Twenty Twenty-One Is Now Available

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B095Y515XK

Twenty Twenty-One is now posted on Amazon, as a Kindle product. It covers a lot of the backstory of the “pandemic” which isn’t being covered by any mainstream outlet. The option of paperback is being looked into.

Yes, it would be nice to give it away, however, research and reporting are very time consuming. Thank you to everyone who has helped support the site, and helped keep this going.

If you have friends or family who would be interested in this kind of information, please share it with them.

The content on Canuck Law is still available for all.

A shoutout to Fred, Andy, and the folks at Civilian Intelligence Network.

Andrew Lawton Of True North Sells Out, Gives Softball Interview To Jason Kenney

On May 8, 2021, Andrew Lawton of True North did an interview with Alberta Premier Jason Kenney. To put it mildly, this was a softball. Lawton went out of his way to avoid difficult questions, and help Kenney along. Rather than holding the Premier to account, Lawton acted as a form of controlled opposition. Commenters on Twitter were quite angry. He gave more legitimacy to the tyrannical measures imposed in the Province.

True North got its “charity” status under very dubious terms. Rather than founding one (as Candice Malcolm leads people to believe), she took over an existing one. See the CRA or search corporations in Canada for more information. True North used to be called the Independent Immigration Aid Association, founded in 1994.

Prior to “founding” True North, Malcolm and her husband, Kasra Nejatian, were staffers for Jason Kenney. They worked in his office while he was Multiculturalism Minister in Stephen Harper’s Government. This detail is never disclosed publicly.

Kenney used to run the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a Koch/Atlas think tank. Malcolm worked for them as well. Nejatian is still part of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, another Koch/Atlas group. He’s also a Director at True North, but not openly listed. None of this is disclosed either.

It’s beyond hypocritical for True North to rail against media outlets being bribed by Trudeau, while it gets tax breaks from pretending to be a charity. The most likely reason for taking over one, as opposed to starting one, is that there would be far less scrutiny.

Lawton himself was a 2018 candidate for the Ontario Provincial election for Doug Ford. To his credit, that is openly mentioned.

And “staffer” is the impression that interview gives off. Lawton tries his best to make Kenney look good, or at least better. What questions could have been asked?

  • Why do the goalposts keep shifting on these measures?
  • Has this virus eve been isolated? See Fluoride Free Peel.
  • Why at PCR tests used, when they can’t determine infection?
  • WHO defines Covid deaths as “clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed case”. How is this medically or scientifically based?
  • What agreements were made to simultaneously shut down economies?
  • What really happened March 2020 at World Economic Forum?
  • Why are daily press conference questions screened in advance?
  • Are these public gathering bans about safety, or just making it harder for opposition to gather and talk openly?
  • Why are churches closed, but mosques can remain open?
  • How can you justify jailing people for attending church?
  • What gives Kenney the right to indefinitely suspend basic rights?
  • Who runs Alberta? You or Deena Hinshaw and her people?
  • Why is computer modelling treated as if it were science?
  • What is the scientific basis for determining “non-essential businesses”?
  • How are you “pro-business” if you keep shutting them down?
  • What is the actual science behind banning indoor gatherings?
  • What is the actual science behind social distancing?
  • What research was done into looking at potential harms from masks?
  • At what rates are people being harmed from “vaccines”?
  • Is the lack of testing on pregnant women/nursing mothers a concern?
  • Is the lack of testing on pregnant children a concern?
  • If these are safe, why are manufacturers indemnified?
  • Are these “vaccines” approved, or given interim authorization?
  • Why ignore the fact that testing continues for years to come?
  • What recourse will people have if harmed by “vaccines”?
  • Why is Deena Hinshaw, an unelected bureaucrat, running the Province?
  • Why is AHS, an autonomous corporation, allowed to dictate freedoms?
  • Why is the Alberta Public Health Act based on the 2005 Quarantine Act?
  • Why was the Quarantine Act passed to accommodate the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations? WHO-IHR?
  • Do these public health orders override AB Bill of Rights?
  • Doesn’t it do an end run around due process to deny Provincial services to people with unpaid tickets, even if they intend to oppose them in Court?
  • What really happened when you attended Bilderberg?
  • Finally: Who the hell do you think you are?

There are more of course, but this just a sample of some of the hard questions Andrew Lawton could have asked. Instead, he allows Kenney to spread his nonsense unchallanged.

It is possible that Lawton his oblivious to all of the above, and did no research at all. However, a more likely explanation is that agreeing to softball questions was a condition of the interview. While having access to politicians is quite understandable, this does the public a huge disservice.

Last November, Jason Kenney did an interview with Danielle Smith, former head of the Alberta Wildrose Party. Kenney admitted doing reading that indicated 90% of positives could be in error, and he shrugged it off.

Both Deena Hinshaw (Alberta), and Bonnie Henry (British Columbia), has introduced the standard of “assuming” that positive test results are variants. This has no scientific basis at all.

It’s difficult to see who the audience was here. Many of the commenters in the video call out Lawton for his softball approach. No new information was learned, as Jason Kenney just repeated his same lines as before. Although Lawton (may) not have wanted this, Kenney’s handlers certainly would have advised him on which topics are off limits. Overall, it was very disappointing.

Never again should Lawton criticize the CBC for giving Trudeau a pass. He did exactly the same thing here to Kenney.

https://archive.is/19n6U
https://archive.is/mpab4

If you want some real research, check out this HEALTH series, or this COVID series. This is the kind of information that should be shared openly, but isn’t.

Jason Kenney is a fake conservative.
Andrew Lawton is a fake journalist.
True North is a fake charity.

Spencer Fernando Promotes Fake Parties As Beneficial For Canadian Representation

On April 27, Spencer Fernando published a piece titled “Canada Would Benefit From Having Maverick & PPC MPs In Parliament”. This would be hilarious, if not for the fact that people take this man seriously.

Does the author of this article support nuking the CPC in order to bring a real alternative to Canadians? No. He supports having fake parties take a few seats as a way to send a message.

As for the title above, both the PPC (People’s Party of Canada), and Maverick (formerly WExit), are fake parties. Neither have constitutions, governing documents, or elect their leaders. As such, they immune from being overtaken by people serious for real change.

Considering how long Fernando has been writing about politics for, it’s hard to believe he doesn’t know this.

Has he not found it strange that in almost 3 years, Maxime Bernier hasn’t bothered with adding even a rudimentary structure to his party? Not strange that EDAs keep getting shut down?

Fernando claims to be offering an “independent” perspective in his publications. That’s downright laughable, considering that his organization, the National Citizens Coalition, used to be run by Stephen Harper. The blantant anti-Trudeau bias is evident.

That said, there are times when the NCC takes potshots at “conservative” politicians. This has the effect of making it less obvious of their agenda. And this is one of those times.

In fairness, there are many in the Conservative Inc. media who engage in this sort of behaviour. Included are:

  • Rebel Media – This outlet calls itself activist, and doesn’t even pretend to be neutral. Recently, they were sending out petitions calling for the return of Stephen Harper.
  • True North Canada – This is a fake charity that used to be the Independent Immigrant Aid Association. It’s run by Candice Malcolm and Kasra Nejatian, who used to be staffers for Jason Kenney while he was Multiculturalism Minister.
  • The Post Millennial – This is run by Jeff Ballingall, who helped get Erin O’Toole and Doug Ford into their current positions. It’s owned by Matthew Azrieli, grandson of a late media billionaire, David Azrieli.
  • Western Standard – This is currently run by ex-Alberta MLA turned fake populist Derek Fildebrant. Admittedly, it does provide some decent coverage on Western issues, but never comes clean on PPC or Maverick.

There are others of course, but those are the big names. None of them address the issue of fake parties in the election landscape.

A section from the article reads:

And that can happen through the election of some Maverick & PPC candidates in the upcoming election.
.
In the West – particularly in ridings where the Liberals have no chance – a win for the Maverick Party would result in electing someone who is conservative, yet not beholden to Erin O’Toole. They certainly wouldn’t go along with a Liberal agenda, and would be a voice for fiscal conservatism and policies that support the energy sector.
.
On the PPC side of things, Maxime Bernier has been one of the few politicians in Canada who has spoken out against government’s increasingly infringing on our civil liberties – a concern of many Conservatives but one which the CPC itself (with a few notable exceptions like Michelle Rempel Garner & David Sweet – and more subtly Pierre Poilievre), has been reluctant to speak out against.
.
Bernier has certainly been much more consistently ‘conservative’ than the CPC.
.
For that, it would be good if he got his seat back in Beauce, getting back into Parliament and putting pressure on the Conservatives to actually live up to their ideals.
.
In short, a combination of some Maverick MPs and PPC MPs in Parliament would make it clear to the CPC that they no longer have a monopoly on Conservative voters, that Conservative Canadians have leverage, and they must actually offer something of substance to those they expect support from.
.
Now, notice that I’m not calling for the wholesale defeat of the CPC, as that would be completely counterproductive.
.
The CPC still has many MPs – like Poilievre and Rempel Garner – who have a strong future in Canadian politics and effectively represent major threads of Canadian Conservative thought.
.
On balance, it is still better to elect a CPC MP than a Liberal MP.

First point to note: the author doesn’t call for the destruction of the CPC. That is hardly surprising considering that he works for them. He just wants a few MPs elected to “teach them a lesson”.

Considering that Conservatives are silent while Trudeau imposes martial law, and “conservative” Premiers do it Provincially, it’s bewildering why not call for the removal of all of them. The author engages in mental gymnastics to not condemn them outright.

Nothing screams seriousness quite like pandering about resisting tyranny abroad, even as you support it locally. If it’s not worthwhile burning the establishment to the ground over this lot, then what exactly will it take?

Second, Rempel has been little more than a shill for vaccines and martial law in Canada. She whines about minor details of implementation, but overall supports the agenda. On a related note: Poilievre is great with the one liners, and is entertaining, but he outside of being comic relief, offers nothing of substance.

Third, there is a a rewriting of history in terms of Bernier. While in Cabinet, he was pro-UN, pro-China, pro-globalized trade, and supported mass economic immigration. He handed out hundreds of millions in corporate welfare, which he now claims to oppose. He voted in 2007 and 2014 for equalization changes that screwed over the West in favour of Quebec. He reinvented himself as a populist only after losing in the CPC leadership race in 2017.

Fourth, Maverick used to be WExit, which openly called for Western separation. Having gained attention, the goalposts shifted, and its new purpose is just to pretend to pander for the interests of those Provinces.

Fifth, considering that Jay Hill is a former MP from Harper’s Government, how different would be? He didn’t seem to have any issues while in office.

And again, the author completely ignores the fact that both “parties” exist mostly just on paper, and have no structure to keep them alive.

While talking about debts, Fernando NEVER mentions the international banking cartel, which the Conservatives fought in Federal Court to keep intact.

He also addresses the carbon tax, but never gets into the underlying fraud and corruption behind it. Nor does he address the fact that the “challenges” to them were designed to fail.

In terms of nationalism, it is not limited to statues and history, as implied in the article. Canadians don’t want the wholescale population replacement that is going on — something conservative politicians fully embrace.

In 2020, Bernier decided to call for a moratorium, at least until there is economic recovery. Then full speed ahead. He spent over a year calling people who wanted real immigration reforms “racists”.

Conservative politicians of all stripes endorse the free-trade or outsourcing agenda, which leads to industries being sent overseas in the name of cutting costs.

In the name of unity, it’s ignored how incompatible different elements are. Nationalists and social conservatives could theoretically work together. But they have little in common with open borders libertarians and milquetoast cons. They want fundamentally different things.

It’s unclear what specific policies the author actually would see from this, other than (perhaps) no carbon tax. Much like Bernier, he remains extremely vague on what real conservatism is. Perhaps it’s because he doesn’t oppose O’Toole ideologically, just in style.

UPDATE TO ARTICLE
Of course, what does Spencer Fernando know about being a “conservative” anyway? Until a few years ago, he was a Chief of Staff for the Manitoba Liberal Leader. Interesting career trajectory, going from Liberal staffer to Conservative writer. But rhetoric aside, they are basically the same parties.

Guest Post: Michael Comeau On Economic Nationalism

https://www.as-garde.ca/AGMM_E/AGMM_E_Contact-Join.html
https://www.strategic-enterprise.ca/
As-Garde Technology Continuum

Perspective – Heart & Soul of Economic Nationalism

This is written for contrast and perspective

The options are simple and direct…
You can be passive, lay down and die…
You can conform as a poor slave in debt with few or no opportunities,
you can even live at the whim of others, with a robot job…
and experience the great beat down, with industrial and economic genocide.

You can pretend nothing is wrong with the economy and industry,
You can try to ignore the reality of stuff and junk “Made somewhere else”, preferring
the overwhelming replacement of Made in Canada, that eliminates real freedom of choice,
You can believe that the government is for the middle class,
You may never read, “The War against the Family” or even believe it,
You can believe that there is no war against Canadian manufacturing,
or the nation state, or even thoughtful economic nationalism,
but you would be wrong, infinitely dead wrong.

You can pretend to be “politically correct” by not talking about what matters the most,
You can pretend to be tolerant, understanding, accepting – as others get the higher ground,
You can make concessions, be neutral, say nothing and experience the consequence,
as your conscience amplifies what you know in your heart and soul,
the status quo is totally unacceptable, yet you remain in a straight-jacket,
tied down with a ball and chain, taxed every way into oblivion and extinction,
afraid to talk, to stand up and be counted, afraid of criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing,
but you are not afraid from the critic within, the great beat down,
the relentless one that annihilates your character and self-esteem, your sense of worth.

You can continue to believe that you are the sum of your mistakes,
or that your value is measured by the money you have or the things you own,
but you would be wrong, deceiving yourself or not knowing any better,
you can stumble in the dark, blind to reality, your true potential,
unaware of the war against your soul, your nation, your country, true values
your community, the industries and enterprise, the war against you – the individual.

You can continue on, in the routine of life, you resist change, passive to challenge,
hypnotized by the genocide death machine of television and microwave technology,
subliminal and in your face distraction, propaganda, misinformation and deception,
endless distractions from sports, movies, immoral and stupid TV, it may never register
you may never experience the greatest adventure of all time, or explore possibilities,
or that you can totally fail in your purpose, or in finding out something about you,
that could transform your consciousness, your reality and much more.

You could be so passive, that reaction, initiative, and pro-active excitement is rare.
While others secure more territory and defraud you of your heritage,
as your world, power base, opportunities and quality of life, are reduced to rubble,
as you stand next to a decimated industrial base and endangered community,
you have completely failed to realized the significance of the symbols,
in the quest of the Holy Grail, the wasteland, the broken sword,
or the characters who could have helped you, you never recognized,
everyday innocence, genius beyond measure, a word in season.

Contrast and points of view are essential, like rain in the desert.
You can guard your views about politics, religion and money,
afraid to offend anyone, but the facts, opinions and beliefs remain,
understand that it is possible to make friends and allies with common understanding,
the points of view, experiences, shared history and much more.
We can live by and promote true values, real family, nation building,
and be a part of the solutions that transform and revive everyday life.

Or how about the quality of life, health, opportunities with challenge and reward
You can stand powerless as industry and manufacturing is wiped out,
and your community and citizens suffer from lack of vision, imagination and co-operation,
or you can freely choose to be in the As-Garde Technology Continuum.

You can be pro-active, live with purpose, energy and enthusiasm,
a creative individual with imagination, opportunities and prosperity,
create an alternate reality, enjoy exciting, challenging and rewarding work and career options,
experience the pure exhilaration, revitalized industry, enterprise and life,
You can be aware of the awesome and exciting industrial renaissance.

You can be part of the Made in Canada and Product of Canada revolution,
in the “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” economic redevelopment.
the power to create wealth, high quality goods, exciting innovation and invention,
custom made products, advanced technology, awesome performance, made with pride,
good paying, solid quality, family rated jobs and careers, something much more interesting.

You can stand powerful, with solid and secure industry and manufacturing,
your community and citizens thrive and prosper from vision, imagination and co-operation,
people that dare to make a difference.

Stand on guard for Canada, with design engineering Made in Canada!
Live and Build with Heart and Soul Eh !

Media In Canada Obedient To Gov’t Covid Narrative Largely Because Of Subsidies

Justin Trudeau (or his clone), and Theresa Tam take questions from the obedient and largely compliant media. Some highlights from the video include:

[1] No clear answer given about quarantine camps
[2] Journalists asked to be puppets and discredit alternative sources
[3] Social media censored/demonitized, made invisible by algorithm
[4] Information should be checked against official sources — not necessarily for accuracy
[5] Asking people to do testimonials, no specification it be true
[6] Innoculate people “from vaccine misinformation”
[7] Public should only trust official sources

One has to wonder why there is no skepticism whatsoever shown, and why members of the media are toeing the line like this. And there is a simple answer: money.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. Our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

Reminder: 2018 Fall Economic Update To Subsidize Journalism
2019 Budget For Canada

CLICK HERE, for Digital News Subscription Tax Credit.
https://archive.is/4of5V
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for Refundable Labour Tax Credit (25% of salaries)
https://archive.is/SKSh1
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for Canadian Periodical Fund. ($1.5M limit)
https://archive.is/yZP02
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for April 2020 announcement on media subsidies
https://archive.is/53cVu
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for Special Measures For Journalism (Covid)
https://archive.is/4JeLG
WayBack Machine Archive

3. Reminder Of $595M Media Grant In Nov 2018

Support for Canadian Journalism
A strong and independent news media is crucial to a well-functioning democracy. It empowers citizens by providing them with the information they need to make informed decisions on important issues, and also serves to hold powerful institutions—including governments—to account by bringing to light information that might not otherwise be made available to the public. In short, strong and independent journalism serves the public good—for Canada, and for Canadians. Canadians have a right to a wide range of independent news sources that they can trust, and government has a responsibility to ensure that Canadians have access to these kinds of news sources.

A New Non-Refundable Tax Credit for Subscriptions to Canadian Digital News Media
.
To support Canadian digital news media organizations in achieving a more financially sustainable business model,
the Government intends to introduce a new temporary, non-refundable 15-per-cent tax credit for qualifying subscribers of eligible digital news media.
.
In total, the proposed access to tax incentives for charitable giving, refundable tax credit for labour costs and non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions will cost the federal government an estimated $595 million over the next five years. Additional details on these measures will be provided in Budget 2019.

It was 2 years ago that this media subsidization was covered on this site. See page 40 in the report. The goal was to keep otherwise unprofitable media afloat usin taxpayer money in order to hold the Government to account, and to promote diverse ideas.

Now, if holding the Government to account, and promoting viewpoint diversity were the results, then it “may” be worthwhile. But as we will see, that’s not the goal at all.

4. 2019 Budget Includes These Measures

Supporting Canadian Journalism
A strong and independent news media is crucial to a well-functioning democracy. Recognizing the vitally important role the media play in helping citizens make informed decisions about important issues, in the 2018 Fall Economic Statement the Government announced its intention to introduce three new tax measures to support Canadian journalism:
• A new refundable tax credit for journalism organizations.
• A new non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions to Canadian digital news.
• Access to charitable tax incentives for not-for-profit journalism.
As previously announced, the Government will establish an independent panel of experts from the Canadian journalism sector to assist the Government in implementing these measures, including recommending eligibility criteria. Given the importance of ensuring that media outlets are able to operate with full independence, the Government proposes to establish an independent administrative body that will be responsible for recognizing journalism organizations as being eligible for any of the three measures.
Further details are available in Tax Measures: Supplementary Information.

That’s from page 173 of the 2019 budget. The goal is to provide: (a) tax credits for organizations; (b) tax credits for subscribers; and (c) further tax incentives for NFP journalism. More details are listed on page 373.

Of course, there will be an “independent panel” deciding on who gets this money. It can’t be too independent, since real journalists call out the lies and fabrications of governments.

5. Digital News Subscription Tax Credit

Qualifying subscription expense
A qualifying subscription expense is the amount a subscriber paid in the year for a digital news subscription with a QCJO that does not hold a license as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act. To qualify for the credit, a digital news subscription must entitle an individual to access content in digital form that is primarily original written news.

How to apply
A new form, T622, Digital News Subscription Tax Credit, and process will be published so that organizations can get confirmation that the subscriptions they offer are eligible as qualifying subscriptions. Eligible subscriptions will be published on the CRA’s webpages.

Organizations whose subscriptions no longer qualify for the credit are required to inform their subscribers.

How to claim the credit
Individuals who have entered into an agreement with a QCJO for a qualifying subscription that is eligible, can claim the credit on their income tax return for the years 2020 to 2024.

This essentially amounts to pushing propaganda, since the Government can easily decide what does and does not count as a Qualifying Canadian Journalism Organization. It effectively subsidizes (at taxpayer expenses), outlets and topics it wants to see advanced.

However, this is not the only subsidy that is now in place.

6. Refundable Labour Tax Credit (25% Of Salary)

1. What is the proposed new refundable labour tax credit?
The budget proposes to introduce a new refundable labour tax credit (Tax Credit) on qualifying labour expenditures (Qualifying Labour) payable to an eligible newsroom employee of a qualifying journalism organization (Qualified Organization).

4. What is Qualifying labour?
Qualifying Labour for a taxation year includes the salary or wages payable by a Qualified Organization to an eligible newsroom employee in respect of the portion of the taxation year throughout which the organization is a Qualified Organization. The salaries and wages will be reduced by the total of all amounts of assistance that a Qualified Organization received or is entitled to receive in respect of the salary of eligible newsroom employees. The amount of Qualifying Labour will be limited to $55,000 in respect of each eligible newsroom employee.

5. What salary and wages are eligible as Qualifying Labour?
Qualifying Labour will include salary and wages payable to an eligible newsroom employee in respect of a period on or after January 1, 2019. As such, salary and wages that are in respect of a period before January 1, 2019 will not be Qualifying Labour. In addition, salary and wages will be Qualifying Labour of an organization only if they are in respect of a period throughout which the organization is a Qualified Organization.

6. What is an eligible newsroom employee?
An eligible newsroom employee, in respect of a Qualified Organization in a taxation year, means an individual who:
is employed by the Qualified Organization in the taxation year; works, on average, a minimum of 26 hours per week throughout the portion of the taxation year in which the individual is employed by the Qualified Organization; at any time in the taxation year, has been, or is reasonably expected to be, employed by the Qualified Organization for a minimum period of 40 consecutive weeks that includes that time; spends at least 75% of their time engaged in the production of news content, including researching, collecting information, verifying facts, photographing, writing, editing, designing and otherwise preparing content; and meets any prescribed conditions.

Up to 25% of an employee’s salary (of the first $55,000) would be subsidized by the Government, or more correctly, by taxpayers. This means potentially $13,750 of an employee’s salary in total, and that’s per employee. This is designed for full time media outlets.

But these handouts aren’t limited to full time media outlets. Even part time, or infrequent periodicals can benefit from the taxpayer money.

7. Canada Periodical Fund ($1.5M Limit)

Limits of government assistance
Except for farm periodicals, we can fund up to $1.5 million per periodical.
.
Publication receiving the Government of Canada Refundable Labour Tax Credit (RLTC) are ineligible to the Aid to Publishers component of the Canada Periodical Fund.
.
The total financial assistance received from the Aid to publishers component of the Canada Periodical Fund and other levels of government (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal) cannot exceed 75% of any publisher’s total expenditures for the creation, production, marketing and distribution of magazines and non-daily newspapers.

The Canadian Periodical Fund, see archive, will provide a magazine or non-daily publication with up to 75% subsidization, or $1.5 million, whichever is less. Although there are rules as to how much the publication must produce anyway, it’s still a significant amount of taxpayer money.

Also note: there is the disclaimer that “periodicals that contain offensive content in the opinion of the department of Canadian Heritage” may not receive funding.

8. Special Measures For Journalism (Covid-19)

And in case the magazine or periodical doesn’t qualify for subsidies under the Canadian Periodical Fund, there is a new program announced, the “Special Measures For Journalism”. That’s right, a special program to prop up alternative media outlets during this “pandemic”.

Objectives and expected results for the Special Measures for Journalism component
The purpose of the Special Measures for Journalism component is to provide short-term emergency financial relief to Canadian magazines and community newspapers during the COVID-19 crisis in 2020. The component will provide funds for the 2020-2021 fiscal year, to publishers that have a free circulation model or low levels of paid circulation, or are published in digital format. Please note that daily newspapers will not be eligible to this new component.

The component provides a flexibility to allow publishers to direct funds to the areas of greatest need. Recipients can spend the funds on a variety of publishing activities, such as content creation, production, distribution, or business development.

This initiative is above and beyond the $595 million expense that was announced back in 2018. This is specifically to keep media outlets going “through the pandemic”. Note: it excludes daily publications, which means that the more infrequent outlets would get it. It creates the huge conflict of interest by subsidizing outlets who most desperately need the money. And how much money?

The maximum amount that can be awarded to an eligible publication is $1,500,000.

Publication receiving the Government of Canada Refundable Labour Tax Credit (RLTC) can obtain funding from the Special Measures for Journalism component. Please note that the amount of any funding received will be deducted from the RLTC.

The total financial assistance received from Special Measures for Journalism and other levels of government (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal) cannot exceed 75% of any publisher’s total expenditures for the creation, production, marketing and distribution of magazines and community newspapers for the current fiscal year.

Again, this applies to non-daily publications, such as weekly or monthly outlets. These are typically the ones who would need it the most. Wonder if giving favourable coverage was a requirement.

If an outlet receives no subsidies, it could theoretically be subsidized under this program to the tune of 75%, or $1.5 million. If subsidies exist from other sources, it could still be topped up to reach that amount.

If a 75% subsidy amounted to $1.5 million, that would mean the organization in question ran up some $2 million in expenses in a year. Considering that non-daily outlets are excluded, most, if not all, of the less frequently published media companies would fall into these limits.

Similar to the Canadian Periodicals Fund, there is the disclaimer that “periodicals that contain offensive content in the opinion of the department of Canadian Heritage” may not receive funding.

This program is similar in many ways to the Canadian Periodical Fund, but removes many of the limitations that had been imposed.

9. Canadian Media Is Bought Off

Even for periodicals that didn’t qualify normally, there is now a grant of up to $1.5 million for the year. One has to assume that any coverage of the “pandemic” would be friendly towards the Government.

Regarding outlets that didn’t qualify beforehand, are they really going to bite the hand that feeds them? After all, if their coverage becomes too critical of the Government narrative, they may find that the CRTC concludes their content to be offensive.

Even without an access to information request, it’s possible to estimate how much an organization will take. If it’s a regular publication, and the approximately salaries are known, just multiply $13,750 times the number of employees. For less frequent publications, just multiply their total expenses by 75%. Far from exact, but these will provide rough estimates.

Now, are any of these media outlets likely to seriously challenge the Government on this “pandemic” narrative? Probably not.

Go back to the video at the start. Even Tam admits that social media censors, both by deleting content, and by using the algorithms to make them invisible.

10. Followup With Canada Revenue Agency

Hello ********,

The Government remains committed to supporting newsrooms while respecting the basic principle of journalistic independence.

Now, more than ever, strong and independent news media are essential to contribute to an informed public and an effective democracy.

To be eligible for the journalism tax measures, an organization must first be designated as a qualified Canadian journalism organization (QCJO). Once designated, a QCJO must then meet additional criteria for each of the tax measures:

· The Canadian journalism labour tax credit, a 25% refundable tax credit on salaries or wages payable in respect of an eligible newsroom employee for periods beginning on or after January 1, 2019.

· The digital news subscription tax credit, a 15% non-refundable personal income tax credit for digital news subscription costs paid by an individual to a qualified Canadian journalism organization, which applies to qualifying amounts paid after 2019 and before 2025.

· A new type of qualified donee called a registered journalism organization for not-for-profit journalism organizations, which is in effect as of January 1, 2020.

A QCJO that meets the additional criteria can claim the Canadian journalism labour tax credit by completing schedule T2SCH58 Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit and filing it with its return of income for the year.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has been receiving QCJO applications since December 2019. With the establishment of the Independent Advisory Board on Eligibility for Journalism Tax Measures (the Board) in March 2020, and the legislative amendments that were proposed in April 2020, the CRA is in a position to provide journalism organizations with the support they need, beginning with the QCJO designation.

You can find information about applying for QCJO designation and the application form at Qualified Canadian journalism organization.

The CRA is working with the Board to seek its recommendations on whether applicant organizations meet certain QCJO criteria related to original news content and journalistic principles and processes.

The confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act prevent the CRA from disclosing the names of organizations that have applied for, received, or been denied QCJO designation. We are able to advise that QCJO designations are now being issued, with files being addressed on the basis of the order they were received.

For more information on the tax measures to support journalism, please go to Frequently Asked Questions.

Sincerely,

************************

Media Relations| Relations avec les médias
Canada Revenue Agency | Agence du revenu du Canada
For media inquiries | Pour les demandes médiatiques : cra-arc.media@cra-arc.gc.ca

Max Boykoff’s Revenge On Science: Creative Climate Communications, Part II

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for earlier review of book.

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord
CLICK HERE, for Part XII, Joel Wood and Carbon tax “option”.
CLICK HERE, for Part XIII, controlled opposition going to SCC.
CLICK HERE, for Part XIV, Mark Carney, UN Climate Finance Envoy.
CLICK HERE, for UN global taxation efforts.

2. Why Focus On This Book?

Most “scientists” involved in the climate change business at least claim that their focus is on the science itself. However, a subset has emerged which focuses on the science of persuasion.

That’s right, the goal isn’t using scientific research to PROVE that climate change is a serious and ongoing global threat. Rather, the goal is using social science methods to CONVINCE people that the threat is real. These are two very different things.

In layman’s terms, this book reads like a propaganda manual for tricks and techniques of persuasion. There never appears a moment of doubt in Boykoff’s mind that climate change is urgent. He seems to views the public’s disengagement simply as a communications issue. As such, this book focuses on emotionally manipulative tactics to get around that.

The idea is creepy enough. The fact that there is an entire segment of academia that focuses on this area is very troubling. Unfortunately, Boykoff is entirely serious about his work. Also, the many, many sources he cites are serious.

3. About The Author, Maxwell Boykoff

His professional biography is available here.

Max’s research and creative work has developed primarily in two arenas:
(1) cultural politics of science, climate change and environmental issues = this refers to ways that attitudes, intentions, beliefs and behaviors of individuals and groups shape (and are shaped by) the perceived spectrum of possible action in the context of science-policy, climate change and environmental issues.
.
(2) transformations of carbon-based economies and societies (with emphasis on the interface of science and practical action) = this refers to decarbonization politics, policies and decision-making, with particular interest in how these activities find meaning in people’s everyday lives, as well as how they, in turn, feed back into science-policy decision-making.

4. Specific Examples From CCC Book

(Page 18) Boykoff cites some research suggesting that racial and gender politics should be injected into the subject. Supposedly, racial minorities are going to be disproportionately impacted, and that needs to be discussed openly. Also, female researchers are more likely to have their work ridiculed and mocked. Obviously that is because of sexism and not poor research. That’s right, race and gender are now dimensions in the climate change debate.

(Page 21) A technique called “pre-bunking” is introduced. This is a form of inoculation, which climate change pushers will attempt to pre-empt criticism or questions ahead of time. They do it to sew seeds of doubts in people who would otherwise see obvious problems with the research.

(Page 23) One idea is go beyond simply telling the truth. The focus here is to go beyond simply stating facts and conclusions, and to introduce a “story-telling” element to it. By doing this, people are more accepting of the story, and are less likely to pick up on deficiencies in the arguments themselves.

(Page 26) This is the start of Chapter 2. This chapter gets shifting the discussion away from a scientific one, and appealing to a more emotional issue. By framing it as a social issue, there is more of a focus on people’s ability to act. One technique suggested is to keep it “upbeat” so that others will remain optimistic that their actions will have consequences. Boykoff’s sources also suggest moving away from the “DOOMSDAY APPROACH”. This should have the effect of keeping people more engaged if their aren’t told it is hopeless.

(Page 35) There is more detail about how to turn climate change into stories. Stories in general have: main characters, villains, plot, description, complexity, some ambiguity, and conflict resolution. Boykoff talks about telling the “facts” of climate change as if it were a story. This will do wonders to keep people engaged. Interestingly, the approach is to water down the hard facts, and to focus more on a compelling narrative.

(Page 45) The book heads towards cultural politics and interdisciplinary communication. What this means is that taking different approaches, or combining approaches, may work best depending on who the specific audience is. Page 47, Boykoff begins to detail the actual communication training that climate change pushers are being given in order to more effectively market this concept. Yes, there is now formal training in how to peddle this.

(Page 50) Boykoff talks about a “building bridges” approach, something he also refers to as a “common ground” approach. This involves making some effort to find out what other people are interested in, and building a relationship with them. Climate change information will gradually be introduced via this relationship. The other people will eventually be sold on the agenda, but without realizing that was your goal all along. The entire tactic is emotional manipulation, and the worse form of bonding that can take place.

(Page 58) Boykoff discusses some of the research that has been done across demographic groups and across political leanings. He also explains that the climate change agenda can still be pitched to almost everyone, but the message needs to be shifted depending on which group you are addressing.

(Page 96) We get into the idea of adding visualizations (images) to help sell the climate change agenda. The idea here is that if people can actually see what is happening, it should compel them more strongly to act. Now, it doesn’t really matter if what people see is what is truly happening. What’s important is that they see what they should.

(Page 132) Boykoff talks about the framing climate change in certain ways. One is as a sacrifice v.s. benefits approach. This is one where the experts will outline the sacrifices needed (such as your standard of life) and various benefits that will come. Always, there is the bit about making the world a better place for those in developing countries. After all, they had no hand in this. This is a combination of guilt tripping and a call to patriotism, and put together beautifully.

(Page 190) Boykoff explains more of this “silver buckshot approach”, as opposed to the silver bullet. In short, there have to be multiple forms and paths to spread the message of climate change at any given time. Since no one technique will work on everyone, we need many streams ready to convince people of the cause. And really, that is what this book is: listing and detailing these multiple paths.

In short, Boykoff suggests inserting climate change into the discussion wherever possible. Though he doesn’t explicitly add this, it’s implied that it should be done even when the above issue has nothing to do with it.

Make the connections. And make the other people see those connections. Sometimes best if done subtly, as you don’t want your agenda to be too obvious.

The examples above are by no means exhaustive, but should demonstrate how devious and cunning the author is. He outlines technique after technique to push the narrative. And these techniques are lifted directly from psychological and sociological research. Boykoff is applying those findings in his quest to do a better job of selling climate change to the public.

5. Boykoff Avoids Actual Research

You will likely notice that Max Boykoff never gets into the so-called climate change science. He mainly avoids any real detail on how climate change research is conducted. Why is that?

It’s because this entire book shies away from telling people the hard and fast truth (at least as he perceives it), and focuses on indirect and roundabout ways of getting people on board. In short, this book is still intended to push the climate change agenda, but just shows ways to be more sneaky and dishonest about it.

Was this a worthwhile read? Yes, in the context of knowing how your enemies are lying and manipulating you. Boykoff gives an in-depth, well researched book on exactly that. If nothing else, he if very thorough in detailing these underhanded methods.