Category: NGO/CS

Posted on

Supreme Court Reserves Decision On Challenge To Safe Third Country Agreement

The Supreme Court of Canada recently heard a challenge to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA), on grounds that it violates the Charter of Rights. This was based on 3 consolidated cases of people attempting to enter Canada from the U.S., and being denied.

The primary NGOs acting were: (a) Amnesty International; (b) the Canadian Council for Refugees; and (c) the Canadian Council of Churches. However, there were others who piled on, demanding open borders for people entering Canada illegally.

  • Appellant Canadian Council for Refugees et al.
  • Appellant Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
  • Intervener Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
  • Intervener David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights et al
  • Intervener National Council of Canadian Muslims et al
  • Intervener Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
  • Intervener Queen’s Prison Law Clinic
  • Intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association
  • Intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
  • Intervener Advocates for the Rule of Law
  • Intervener Rainbow Railroad
  • Intervener HIV AIDS Legal Clinic of Ontario
  • Intervener Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights et al
  • Intervener Rainbow Refugee Society

It’s strange that virtually any special interest group can get standing as an intervenor to attack our borders. Meanwhile, actual citizens don’t have standing to demand that laws and borders be enforced.

For context, it’s important to realize that attacking the function of a border is not new. In fact, these groups have been at it for a long time. Here are some of their efforts. Note: these listings are not exclusive.

Efforts appear to have kicked off after January 1, 1989. This was based on changes to the procedures for determining whether applicants come within the definition of a Convention Refugee.

First attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

April 26, 1989, the Federal Court dismissed an application to strike from the Attorney General of Canada. This had been brought on the basis that the Canadian Council of Churches did not have standing to bring the action and had not demonstrated a cause of action.

March 12, 1990, the Federal Court of Appeals refused to hear the challenge of this idea, since no country had yet been designated a “safe country”. In other words, the Canadian Council of Churches had simply fought the concept of a safe country designation.

January 23, 1992, the Supreme Court disallowed the challenge on the grounds that the CCC lacked the necessary standing, and that there were other, more effective ways to achieve their results.

Second attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

December 2004, the Canada/U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement comes into effect. It’s worth noting that it’s really a 3-way treaty that includes the UNHCR, or United Nations High Commission on Refugees. Of course, there are also limitation and exceptions that make it largely worthless.

November 29, 2007, the Federal Court ruled that the S3CA violated Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter, and that they couldn’t be “saved” as reasonable limitations under Section 1. Ottawa decided to appeal that ruling.

June 27, 2008, the previous ruling was set aside on the grounds that appearing at a border port meant they could be turned away, and that it wasn’t a breach of international obligations.

Third attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 23, 2015, the Federal Court allowed reconsideration of refugee applications from people coming from Hungary and Serbia. Up until this point, those countries were considered “safe” under the Designation Country of Origin (DCO) policy. This meant that approximately 40 countries — mainly in Europe — were viewed as safe. As a result, there would be mechanisms to expedite the process (and deportations) of claimants from there.

May 17, 2019, the Trudeau Government ended the DCO practice. This meant that no source country would automatically be considered “safe”, for people coming to Canada. Considering the S3CA was still in place, that left the United States as the only country that people could be turned away from (close to automatically). The list (and dates) are still available for reference.

Fourth attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 22, 2020, the Federal Court ruled that Section 7 of the Charter (security of the person) was violated by the S3CA. While Section 15 (equality) was cited as well, the Judge declined to rule on that provision. Barring an appeal, or legislative changes, the treaty was effectively dead.

April 15, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeals overturned that decision. Section 7 was no violated after all. Now, there had been a cross appeal, as the initial Judge declined to address Section 15. That was dismissed as well, meaning the S3CA was restored to its original form.

October 6, 2022, the Supreme Court hears arguments on striking down the S3CA on constitutional grounds. The decision is reserved, and it’s unclear when the ruling will occur. This is where we are today.

There’s a certain hypocrisy that needs to be pointed out: Refugee groups attack the S3CA, at least partially on the grounds that the U.S. is an unsafe country, and that they need better protection. In the meantime, these same groups promote refugee resettlement into America, as it’s a safe haven. In other words, whether or not the U.S. is safe depends entirely on who the audience is.

Of course, there was never any consultation with Canadians as to whether this is what they really wanted. It’s outrageous that the citizens might want to weigh in.

There’s also another elephant in the room that needs to be addressed: having lax border policies makes it easier to smuggle (or worse, traffic) people into another country. This does nothing to address that problem, but more on that elsewhere on the site.

(1) https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=39749
(2) https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39749
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/1989/1989canlii9436/1989canlii9436.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/1990/1990canlii8019/1990canlii8019.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii116/1992canlii116.html
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2007/2007fc1262/2007fc1262.html
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2008/2008fca229/2008fca229.html
(9) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc892/2015fc892.html
(10) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2019/05/canada-ends-the-designated-country-of-origin-practice.html
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2020/2020fc770/2020fc770.html
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2021/2021fca72/2021fca72.html

Posted on

Challenge To University Of Lethbridge Vaccine Policy Tossed For “Mootness”

An Alberta Judge has dismissed an Application on the grounds that the issue is “moot”, and there’s no relief that can be realistically granted.

The hearing itself took place on May 5th and 6th, with the ruling just coming out. Of course, these mandates were still in place when the Application itself was originally filed.

The case involves a challenge to the “vaccine passport” system that had been in place, and the denial of a religious exemption. The school argued that since the policy has been rescinded, there’s no issue left to be decided.

Is The Application Moot?
[7] The Respondent argues that there is no longer a tangible or concrete dispute between the parties. The vaccination program which is the subject matter of this application was repealed after being in place approximately four months. Therefore, it is the Respondent’s position that any decision made by this Court as to the impact of the program on the Applicant’s Charter or other rights will have no practical effect on her ability to attend the University.

[8] The leading case regarding the principles of mootness remains Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 342 [Borowski]. The doctrine of mootness is an aspect of the general policy or practice that a court may decline to decide a case which raises merely a hypothetical or abstract question. If, subsequent to the initiation of the action or proceeding, events occur which affect the relationship of the parties so that no present live controversy exists which affects the rights of the parties, the case is said to be moot. The matter will therefore not be heard unless the court exercises its discretion to depart from that general policy: Borowski, at para 15.

[9] To determine whether an application is moot, a two-step analysis must be undertaken: first, to determine whether the required tangible and concrete dispute has disappeared and the issues have become academic; and second, if the answer to the first question is yes, to determine whether the court should exercise its discretion to hear the case: Borowski, at para 16.

[10] With respect to the first stage of the analysis, there must be a consideration of whether there remains a live controversy between the parties. A live controversy, in this context, involves whether there exists, on an objective assessment, a dispute between the parties the resolution of which will actually affect the parties’ rights or interests: The Alberta Teachers’ Association v Buffalo Trail Public Schools Regional Division No 28, 2022 ABCA 13, at para 34.

[11] It may well be, from a practical perspective, that there is no remedy that can be granted by the Court to rectify or ameliorate the impact of the alleged breaches of the Applicant’s rights. The Applicant is not seeking damages or other compensatory relief. Nor can the court provide any relief from future potential harm the vaccination policy may cause Ms. Nassichuk-Dean, as that policy is no longer in place and hasn’t been since March. Again, Ms. Nassichuk-Dean is not seeking injunctive or other relief for any anticipated rights breaches against her.

[12] Rather, the Applicant is seeking declarations that the application of the University’s COVID-19 policy violated her s. 7 Charter rights, and that the rejection of her application for a religious exemption from the policy breached her rights under the Alberta Human Rights Act.

Had the Applicant been asking for money, or some additional form of relief, it’s entirely possible the case would have kept going. But since the only issue was challenging the policy itself, it was determined that there’s no longer any issue to be heard.

Of course, what’s to stop the University of Lethbridge (or any school) from re-implementing such mandates in the future? There’s no assurance they won’t at some point.

On a side note: the University of Lethbridge, like other Canadian schools, is a registered charity. This means that it receives the benefits of many tax breaks ordinary citizens cannot get.

The school receives handouts from all levels of Government, so it’s unlikely that it will do anything to rock the boat. No college or university in Canada did anything to challenge or push back on vaccine or mask mandates. As with everything, follow the money.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2022/2022abkb629/2022abkb629.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2022/2022abkb629/2022abkb629.pdf
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5301&regId=924907
(4) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=lethbridge+university&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=119279248RR0001&dsrdPg=1

Posted on

British Columbia’s Convoluted Stance On Drugs And Safety

This article is going to be a little disjointed, but the purpose is to show how convoluted and illogical drugs policies are becoming in the Province of British Columbia.

Decriminalization
B.C. is the first province in Canada to receive a three-year exemption from the federal government to remove criminal penalties for people who possess small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use. Decriminalization of people who use drugs will reduce the fear and shame that keeps people silent and leads so many to hide their drug use and avoid treatment and support. Reducing the stigma of drug use is a vital part of B.C.’s work to build a comprehensive system of mental health and substance use care. Decriminalization will become effective Jan. 31, 2023, and the Province will work with a broad cross-section of partners to make sure police are trained and health authorities are prepared for this change.

The B.C Government got a 3 year exemption from Ottawa for possession of narcotics — any narcotics — that are in small enough quantities, and for personal use.

The (outgoing) Premier sent his condolences for deaths that resulted from a poisoned supply. Of course, it’s a bit rich considering that these drugs are poison to begin with. Perhaps they were just killing off the customers too quickly.

Just 2 years ago, Horgan actually recommended staying home and smoking pot as a way to stay safe during the so-called pandemic. There was even a “Good Times” website up in the Summer of 2020. It’s since been removed, but the archived version is still available.

The BCCDC, or B.C. Centre for Disease Control, has guidelines surrounding illicit drug use. Note: it doesn’t appear that stopping is a major objective. Here’s an archived version of it.

Some initiatives to combat drug abuse include:

  • Decriminalization
  • Access to prescribed safer supply, a Canadian first
  • Overdose prevention and supervised consumption services
  • Lifeguard App
  • Take-home naloxone kits
  • New beds for addictions and recovery care
  • Expanded scope of nursing practice, a Canadian first (RN prescriptions)
  • Expanded opioid agonist treatment

Now, there are also programs at various stages for emergency responses and expanded treatment options. However, considering the efforts untaken to expand drug use in this Province, efforts to stop the problem seem insincere.

Of course, the BC Centre for Disease Control is compromised, to put it mildly. The BCCDC Foundation is a registered charity, and gets major tax breaks. Its donors include drug companies, creating a serious conflict of interest. (Archive here). Should the organizations impacting public policy be getting donations from the same companies who profit from — vaccine mandates?

Champions
Our $75,000 – $250,000 Donors

  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Julie Glover
  • Pfizer Canada Inc.
  • Unbounded Canada Foundation
  • Vancouver Foundation

Ambassadors
$25,000 – $74,999.99 Donors

  • British Columbia Association for Sexual Health
  • Merck Canada Inc.
  • Pacific Blue Cross
  • Teradici Corp

Allies
$5,000 – $24,999.99 Donors

  • AbbVie Canada Corp.
  • Associated Canadian Theological Schools Society
  • BC Teachers’ Federation
  • Ben and Lilac Milne
  • BlueSky Properties
  • Chef Ann Kirsebom’s Gourmet Sauces / BBQ Ltd.
  • Connor, Clark & Lunn Foundation
  • Gilead Sciences Canada Inc.
  • Imperial Medical Group Inc.
  • Leith Wheeler Investment Counsel Ltd.
  • LifeLabs
  • London Drugs Limited
  • Orbis Investments Canada Ltd.
  • Sanofi
  • Vancouver Dispensary Society
  • Vard Electro Canada Inc.

Just a thought: but perhaps the pharma money that the BCCDC Foundation receives contributes to the fact that it’s so pro-pharma. This cannot be ignored. Nor can the charity status of the B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority.

In 2018, B.C. began a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments in Canada and enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. The aim of the class action and legislation is to recover health-care costs that resulted from wrongful conduct of opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants.

B.C. alleges that opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants engaged in deceptive marketing practices with a view to increase sales, resulting in increased rates of addiction and overdose. Purdue Canada is one among over 40 manufacturers and distributors named in the class action commenced in 2018 and scheduled for a certification hearing in the next year.

The proposed settlement with Purdue Canada has been agreed to by all federal, provincial and territorial governments and totals $150 million in monetary benefits, plus additional benefits including access to information and documents relevant to the lawsuit. This settlement was reached very early in the litigation process, before the allegations against Purdue Canada have been proven in court. This is the largest settlement of a governmental health claim in Canadian history. The proposed agreement is still subject to final approval by the courts, expected in the next few months.

At the end of June 2022, the B.C. announced a proposed $150 million settlement with Purdue Canada over its business practices.

Taxpayers are on the hook for the extra health care costs, and it seems unlikely that court rulings will come close to compensating the public. Of course, this only speaks to the financial burdens, not the societal and personal losses.

This is pretty convoluted to think that drug laws are getting watered down, resulting in easier access to drugs. Meanwhile, society is plagued by the results of legal drugs (opioids). It’s not just deaths, but ruined lives and families that are the collateral damages.

Will this settlement result in these pharmaceuticals being taken off the market, at least for the most part? Or will these court actions simply be viewed as the cost of doing business?

It’s difficult to see that the Government here is serious about ending drug problems in this Province. Then again, maybe the goal is not to stop it, but just to control it.

(1) https://twitter.com/jjhorgan/status/1559588217208184832
(2) https://twitter.com/jjhorgan/status/1294762295348715520
(3) https://goodtimes.gov.bc.ca/
(4) https://archive.ph/naVsZ
(5) http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/priority-populations/people-who-use-substances
(6) https://archive.ph/AVbNY
(7) https://news.gov.bc.ca/factsheets/escalated-drug-poisoning-response-actions-1
(8) http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/data-reports/substance-use-harm-reduction-dashboard
(9) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/life-events/death/coroners-service/statistical-reports
(10) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/statistical/illicit-drug-type.pdf
(11) https://canucklaw.ca/bc-centre-for-disease-control-foundation-is-registered-charity-with-pharma-funding/
(12) https://bccdcfoundation.org/our-donors/
(13) https://archive.ph/bg8cd
(14) https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2022AG0044-001031

Posted on

World Health Organization Constitution: Have You Actually Read It?

The World Health Organization Constitution is just one document that Canadians were subjected to, and this being done without knowledge or consent. Was there ever a referendum or election campaign run on this? Probably not.

The full text is available with a quick internet search. Below are some sections which might be the most troubling to any nationalist or patriot.

Article 4
Members of the United Nations may become Members of the Organization by signing or otherwise accepting this Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIX and in accordance with their constitutional processes.

This part cannot be overemphasized. If a country wants to be part of the WHO, then they necessarily have to sign onto their constitution. The Federal Government did this on their own, with a signature. And as we go through it, the problems with this become obvious.

Article 7
If a Member fails to meet its financial obligations to the Organization or in other exceptional circumstances, the Health Assembly may, on such conditions as it thinks proper, suspend the voting privileges and services to which a Member is entitled. The Health Assembly shall have the authority to restore such voting privileges and services.

So, being part of this group is voluntary. However, if you don’t pay your bills, WHO can suspend your voting rights. They can also be removed under the undefined “exceptional circumstances”. Sounds a bit undemocratic, doesn’t it?

Article 19
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Article 20
Each Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance. In case of acceptance, each Member agrees to make an annual report to the Director-General in accordance with Chapter XIV

The Health Assembly has the right to determine its own conventions and agreement, and it can be done with a 2/3 vote. By this rationale, Canada could easily be forced into adopting policies that it fundamentally disagrees with. And to state the obvious, there was never any domestic vote or referendum over this.

Members are also obligated to go along with any convention or agreement. If they refuse, written reasons have to be provided.

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

W.H.O.’s constitution makes it clear that quarantine measures fall under their purview. Quarantine, of course, is code for movement and population control. Strange how none of the freedom fighters in the media or politics ever mention this.

As for the standards and nomenclature of pharmaceuticals, this includes vaccines that are pushed on the public despite only having emergency authorization. There’s also a reference to testing, such as the PCR tests, which can’t determine anything.

W.H.O. names diseases as well, including ones that have never been proven to exist.

It doesn’t appear that Canada ever rejected or opted-out of any of this. As such, we are compelled to play along with this globalist organization.

Article 54
The Pan American Sanitary Organization represented by the Pan American Sanitary Bureau and the Pan American Sanitary Conferences, and all other inter-governmental regional health organizations in existence prior to the date of signature of this Constitution, shall in due course be integrated with the Organization. This integration shall be effected as soon as practicable through common action based on mutual consent of the competent authorities expressed through the organizations concerned.

All other organizations that use “public health” as a means of population control will eventually become integrated with W.H.O. Guess it keeps everything centralized.

CHAPTER XIII – VOTING
Article 59
Each Member shall have one vote in the Health Assembly.

Article 60
(a) Decisions of the Health Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the Members present and voting. These questions shall include: the adoption of conventions or agreements; the approval of agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations and inter-governmental organizations and agencies in accordance with Articles 69, 70 and 72; amendments to this Constitution.
(b) Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the Members present and voting.
(c) Voting on analogous matters in the Board and in committees of the Organization shall be made in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Article.

This becomes a numbers game, where decisions that are detrimental to some nations can be adopted simply because the majority overall vote for it. With this mechanism in mind, there really is no sovereignty to rely on.

CHAPTER XV – LEGAL CAPACITY, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
Article 66
The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such legal capacity as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.

Article 67
(a) The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.
(b) Representatives of Members, persons designated to serve on the Board and technical and administrative personnel of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Organization.

Article 68
Such legal capacity, privileges and immunities shall be defined in a separate agreement to be prepared by the Organization in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and concluded between the Members

All employees and other workers are given immunity from legal action as part of their contracts with W.H.O. That’s a pretty good deal. They can’t be sued, charged, or have recourse taken against them, as long as they were doing their jobs. There doesn’t even seem to be a requirement that they be acting in good faith.

Article 69
The Organization shall be brought into relation with the United Nations as one of the specialized agencies referred to in Article 57 of the Charter of the United Nations. The agreement or agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations shall be subject to approval by a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly.

The W.H.O. would be subject to U.N. control. It’s pretty clear that the ultimate goal is to merge all of these organizations into a single, centralized institution of power.

Article 71
The Organization may, on matters within its competence, make suitable arrangements for consultation and co-operation with non-governmental international organizations and, with the consent of the Government concerned, with national organizations, governmental or non-governmental

On its own, this doesn’t sound too bad, but the devil is always in the details. Which groups would be consulted? How would they be screened? Would their recommendations become binding on members?

Article 72
Subject to the approval by a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly, the Organization may take over from any other international organization or agency whose purpose and activities lie within the field of competence of the Organization such functions, resources and obligations as may be conferred upon the Organization by international agreement or by mutually acceptable arrangements entered into between the competent authorities of the respective organizations.

The W.H.O. constitution gives itself the power to take over from any “international organization or agency” within its designated scope, as long as there is a 2/3 majority vote from the Health Assembly.

Sure, it’s done “on consent”, but who are the people that are really consenting?

Article 79
(a) States may become parties to this Constitution by:
(i) signature without reservation as to approval;
(ii) signature subject to approval followed by acceptance; or
(iii) acceptance.
(b) Acceptance shall be effected by the deposit of a formal instrument with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 80
This Constitution shall come into force when twenty-six Members of the United Nations have become parties to it in accordance with the provisions of Article 79.

This isn’t everything, but just more eye-opening parts. The full text of the W.H.O. constitution is freely available. (Here’s the highlighted version). Look it up, read it, and see what exactly we have been signed onto without any sort of democratic mandate.

Rest assured, there are a lot more than 26 countries now. This means the constitution has come into force. And if anyone hasn’t gone through the chronology of events, it’s all laid out here:

1908: International Public Health Office to be created
1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.

Being part of the World Health Organization means submitting to their rules and control. It’s laid out in their own constitution. To be clear, sovereignty will never be possible as long as Canada is part of this entity.

As has been outlined here before, the 2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations.

We’ve also gone heavily into the creation of PHAC, which is essentially just a branch of the World Health Organization. It was created at WHO’s instigation. It takes over (to a large degree) what Health Canada had been doing. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.

The W.H.O. Constitution is a major step is the erasure of nations — under the guise of public health. Anyone serious about “freedom” in Canada, or elsewhere, needs to address this. Far too many are propped up as heroes, but who ignore the underlying legislation and treaties.

(1A) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/WHO-Constitution-Full-Document.pdf
(1B) WHO Constitution Full Document MARKED
(2) https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution
(3) https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/
(4) https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=6
(5) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/
(6) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/index.aspx
(7) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103984&t=637793587893732877
(8) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103986&t=637862410289812632
(9) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103990&t=637793587893576566
(10) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103994&t=637862410289656362
(11) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103997&t=637793622744842730
(12) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=105025&t=637793622744842730

Posted on

World Circular Economy Forum, Related Groups

Have you heard about the World Circular Economy Forum? If not, let’s take a look at what’s going on over here. This is a collection of people who devise ways to make the economy function in a waste free world.

At first, this organization seems to present as a large scale recycling scheme, devoted to reducing garbage and pollution. While there is truth in that, it appears the goals are much larger.

The first forum took place in 2017, and the most recent one was hosted in 2021. That said, 2017 is an interesting year, since that’s when the Canadian budget started pumping money into alternative protein sources.

It’s a bit amusing that this group goes out of its way to have a name as close as possible to the World Economic Forum. Did they thing no one would notice? Or that no one would care? Anyhow, let’s see who’s supposedly running this thing.

Partners include:

  • African Circular Economy Alliance
  • Circular Economy Leadership Canada
  • City of Toronto
  • Ellen MacArthur Foundation
  • European Circular Economy Stakeholders Platform
  • European Union
  • Finnish Government
  • International Chamber of Commerce
  • Government of Canada
  • Government of the Netherlands
  • United Nations Environmental Program

Strangely, I don’t recall any public figures campaigning on becoming part of such an organization. Nor does there seem to have been anything in the way of media coverage. But at least we aren’t forced to help finance this “circular economy” fad, are we?

It turns out, that we will be. At least that’s what this 2021 report makes pretty clear. Like other eco initiatives, this will require lots of start-up money.

[Page 3]
The current state of circular finance
.
Despite the lack of harmonized frameworks, taxonomies, and metrics, financial institutions are beginning to move forward with initiatives to advance circular finance solutions in various ways. Globally, some financial institutions have set multi-billion dollar targets for investing in circular deals. Large multilateral development banks are supporting financial institutions in developing structured frameworks to accommodate innovative financial solutions and advisory services. A report authored by Patrick Schröder and Jan Raes and published by Chatham House titled, “Financing an inclusive circular economy: De-risking investments for circular business models and the SDGs,” highlights the importance of public investment and stimulus packages to de-risk and incentivize financial investments in circular models.

In order to get this going, billions of dollars will need to be pumped into it. Note: this doesn’t refer to any accounting, just an idea in broad strokes. The report continues:

[Page 8]
Circular economy opportunities and priorities are increasingly intersecting with broader ESG considerations such as biodiversity, equity, diversity and inclusion, and climate action goals, although the intersections are not yet well understood. Investment in circular business strategies and operations can result in significant positive social, environmental, and economic benefits. Circular businesses are creating more resilient green jobs and skills that will be needed in a low-carbon future. For instance, the Share, Reuse, Repair Initiative’s Just Circular Recovery and Transition project brings together circular innovators and community organizations to advance employment opportunities within marginalized communities. Additionally, circular businesses are prompting consumers to have conversations around lighter living and to make more sustainable choices.

[Page 8]
A study by the Ellen McArthur Foundation shows that 45% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are associated with products and food. Achieving net-zero commitments will require reducing embodied carbon through circular strategies, such as designing for reuse and remanufacturing, product-as-a-service models, and advanced recycling. For instance, the Ellen McArthur foundation estimates that remanufacturing and reusing an engine reduces carbon intensity by 85%

This also ties in with the idea of “alternative” protein sources and eating bugs. After all, if traditional food sources are considered to not be environmentally friendly, they need to be phased out.

It turns out that taxpayer dollars are being used for the “circular economy” initiative, even if they aren’t being directly given to this organization. Here are some of those grants:

And in a turn of events, Canadian taxpayers is also giving large amounts of money directly to the World Economic Forum. In fact, there is a lot they are forced to finance.

RECIPIENT DATE DATE
Accelerating Sustainability Events Management Inc Jul 28, 2021 $175,000.00
Carboncure Technologies Inc Jan 8, 2021 $2,026,500.00
City Of Guelph Mar 13, 2020 $10,000,000.00
Collège D’Enseignement Général Et Professionnel Feb 6, 2020 $2,000,000.00
Conference Board Of Canada Mar 31, 2021 $390,000.00
Council Of The Great Lakes Region Mar 18, 2020 $553,000.00
Distillerie Maison Alfred Inc. Dec 5, 2021 $30,476.00
Gabriola Island Recycling Organization Mar 24, 2022 $98,000.00
Global Centre For Indigenomics Oct 27, 2021 $49,900.00
Keddie, Leanne Mar 15, 2022 $234,045.00
Leading Change For Young Professionals Jul 28, 2021 $299,875.00
Natural Step (Canada) Inc. Feb 21, 2019 $299,875.00
Ontario Genomics Institute Oct 1, 2021 $1,262,661.00
Leadership Coalition, Natural Step Canada Inc Mar 18, 2020 $175,000.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc. Feb 1, 2019 $170,900.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc. Sep 16, 2021 $460,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc. May 31, 2021 $30,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc. May 31, 2021 $50,000.00
Tgm Tours Inc. Jan 25, 2021 $143,000.00
University Of British Columbia Mar 18, 2022 $1,040,000.00
World Economic Forum Dec 23, 2014 $1,000,000.00
World Economic Forum Sep 29, 2015 $6,000,000.00
World Economic Forum Dec 14, 2015 $10,000,000.00
World Economic Forum Dec 3, 2018 $52,925.00
World Economic Forum Apr 25, 2019 $999,580.00
World Economic Forum Jan 17, 2020 $500,000.00
World Economic Forum Mar 16, 2020 $5,933,063.00

The University of British Columbia is a registered charity, so it already receives a favourable tax rate on its income.

This is eye-catching, this grant to the World Economic Forum, Center for 4th Industrial Revolution. Isn’t that the name of one of Klaus Schwab’s books? Isn’t this all supposed to be just a conspiracy theory?

It’s also worth mentioning that both Carboncure Technologies Inc. and the Conference Board Of Canada were receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, over the last few years. This is run by the C.R.A. and is used to help pay employees’ wages.

There is a corresponding group here called Circular Economy Leadership Canada. Its partners include many well known chains. It states on its main page that:

“We’re collectively committing to support the U.N. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 on responsible consumption and production, and to substantially reduce waste, in all of its forms, by 2030.”

In other words, it’s helping to implement parts of Agenda 2030. The organization just needs large amounts of financial assistance (continuously) to make this happen.

Goal #2 in the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda is ending hunger in all its forms. One of the methods pushed is phasing out traditional agriculture with alternative protein sources, such as bugs.

Goal #13 in the UNSDA is preventing climate change. There is actually considerable overlap with #2. By stating that certain agricultural practices cause these changes, it provides a further excuse to further shut down farms.

Goal #12 ties in to both #2 and #13. This calls for creating “sustainable food and consumption patterns”. By saying that current models do not suffice in feeding everyone, while asserting they cause climate change, this goal is able to solve the other two. It’s another instance of causing the problem, getting a reaction, then proposing a solution.

A cynic may wonder just how literally the term “circular economy” is meant to be taken. After all, there are efforts to get people in the West eating bugs. After humans are dead and buried, presumably they’ll be eaten by bugs themselves.

(1) https://www.wcef2021.com/
(2) https://www.wcef2021.com/about/
(3) https://circulareconomyleaders.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WCEF-Financing-the-Circular-Economy-What-We-Heard-Report-20211015-EN1.pdf
(4) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/
(5) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/ic,230-2018-2019-04-0189,current
(6) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(7) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

FOOD SERIES:
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/cricket-production-subsidies-aspire-food-group/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/budget-2017-subsidizing-the-phase-out-of-meat-in-canada/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/holomodor-2-0-coming-or-all-just-a-coincidence/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/nacia-and-insect-consumption-alternative-protein-market/

Posted on

Canadian Media: Qualifying Digital News Subscriptions List

We’ve previously addressed how “approved” media outlets effectively get a tax subsidy with digital subscriptions. In short, they are able to somewhat discount the price because readers can send their receipts to the Canada Revenue Agency for a 15% discount.

Now, this only covers 15% of up to $500/year. This means that it could amount to $75 in the following tax season. Who’s eligible to offer this?

It’s also a bit sickening to see “conservative” commentators who pretend to be against bailouts, but who see nothing wrong working for outlets that receive them. Guess resigning from such a job on principle is too much to ask.

Now, let’s take a look at which “media” organizations are able to give discounted subscriptions, off the backs of taxpayers. It’s quite the long list.

ORGANIZATION TYPE PUBLICATION DATE
3030106 Nova Scotia Limited allNovaScotia.com allNovaScotia
allNewfoundlandLabrador.com
allNewBrunswick		 January 1, 2020
4437594 Canada Inc. Digital The Low Down to Hull & Back News January 1, 2020
Addington Publications Limited Print and Full Online Access Guysborough Journal January 1, 2020
Addington Publications Limited Online Only Access Guysborough Journal January 1, 2020
AllNewBrunswick.com Online News Service Ltd. allNewBrunswick.com allNewBrunswick
allNovaScotia
allNewfoundlandLabrador.com		 January 1, 2020
AllNewfoundlandLabrador.com Online News Service Ltd. allNewfoundlandlabrador.com allNewfoundlandLabrador.com
allNovaScotia
allNewBrunswick		 January 1, 2020
AllSaskatchewan.com Online News Service Ltd. Digital subscription allSaskatchewan.com July 15, 2021
Alta Newspaper Group Limited Partnership Premium Lethbridge Herald January 1, 2020
Alta Newspaper Group Limited Partnership Digital e-Edition Lethbridge Herald January 1, 2020
Alta Newspaper Group Limited Partnership Digital e-Edition Medicine Hat News January 1, 2020
Alta Newspaper Group Limited Partnership Digital ePaper The Taber Times January 1, 2020
Baby Media Mogul Inc. Daily Newsletter Subscription Queen’s Park Today January 1, 2020
Baby Media Mogul Inc. Daily Newsletter Subscription British Columbia Today January 1, 2020
Baby Media Mogul Inc. Daily Newsletter Subscription Alberta Today January 1, 2020
Brunswick News Inc. Digital subscription Telegraph Journal January 1, 2020
Brunswick News Inc. Digital plus Print Subscription Telegraph Journal January 1, 2020
Coopérative Nationale de L’information Indépendante, coop de solidarité L’essentiel numérique Le Soleil, Le Nouvelliste, Le Droit, Le Quotidien, La Tribune et La Voix de l’Est. January 1, 2021
Coopérative Nationale de L’information Indépendante, coop de solidarité Le numérique tout compris Le Soleil, Le Nouvelliste, Le Droit, Le Quotidien, La Tribune et La Voix de l’Est. January 1, 2021
Coopérative Nationale de L’information Indépendante, coop de solidarité Le numérique et papier tout compris Le Soleil, Le Nouvelliste, Le Droit, Le Quotidien, La Tribune et La Voix de l’Est. January 1, 2021
FolioJumpline Publishing Inc. Digital Prince Albert Daily Herald January 1, 2020
FolioJumpline Publishing Inc. Digital Digital plus print in city January 1, 2020
FP Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership All Access Digital Winnipeg Free Press January 1, 2020
FP Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership Read Now Pay Later Winnipeg Free Press January 1, 2020
FP Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership All Access Digital Brandon Sun January 1, 2020
FP Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership Read Now Pay Later Brandon Sun January 1, 2020
FP Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership All Access Digital The Carillon January 1, 2020
Halifax Examiner Inc. HalifaxExaminer.ca Halifax Examiner January 1, 2020
Hill Times Publishing Inc. Digital Hill Times January 1, 2020
Hill Times Publishing Inc. Print & Digital Hill Times January 1, 2020
Icimédias inc. Numérique Le Canada January 1, 2020
Icimédias inc. Papier + Numérique Le Canada January 1, 2020
Island Press Limited Unlimited digital access The Eastern Graphic
West Prince Graphic
Island Farmer
Atlantic Post Calls		 June 22, 2021
Island Press Limited Print + Digital The Eastern Graphic
West Prince Graphic
Island Farmer
Atlantic Post Calls		 June 22, 2021
Island Press Limited Print + Digital Combo The Eastern Graphic November 29, 2021
Island Press Limited Print + Digital Combo The West Prince Graphic November 29, 2021
Island Press Limited Print + Digital Combo Island Farmer November 29, 2021
Island Press Limited Print + Digital Combo Atlantic Post Calls November 29, 2021
Kelowna Daily Courier Newspaper Limited Partnership Print Subscriber Free Access Daily Courier January 1, 2020
Kelowna Daily Courier Newspaper Limited Partnership Print Subscriber Free Access Penticton Herald January 1, 2020
Kelowna Daily Courier Newspaper Limited Partnership Total Digital Daily Courier January 1, 2020
Kelowna Daily Courier Newspaper Limited Partnership Total Digital Penticton Herald January 1, 2020
Les Éditions de l’Acadie Nouvelle (1984) Ltée Abonnement Numérique Acadie Nouvelle January 1, 2020
Les Éditions de l’Acadie Nouvelle (1984) Ltée Abonnement Tout compris Acadie Nouvelle January 1, 2020
Manitoulin Publishing Company Limited Digital subscription The Manitoulin Expositor January 1, 2020
MédiaQMI Inc. Offre Tout Inclus Combo Papier et Édition Électronique Journal de Montréal January 1, 2020
MédiaQMI Inc. Édition Électronique 7 jours sur 7 Journal de Montréal January 1, 2020
MédiaQMI Inc. Offre Tout Inclus Combo Papier et Édition Électronique Journal de Québec January 1, 2020
MédiaQMI Inc. Édition Électronique 7 jours sur 7 Journal de Québec January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Digital access + ePaper Hamilton Spectator January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Home delivery including digital access + ePaper Hamilton Spectator January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Digital access + ePaper Waterloo Region Record January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Home delivery including digital access + ePaper Waterloo Region Record January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Home delivery including digital access + ePaper Peterborough Examiner January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Digital access + ePaper Peterborough Examiner January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Digital access + ePaper St. Catharines Standard January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Home delivery including digital access + ePaper St. Catharines Standard January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Digital access + ePaper Niagara Falls Review January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Home delivery including digital access + ePaper Niagara Falls Review January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Digital access + ePaper Welland Tribune January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Home delivery including digital access + ePaper Welland Tribune January 1, 2020
Mishmash Media Inc Numérique et Papier L’actualité January 1, 2020
Mishmash Media Inc Numérique L’actualité January 1, 2020
Observer Media Group Inc. Digital Access Canada’s National Observer January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access National Post January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery National Post January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery National Post January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Calgary Herald January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Calgary Herald January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Calgary Herald January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Calgary Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Calgary Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Calgary Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Edmonton Journal January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Edmonton Journal January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Edmonton Journal January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Edmonton Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Edmonton Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Edmonton Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access The Province (Vancouver) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery The Province (Vancouver) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery The Province (Vancouver) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access The Vancouver Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery The Vancouver Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery The Vancouver Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Winnipeg Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Winnipeg Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Winnipeg Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access London Free Press January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery London Free Press January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery London Free Press January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Ottawa Citizen January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Ottawa Citizen January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Ottawa Citizen January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Ottawa Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Ottawa Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Ottawa Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Toronto Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Toronto Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Toronto Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Windsor Star January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Windsor Star January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Windsor Star January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Montreal Gazette January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Montreal Gazette January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Montreal Gazette January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Regina Leader-Post January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Regina Leader-Post January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Regina Leader-Post January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Saskatoon Star Phoenix January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Saskatoon Star Phoenix January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Saskatoon Star Phoenix January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper Daily Herald-Tribune January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Intelligencer (Belleville) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Expositor (Brantford) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Recorder & Times (Brockville) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Chatham Daily News January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper Standard Freeholder (Cornwall) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Kingston Whig-Standard January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper North Bay Nugget January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Observer (Sarnia) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Sault Star (Sault Ste. Marie) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper Simcoe Reformer January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper St. Thomas Times-Journal January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Beacon Herald (Stratford) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Sudbury Star January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Daily Press (Timmins) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper Sentinel-Review (Woodstock) January 1, 2020
Presse-Ouest Ltée. Numérique la-liberte.ca La Liberté January 1, 2020
Presse-Ouest Ltée. Numérique et Papier la-liberte.ca La Liberté January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access The Telegram January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access The Telegram January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access The Guardian January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access The Guardian January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access The Cape Breton Post January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access The Cape Breton Post January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access Tri-County Vanguard January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access Tri-County Vanguard January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access Truro News January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access Truro News January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access New Glasgow News January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access New Glasgow News January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access Valley Journal Advertiser January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access Valley Journal Advertiser January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access Annapolis Valley Register January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access Annapolis Valley Register January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access Journal Pioneer January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access Journal Pioneer January 1, 2020
TC Publication Limited Partnership Print and E-edition Times Colonist January 1, 2020
TC Publication Limited Partnership E-edition Times Colonist January 1, 2020
The Catholic Register Digital Edition The Catholic Register January 1, 2020
The Catholic Register Print and Digital The Catholic Register January 1, 2020
The Globe and Mail Inc. Digital Access The Globe and Mail January 1, 2020
The Globe and Mail Inc. Home Delivery plus Digital Access The Globe and Mail January 1, 2020
The Globe and Mail Inc. Globe2Go The Globe and Mail January 1, 2020
The Halifax Herald Limited Unlimited Digital Access The Chronicle Herald January 1, 2020
The Halifax Herald Limited Print + Unlimited Digital Access The Chronicle Herald January 1, 2020
The Logic Inc. The Logic Annual Subscription The Logic January 1, 2020
The Logic Inc. The Logic All-Access Subscription The Logic January 1, 2020
Thunder Bay Chronicle Limited Partnership Digital e-version The Chronicle Journal January 1, 2020
Thunder Bay Chronicle Limited Partnership Print subscriber free online account The Chronicle Journal January 1, 2020
Toronto Star Newspaper Limited Print + ePaper + Digital access The Toronto Star January 1, 2020
Toronto Star Newspaper Limited ePaper + Digital Access The Toronto Star January 1, 2020
Toronto Star Newspaper Limited The Star Digital Access The Toronto Star January 1, 2020
Toronto Star Newspaper Limited The Star ePaper The Toronto Star January 1, 2020

While there are 165 listings (thus far) for this tax credit, many are of the same outlet offering different formats. It’s also obvious that many are owned by the same conglomerates, such as Post Media.

There are, of course, other subsidies available. Independent media — that doesn’t receive handouts — is virtually nonexistent, at least for large and medium companies. Even groups that claim to be truly independent can withhold important information.

Now, the question everyone needs to ask: will these outlets be too critical of Government policy, or investigate too deeply? After all, it’s not wise to bite the hand that feeds you.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/deductions-credits-expenses/digital-news-subscription/list-qualifying-digital-news-subscriptions.html#wb-auto-4
(3) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/federal-government-budgets/budget-2019-investing-middle-class/canadian-journalism/refundable-labour-tax-credit.html
(4) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/periodical-fund/aid-publishers/application-guidelines.html
(5) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/periodical-fund/special-measures-journalism/application-guidelines.html