean something like Gladue Rights across the continent? This would be race-based discounts in criminal court, due to overrepresentation of certain groups.

This agreement also endorses the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda (Agenda 2030), and connects equity and racial justice to that.

The claim that certain groups “face unacceptable disparities and barriers” is telling, even if hard to understand. Disparities simply refers to differences in overall outcomes. This can be for many reasons, and is not necessarily discrimination. But it goes on imply that these differences are the direct result of some barriers that are put in place. This follows the assumption that groups of people would essentially be the same if others wouldn’t oppress them in some way.

An obvious example is the long debunked wage gap. Just because men and woman — on average — make different personal and lifestyle choices, doesn’t mean discrimination took place.

While the text sounds well meaning enough, domestic implementation of such ideals would invite even more Government overreach and interference.

And a logistical question: what would happen to people who decide that they want nothing to do with such a system? What punishments would they face?

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/federal-anti-racism-secretariat/declaration-partnership-equality-racial-justice.html
(2) https://twitter.com/melaniejoly/status/1612801847076749314
(3) https://www.state.gov/declaration-on-the-north-american-partnership-for-equity-and-racial-justice/
(4) https://www.state.gov/declaration-on-the-north-american-partnership-for-equity-and-racial-justice-2/

Posted on

Ryan Imgrund, Former “Pandemic” Expert, To Face Second O.C.T. Hearing

Ryan Imgrund is back in the news again, and not in a good way.

He became somewhat of a household name in 2020/2021 making doomsday predictions about death waves of Covid-19. Of course, none of this ever materialized. But it didn’t stop major media outlets in Canada from regularly hosting him and treating him as some sort of expert. In reality, he’s a high school science teacher who moonlights as a biostatistician.

Or, at least he was a teacher, until the Summer of 2022.

The Ontario College of Teachers has filed another complaint against him for conduct unbecoming of a teacher. (See archive.) Specifically, it reads:

3. At all material times, Person A was an 18 year old family female whose family was friends with the Member’s family.
.
4. In or about August of 2005 the Member sent Person A, via MSN messenger, unsolicited photographs including:
(a) two photographs of himself standing naked and holding his penis in his hand;
(b) two photographs of himself lying naked on his back holding a beer bottle next to his penis.

It’s typical in these types of cases to redact the identities of the students, especially if there are under the age of majority.

Interestingly, this is supposed to have happened in the Summer of 2005, more than 17 years ago. This woman was 18, and Imgrund would have been in his 20s. It’s unclear why this is coming to light now. Was it only just reported now, or did the College of Teachers know about it a long time ago?

Imgrund still has another complaint pending (see archive) before the College, and no hearing date has yet been set. That one alleges at least 5 victims, all minors, and claims of psychological and mental abuse. There is also an allegation of sexual abuse against 1 of them.

Now, if there is merit to these complaints, it’s unclear why the police weren’t immediately involved.

As with the previous complaint, these are still considered to be just allegations. Neither claim has yet been proven, and Imgrund denies the accusations.

Imgrund had been covered on this site before, primarily because of his role in facilitating mass panic.

Since March 2020, he listed his work history as “Biostatistician / Corporate Consultant” and doing this as a form of self employment. Apparently, he earned a living “discovering, analyzing and interpreting scientific, mathematical, economic and retail trends”. All of that said, he was most well know for making doomsday predictions around virus infections.

But something else about his biography never made sense. His LinkedIn page states he was working at PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, from 2000 until 2009. (See archive). This doesn’t seem plausible, as he would have been a university junior at that time, and presumably very busy.

It also doesn’t add up since PHAC didn’t come into existence until 2004. It was done by Order in Council, and extensively outlined here. This is far more than simple resume padding.

In any event, Imgrund’s side gig as a television expert seems to have come to an end. He hasn’t appeared since news of the suspension broke earlier this year. We’ll have to see how events unfold.

Now, it’s uncertain how true the O.C.T. accusations are — as again, nothing has yet been proven. But Imgrund’s high profile media presence in the last few years has ensured a continued interest in his activities. Even the mainstream press has picked it up. A less prominent person wouldn’t have attracted the same attention.

OCT COMPLAINTS
(1) https://oct.ca/NOHStream.pdf?documentType=NOH&id=1102&lang=E
(2) Imgrund Discipline Second Hearing Notice
(3) https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2022/09/13/former-york-region-teacher-in-misconduct-probe-says-he-had-zero-inappropriate-relationships.html
(4) https://oct.ca/NOHStream.pdf?documentType=NOH&id=1077&lang=E
(5) Imgrund Discipline First Hearing Notice
(6) https://oct.ca/members/complaints-and-discipline/disciplinary-hearing-details?RegistrationId=463065
(7) https://apps.oct.ca/FindATeacher/memberdetail?id=463065

IMGRUND AS AN EXPERT
(8) https://twitter.com/imgrund
(9) https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-imgrund-aa944b85/
(10) https://archive.ph/OkkFr
(11) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/corporate/mandate/about-agency/history.html
(12) https://www.raptorsrepublic.com/2020/10/06/the-interview-ryan-imgrund-biostatistician-imgrund/
(13) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/statistician-worried-back-to-school-plan-risky-1.5671012
(14) https://www.sickkids.ca/siteassets/about/about-sickkids/sickkids-annual-report-2019-2020.pdf
(15) Sick Kids Hospital Major Donors
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-29-the-financial-ties-between-sick-kids-hospital-and-the-gates-foundation/
(17) https://www.newmarkettoday.ca/coronavirus-covid-19-local-news/how-a-newmarket-biostatistician-is-using-rt-to-track-the-impact-of-reopening-2515509 for them.
(18) https://southlake.ca/foundation/about/your-investment-in-southlake/

Posted on

Postmedia Periodicals: Taxpayer Handouts From 2015 – 2022

The handouts really took off in September 2015, when Stephen Harper was still Prime Minister. In the last article, someone commented that Trudeau was in office. In reality, that didn’t happen until November 2015 (the election was in October). Anyhow, as for what Postmedia has been getting, here are some numbers.

Also noteworthy is that there was another spike in 2020. The likely reason is that periodicals that previously wouldn’t have met the threshold for subsidies would now have qualified anyway.

NAME DATE AMOUNT
Airdrie Echo Apr 1, 2020 $18,210
Bow Valley Crag & Canyon Apr 1, 2020 $29,507
Chatham-Kent This Week Apr 1, 2020 $55,450
Clinton News Record Sep 4, 2015 $22,737.00
Clinton News Record Jun 1, 2016 $23,545.00
Clinton News Record Jul 4, 2017 $24,218.00
Clinton News Record Apr 1, 2018 $22,525.00
Clinton News Record Apr 1, 2019 $21,086.00
Clinton News Record Apr 1, 2020 $21,086
Clinton News Record Apr 1, 2020 $5,272
Clinton News Record Apr 1, 2021 $15,629.00
Clinton News Record Apr 1, 2021 $2,228.00
Clinton News Record Apr 1, 2022 $12,979.00
The Cochrane Times Post Sep 4, 2015 $28,086.00
The Cochrane Times Post Jun 1, 2016 $30,384.00
The Cochrane Times Post Jul 4, 2017 $30,368.00
The Cochrane Times Post Apr 1, 2018 $28,200.00
The Cochrane Times Post Apr 1, 2019 $25,118.00
The Cochrane Times Post Apr 1, 2020 $19,730
The Cochrane Times-Post Apr 1, 2020 $25,118
The Cochrane Times-Post Apr 1, 2020 $6,280
The Cochrane Times Post Apr 1, 2021 $21,449.00
The Cochrane Times Post Apr 1, 2021 $3,058.00
The Cochrane Times Post Apr 1, 2022 $19,026.00
The Cold Lake Sun Apr 1, 2020 $20,629
The Courier Press Apr 1, 2020 $18,333
Devon Dispatch Apr 1, 2020 $18,529
The Drayton Valley Western Review Sep 4, 2015 $43,553.00
The Drayton Valley Western Review Jun 1, 2016 $45,401.00
The Drayton Valley Western Review Jul 4, 2017 $47,170.00
The Drayton Valley Western Review Apr 1, 2018 $43,548.00
The Drayton Valley Western Review Apr 1, 2019 $36,803.00
The Drayton Valley Western Review Apr 1, 2020 $36,803
The Drayton Valley Western Review Apr 1, 2020 $9,201
The Drayton Valley Western Review Apr 1, 2021 $30,227.00
The Drayton Valley Western Review Apr 1, 2021 $4,310.00
The Drayton Valley Western Review Apr 1, 2022 $23,327.00
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance Apr 1, 2018 $45,771.00
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance Apr 1, 2019 $43,679.00
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance Apr 1, 2020 $43,679
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance Apr 1, 2020 $10,920
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance Apr 1, 2021 $42,191.00
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance Apr 1, 2021 $6,015.00
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance Apr 1, 2022 $40,516.00
The Fairview Post Sep 4, 2015 $24,882.00
The Fairview Post Jun 1, 2016 $24,404.00
The Fairview Post Jul 4, 2017 $24,837.00
The Fairview Post Apr 1, 2018 $24,474.00
The Fairview Post Apr 1, 2019 $21,966.00
The Fairview Post Apr 1, 2020 $21,966
The Fairview Post Apr 1, 2020 $5,492
The Fairview Post Apr 1, 2021 $19,984.00
The Fairview Post Apr 1, 2021 $2,849.00
The Fairview Post Apr 1, 2022 $18,195.00
Fort McMurray Today Apr 1, 2020 $45,970
Goderich Signal Star Sep 4, 2015 $59,801.00
Goderich Signal Star Jun 1, 2016 $63,126.00
Goderich Signal Star Jul 4, 2017 $68,550.00
Goderich Signal Star Apr 1, 2018 $67,698.00
Goderich Signal Star Apr 1, 2019 $66,744.00
Goderich Signal Star Apr 1, 2020 $66,744
Goderich Signal Star Apr 1, 2020 $16,686
Goderich Signal Star Apr 1, 2021 $53,353.00
Goderich Signal Star Apr 1, 2021 $7,607.00
Goderich Signal Star Apr 1, 2022 $48,812.00
The Graphic Leader Apr 1, 2020 $24,378
The Grove Examiner Apr 1, 2020 $54,973.00
Hanna Herald Sep 4, 2015 $19,578.00
Hanna Herald Jun 1, 2016 $17,247.00
Hanna Herald Jul 4, 2017 $14,934.00
Hanna Herald Apr 1, 2018 $14,835.00
Hanna Herald Apr 1, 2019 $12,539.00
Hanna Herald Apr 1, 2020 $12,539
Hanna Herald Apr 1, 2020 $5,000
Hanna Herald Apr 1, 2021 $11,724.00
Hanna Herald Apr 1, 2021 $1,672.00
Hanna Herald Apr 1, 2022 $12,190.00
High River Times Apr 1, 2020 $18,012.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Sep 4, 2015 $22,616.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Jun 1, 2016 $24,454.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Jul 4, 2017 $26,059.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Apr 1, 2018 $24,960.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Apr 1, 2019 $23,501.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Apr. 1, 2020 $23,501
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Apr. 1, 2020 $5,875
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Apr 1, 2021 $11,038.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Apr 1, 2021 $2,109.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Apr 1, 2022 $11,038.00
Ingersoll Times (The) Sep 4, 2015 $12,877.00
Ingersoll Times (The) Jun 1, 2016 $11,255.00
Ingersoll Times (The) Jul 4, 2017 $10,309.00
Ingersoll Times (The) Apr 1, 2018 $8,543.00
The Journal Apr 1, 2020 $29,340
Kenora Miner & News Apr 1, 2020 $44,217.00
The Kincardine News Apr 1, 2020 $18,210
Kings County Record Apr 1, 2022 $43,730.00
The Kingsville Reporter Sep 4, 2015 $22,709.00
The Kingsville Reporter Jun 1, 2016 $23,318.00
The Kingsville Reporter Jul 4, 2017 $23,540.00
The Kingsville Reporter Apr 1, 2018 $23,331.00
The Kingsville Reporter Apr 1, 2019 $22,407.00
Lakeshore Advance (Grand Bend) Sep 4, 2015 $17,070.00
Lakeshore Advance (Grand Bend) Jun 1, 2016 $18,137.00
Lakeshore Advance (Grand Bend) Jul 4, 2017 $19,119.00
Leduc Rep Apr 1, 2020 $40,857
The Londoner Apr 1, 2020 $18,210
The Lucknow Sentinel Sep 4, 2015 $18,460.00
The Lucknow Sentinel Jun 1, 2016 $18,423.00
The Lucknow Sentinel Jul 4, 2017 $18,902.00
The Lucknow Sentinel Apr 1, 2018 $18,832.00
The Lucknow Sentinel Apr 1, 2019 $17,215.00
The Lucknow Sentinel Apr 1, 2020 $17,215
The Lucknow Sentinel Apr 1, 2020 $5,000
The Lucknow Sentinel Apr 1, 2021 $14,828.00
The Lucknow Sentinel Apr 1, 2021 $2,114.00
The Lucknow Sentinel Apr 1, 2022 $13,367.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Sep 4, 2015 $9,828.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Jun 1, 2016 $10,957.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Jul 4, 2017 $11,895.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Apr 1, 2018 $11,964.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Apr 1, 2019 $10,156.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Apr 1, 2020 $10,156
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Apr 1, 2020 $5,000
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Apr 1, 2021 $12,288.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Apr 1, 2021 $1,752.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Apr 1, 2022 $10,893.00
Melfort Journal (The) Sep 4, 2015 $24,293.00
Melfort Journal (The) Jun 1, 2016 $24,134.00
Melfort Journal (The) Jul 4, 2017 $24,541.00
Melfort Journal (The) Apr 1, 2018 $25,021.00
Melfort Journal (The) Apr 1, 2019 $23,562.00
The Mid-North Monitor Sep 4, 2015 $18,702.00
The Mid-North Monitor Jun 1, 2016 $16,844.00
The Mid-North Monitor Jul 4, 2017 $17,388.00
The Mid-North Monitor Apr 1, 2018 $16,342.00
The Mid-North Monitor Apr 1, 2019 $13,959.00
The Mid-North Monitor Apr 1, 2020 $13,959
The Mid-North Monitor Apr 1, 2020 $5,000
The Mid-North Monitor Apr 1, 2021 $12,037.00
The Mid-North Monitor Apr 1, 2021 $1,716.00
The Mid-North Monitor Apr 1, 2022 $11,958.00
The Mitchell Advocate Sep 4, 2015 $34,254.00
The Mitchell Advocate Jun 1, 2016 $37,250.00
The Mitchell Advocate Jul 4, 2017 $37,347.00
The Mitchell Advocate Apr 1, 2018 $37,940.00
The Mitchell Advocate Apr 1, 2019 $36,312.00
The Mitchell Advocate Apr 1, 2020 $36,312
The Mitchell Advocate Apr 1, 2020 $9,078
The Mitchell Advocate Apr 1, 2021 $33,859.00
The Mitchell Advocate Apr 1, 2021 $4,827.00
The Mitchell Advocate Apr 1, 2022 $34,680.00
The Nanton News Sep 4, 2015 $9,860.00
The Nanton News Jun 1, 2016 $10,075.00
The Nanton News Jul 4, 2017 $11,804.00
The Nanton News Apr 1, 2018 $11,529.00
The Nanton News Apr 1, 2019 $10,060.00
Nanton News Apr 1, 2020 $10,060
Nanton News Apr 1, 2020 $5,000
The Nanton News Apr 1, 2021 $10,503.00
The Nanton News Apr 1, 2021 $1,497.00
The Nanton News Apr 1, 2022 $8,193.00
Nipawin Journal (The) Sep 4, 2015 $18,445.00
Nipawin Journal (The) Jun 1, 2016 $19,839.00
Nipawin Journal (The) Jul 4, 2017 $18,349.00
Nipawin Journal (The) Apr 1, 2018 $19,460.00
Nipawin Journal (The) Apr 1, 2019 $17,024.00
Northern Light Apr 1, 2022 $30,161.00
Northern News This Week Apr 1, 2020 $39,207
Northern Times (The) Sep 4, 2015 $28,403.00
Northern Times (The) Jun 1, 2016 $23,393.00
Northern Times (The) Jul 4, 2017 $20,040.00
Norwich Gazette (The) Sep 4, 2015 $14,323.00
Norwich Gazette (The) Jun 1, 2016 $13,672.00
Norwich Gazette (The) Jul 4, 2017 $13,751.00
Norwich Gazette (The) Apr 1, 2018 $13,203.00
Ontario Farmer Sep 4, 2015 $711,372.00
Ontario Farmer Jun 1, 2016 $766,553.00
Ontario Farmer Jul 4, 2017 $830,958.00
Ontario Farmer Apr 1, 2018 $866,359.00
Ontario Farmer Apr 1, 2019 $855,254.00
Ontario Farmer Apr 1, 2020 $855,254
Ontario Farmer Apr 1, 2020 $213,814
Ontario Farmer Apr 1, 2021 $817,081.00
Ontario Farmer Apr 1, 2021 $116,496.00
Ontario Farmer Apr 1, 2022 $829,881.00
Pembroke Observer & News Apr 1, 2020 $50,195
Petrolia Topic Sep 4, 2015 $17,584.00
Petrolia Topic Jun 1, 2016 $13,988.00
Petrolia Topic Jul 4, 2017 $13,045.00
Petrolia Topic Apr 1, 2018 $11,529.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Sep 4, 2015 $19,473.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Jun 1, 2016 $17,369.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Jul 4, 2017 $17,830.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Apr 1, 2018 $16,734.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Apr 1, 2019 $14,512.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Apr 1, 2020 $5,000
The Pincher Creek Echo Apr 1, 2020 $14,512
The Pincher Creek Echo Apr 1, 2021 $12,273.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Apr 1, 2021 $1,750.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Apr 1, 2022 $12,024.00
The Post Apr 1, 2020 $34,234
The Record Apr 1, 2020 $29,688
Record-Gazette Sep 4, 2015 $24,641.00
Record-Gazette Jun 1, 2016 $25,499.00
Record-Gazette Jul 4, 2017 $30,464.00
Record-Gazette Apr 1, 2018 $26,074.00
Record-Gazette Apr 1, 2019 $20,152.00
Record-Gazette Apr 1, 2020 $20,152
Record-Gazette Apr 1, 2020 $5,038
Record-Gazette Apr 1, 2021 $16,080.00
Record-Gazette Apr 1, 2021 $2,293.00
Record-Gazette Apr 1, 2022 $9,558.00
Sarnia & Lambton County This Week Apr 1, 2020 $17,172
Sault This Week Apr 1, 2020 $144,121
Shoreline Beacon Sep 4, 2015 $47,020.00
Shoreline Beacon Jun 1, 2016 $42,554.00
Shoreline Beacon Jul 4, 2017 $45,071.00
Shoreline Beacon Apr 1, 2018 $43,511.00
Shoreline Beacon Apr 1, 2019 $39,074.00
Shoreline Beacon Apr 1, 2020 $39,074
Shoreline Beacon Apr 1, 2020 $9,769
Shoreline Beacon Apr 1, 2021 $30,263.00
Shoreline Beacon Apr 1, 2021 $4,315.00
Shoreline Beacon Apr 1, 2022 $28,816.00
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Sep 4, 2015 $50,183.00
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Jun 1, 2016 $49,929.00
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Apr 1, 2019 $47,825.00
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Apr 1, 2020 $47,825
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Apr 1, 2020 $11,956
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Apr 1, 2021 $39,545.00
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Apr 1, 2021 $5,638.00
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Apr 1, 2022 $29,462.00
The Standard (Sudbury) Jul 4, 2017 $51,533.00
The Standard (Sudbury) Apr 1, 2018 $50,234.00
Strathroy Age Dispatch Sep 4, 2015 $26,167.00
Strathroy Age Dispatch Jun 1, 2016 $17,299.00
Strathroy Age Dispatch Jul 4, 2017 $15,567.00
Strathroy Age Dispatch Apr 1, 2018 $14,082.00
Tilbury Times Sep 4, 2015 $16,677.00
Tilbury Times Jun 1, 2016 $18,047.00
Tilbury Times Jul 4, 2017 $17,675.00
Tilbury Times Apr 1, 2018 $17,827.00
Tilbury Times Apr 1, 2019 $17,493.00
Tillsonburg News Sep 4, 2015 $30,683.00
The Timmins Times Apr 1, 2020 $19,582
The Tribune Apr 1, 2022 $32,987.00
The Trentonian Apr 1, 2020 $32,614
Vermilion Standard Apr 1, 2020 $20,765.00
The Vulcan Advocate Sep 4, 2015 $24,641.00
The Vulcan Advocate Jun 1, 2016 $16,756.00
The Vulcan Advocate Apr 1, 2018 $20,573.00
The Vulcan Advocate Apr 1, 2019 $19,194.00
The Vulcan Advocate Apr 1, 2020 $19,194
The Vulcan Advocate Apr 1, 2020 $5,000
The Vulcan Advocate Apr 1, 2021 $17,417.00
The Vulcan Advocate Apr 1, 2021 $2,483.00
The Vulcan Advocate Apr 1, 2022 $17,731.00
Weekender Times-Advance Apr 1, 2020 $44,932
The Wetaskiwin Times Apr 1, 2020 $14,794
The Whitecourt Star Sep 4, 2015 $29,083.00
The Whitecourt Star Jul 4, 2017 $27,757.00
The Whitecourt Star Apr 1, 2018 $23,818.00
The Whitecourt Star Apr 1, 2019 $21,086.00
The Whitecourt Star Apr 1, 2020 $21,872
The Whitecourt Star Apr 1, 2020 $5,272
The Whitecourt Star Apr 1, 2021 $17,624.00
The Whitecourt Star Apr 1, 2021 $2,513.00
The Whitecourt Star Apr 1, 2022 $18,817.00
The Wiarton Echo Sep 4, 2015 $26,741.00
The Wiarton Echo Jun 1, 2016 $29,913.00
The Wiarton Echo Jul 4, 2017 $30,176.00
The Wiarton Echo Apr 1, 2018 $32,003.00
The Wiarton Echo Apr 1, 2019 $24,872.00
The Wiarton Echo Apr 1, 2020 $24,872
The Wiarton Echo Apr 1, 2020 $6,218
The Wiarton Echo Apr 1, 2021 $21,881.00
The Wiarton Echo Apr 1, 2021 $3,120.00
The Wiarton Echo Apr 1, 2022 $17,342.00

While it looks like there is double dipping in 2020/2021, the smaller grants are classified as “Aboriginal recipient”. That’s why there are multiple entries. 2020 is also when the “special measures for Covid” grants were being handed out.

These are not just one-off occurrences, where an outlet is short of cash and needs help. Instead, subsidies appear to be built into their respective business models.

Of course, these grants don’t take into account other indirect contributions, just as Government buying up ad space. That was extremely common occurrence over the last few years.

Do we have any sort of real media when everyone — including the “independents” — are getting handouts from the Federal Government? Doesn’t seem like it.

Posted on

Digital Citizen Contribution Program: Grants Continuing Into 2022

More recent payouts from the Digital Citizen Contribution Program are now available on the Government of Canada website. These are subsidies to promote certain viewpoints and ideologies deemed to be favourable.

Of course, the Digital Democracy Project and the Media Literacy Week are still ongoing. The D.D.P is expected to cost $2.5-million over four years, while the M.L.W. another $225,000 over three years,

As an aside, UNESCO seems to have taken note of Canada’s Digital Citizen Initiative, and dedicated a page to covering it. That’s interesting.

The listings for latest grants include:

NAME YEAR AMOUNT
Alex Wilner and Casey Babb Aug. 10, 2020 $9,900.00
Alperin, Juan P. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000.00
Apathy Is Boring Project Apr 1, 2022 $50,000.00
Asian Environmental Association – HUA Foundation Apr. 1, 2020 $64,660.00
BILAL Community & Family Centre Aug. 15, 2020 $40,000.00
Calgary Animated Objects Society Aug. 1, 2020 $40,000.00
Centre for Democracy and Development Oct. 22, 2018 $49,420.00
The Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs Sep. 1, 2020 $38,000.00
Côté, Catherine Mar. 22, 2020 $8,000.00
Chun, Wendy H.K. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000.00
CIVIX Nov. 15, 2018 $23,000.00
CIVIX Apr 1, 2022 $1,000,000.00
Colasante, Tyler Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000.00
Concordia University Oct. 1, 2020 $39,270.00
Concordia University Aug 1, 2021 $90,536.00
Concordia University Apr 30, 2022 $50,000.00
Conflict And Resilience Research Institute Apr 1, 2022 $47,500.00
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, David Jones Dec. 17, 2019 $49,916.00
David Morin, Marie-Ève Carignan Dec. 4, 2020 $44,838.00
Digital Public Square Mar. 1, 2020 $679,176.00
Digital Public Square May 1, 2022 $999,970.00
Disinfowatch Apr 4, 2022 $49,800.00
Evans, Jennifer V. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000.00
Evidence For Democracy May 1, 2022 $47,500.00
Fleerackers, Alice L. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000.00
Gingras, Marie-Pier Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000.00
Grisdale, Sean E. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000.00
Historica Canada Jun 1, 2022 $50,000.00
Hodson, Jaigris N. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000.00
Indigenous Culture And Media Innovations Aug 1, 2021 $100,000.00
Institute For Canadian Citizenship Mar. 24, 2020 $490,880.00
Institute For Democracy, Media & Culture Jul. 27, 2020 $35,750.00
Institute On Governance Oct. 1, 2020 $100,000.00
International Republican Institute Mar. 15, 2019 $2,973,531.00
Internews Network Mar. 19, 2020 $3,172,323.00
Institut Canadien De Recherche Sur Les Minorités Linguistiques Aug 2, 2021 $100,000.00
IRIS Communications Oct. 1, 2020 $99,500.00
JHR – Journalists for Human Rights Jun. 1, 2019 $250,691.00
JHR – Journalists for Human Rights Jul. 14, 2020 $1,479,856.00
Ketchum, Alexandra D. Mar. 22, 2020 $23,455.00
Kingdom Acts Foundation Sep. 1, 2020 $70,500.00
Lavigne, Mathieu Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000.00
Lennox, Rebecca Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000.00
Les 3 Sex/The 3 Sex Aug 30, 2021 $100,000.00
Macewan University Nov. 1, 2020 $69,000.00
Mack, Amy C. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000.00
Magazines Canada May 15, 2019 $63,000.00
Manchester Metropolitan University Feb. 1, 2020 $214,837.00
Matthews, Kyle Apr. 20, 2020 $33,377.00
McLevey, John V.P. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000.00
Mediasmarts Apr 1, 2022 $50,000.00
Moisse, Katie Mar. 22, 2020 $13,417.00
Nathalie Furrer Aug. 10, 2020 $10,000.00
Nelson, Kim A. Mar. 22, 2020 $24,498.00
Neubauer, Robert J. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000.00
Org. For Economic Co-Operation/Development Oct 15, 2021 $40,000.00
PeaceGeeks Society Nov. 11, 2015 $46,200.00
Pennycook, Gordon R. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000.00
QuantSpark Foundation Feb. 26, 2020 $1,155,622.00
Royal Institution For The Advancement Of Learning Jul 1, 2022 $50,000.00
Rupantar Oct. 28, 2018 $24,996.00
Ruslan Stefanov, Director, Jul. 3, 2018 $15,000.00
Ryerson University Apr. 1, 2019 $290,250.00
Ryerson University Jan. 1, 2020 $225,300.00
Ryerson University Sep. 18, 2020 $97,407.00
Ryerson University May 1, 2022 $50,000.00
Science North Sep. 1, 2020 $40,000.00
Simon Fraser University Jan. 19, 2019 $28,750.00
Simon Fraser University – Int’l Cybercrime Research Oct. 1, 2020 $96,600.00
Taylor, Emily Jan. 1, 2020 $33,250.00
Trybun Jan. 21, 2019 $7,114.00
Universite De Montreal Faculte Des Sciences Sep 1, 2021 $92,000.00
University Of Alberta Jul 1, 2021 $99,948.00
University Of Toronto Sep 1, 2021 $58,728.00
University Of Waterloo Jul 2, 2021 $100,000.00
Young, Hilary A.N. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000.00
York University Nov. 1, 2020 $99,956.00

Note: since this list was originally used, it seems a few of the names have been reclassified (as to whether they are part of the DCCP). Nonetheless, these are all still projects that were funded by public tax dollars. Now, what areas are being funded?

(a) First research projects call for proposals (closed November 1, 2019)
This call for proposals sought projects that met at least 1 of the following priorities:

-research projects, where activities have a positive domestic impact on Canada or Canadians, and include primary research, such as surveys, interviews, field experiments, or lab-based experiments, as well as secondary research such as literature reviews and meta-analyses; production and analysis of datasets; and creation of tools such as software programs to support research
-evaluation projects, where activities will seek to evaluate the impact of existing Canadian or international programming and research addressing disinformation and other online harms

(b) Second research projects call for proposals (closed on September 18, 2020)
This call for proposals sought projects that met at least 1 of the following priorities, with a maximum funding ask of $100,000/project:

-projects that aim to map/predict the next issues and/or types of online disinformation and other related harms that Canada and/or Canadians might face, how they could be tackled, and by whom
-projects that aim to help better understand the impact of disinformation and related harms on diverse and marginalized communities in Canada, with a gender-based analysis lens
-projects that aim to understand the societal factors and psychological characteristics that motivate individuals to take up the call for online and offline disinformation related activities
-projects that aim to understand the impacts of a lack of exposure to diverse content online, including understanding how users access reliable news and information in Canada, as well as the impacts of algorithmic systems on the content users are exposed to and consume on online platforms

(c) Third research projects call for proposals (closed on May 28, 2021)
This call for proposals sought projects that met at least 1 of the following priorities, and under this call, successful recipients received funding up to $100,000:

-projects that aims to understand the role of algorithms, artificial intelligence, and other system-level factors on mainstream and fringe online platforms as they pertain to the spread, uptake, and impacts of disinformation and related harms, including on user behaviour and content consumption, and their potential uses towards a diverse and healthy information ecosystem;
-projects that aims to understand the domestic and transnational spread, evolution, and impacts of online disinformation and related harms through and on diaspora, Indigenous, and non-English primary language communities in Canada using a GBA+ lens, including impacts on societal outcomes; or
-projects that aims to evaluate existing Canadian or international research and programming related to online disinformation and their effectiveness in furthering positive societal outcomes, such as citizen resilience, social inclusion, media literacy, and participation and trust in democratic processes.

(d) Special COVID-19 calls (closed July 31, 2020)
The Digital Citizen Contribution launched 2 special COVID-19 calls for proposals. The first call provided up to $3.5 million in funding to amplify the efforts of 10 organizations supporting citizens to think critically about the health information they find online, to identify mis- and disinformation, and limit the impact of racist and/or misleading social media posts relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The second call also aimed to amplify the efforts of organizations supporting citizens to think critically about the health information they find online, to identify mis- and disinformation, and limit the impact of racist and/or misleading social media posts relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. This call provided time-limited financial assistance to 24 projects of up to $40,000 per project.

(e) Special Ukraine Crisis Call (closed on April 1, 2022)
In the light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this special call is aimed to address the growing spread of harmful misinformation and disinformation. The special targeted call was launched to fund initiatives that help people identify misinformation and disinformation online.

As the pandemic continues into its third year and the Russian invasion of Ukraine now threatens democracies around the world, we need to do more to counter the growing spread of harmful misinformation and disinformation. Today, the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage, announced the launch of a special, targeted call for proposals totalling $2.5 million to fund initiatives that help people identify misinformation and disinformation online.

Through the Government’s Digital Citizen Initiative (DCI), Canadians can respond and help in the global efforts to counter misinformation and disinformation. The DCI supports democracy and social cohesion in Canada by building citizen resilience against misinformation and disinformation, and building partnerships to support a healthy digital information society.

Of course, there’s no mention that the authorities themselves routinely engage in misinformation and outright deception.

Not only are mainstream outlets controlled and funded by Government, but these grants make it difficult to trust anyone. Even independents may be suspect if they are dependent on money from interested parties.

(1) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/
(2) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/?sort=agreement_start_date+desc&page=2&search_text=%22digital+citizen+contribution+program%22
(3) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2022/03/government-of-canada-reinforces-support-to-organizations-to-help-counter-harmful-disinformation.html
(4) https://ppforum.ca/articles/digital-democracy-project-to-examine-online-disinformation/
(5) https://mediasmarts.ca/media-literacy-week
(6) https://en.unesco.org/creativity/policy-monitoring-platform/digital-citizen-initiative
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/digital-citizen-contribution-program/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/digital-citizen-contribution-program-next-round-of-grants/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/digital-citizen-contribution-program-the-paris-call/