Category: Globalism

Posted on

CSASPP Class Action Certification Hearings To Resume In Late April

The Canadian Society For The Advancement Of Science In Public Policy (CSASPP) has announced that the certification hearings for their Class Action against Bonnie Henry and the B.C. Government will pick up at the end of April.

CSASPP had been in Court from December 12-16, 2022, but things took much longer than expected. Consequently, all of the procedural issues had not been resolved by then.

As you may recall from watching our certification hearing footage we unfortunately ended up using more time than previously allocated within the five days of 12-16 December, 2022. The hearing therefore needed to be continued in the new year at the earliest that all parties’ calendars, including the Court’s, could be reconciled.

I am writing to advise you that the parties have made arrangements for the continuation of our certification hearing on 24 April, 2023, for five days before Justice Crerar again.

You will recall from the footage that there was some controversy over the nature of the relationship between the Public Health Officer and the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control. The latter is an organization that the Deputy Provincial Health Officer has stated in the past under oath “is the scientific and operational arm of the PHO”.

Dr. Henry is now claiming that the BC CDC does not answer to her, but is in fact an independent program of the Provincial Health Services Authority. The PHSA is not named as a defendant in this proceeding. She needs this to be true because adding the BC CDC as a defendant would create additional delays and procedural obstacles that might mitigate the risk of accountability.

We will be making submissions upon resumption of our certification hearing that the relationship is as the Deputy Provincial Health Officer originally claimed, that the BC CDC is the scientific and operational arm of Dr. Henry.

In support of Dr. Henry’s position that they are apparently distinct her Deputy Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Brian Emerson, is now back peddling in a newly tendered affidavit asserting a material distinction. She will be relying upon this affidavit at the continuation of our certification hearing.

If Dr. Henry wishes to throw the BC CDC under the bus, she should seek leave from Justice Crerar to file a third party notice.

It appears that the plot is thickening, and it will be interesting to see where it goes.

The proceedings for the Certification Hearing thus far are available to watch by members of the public. It’s extremely rare for footage of Court hearings to be filmed, but this is an exceptional case. The public interest is huge.

Regarding the status update: it’s worth mentioning that the BCCDC Foundation is actually a registered charity that receives funding from big pharma. The B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority, or BCPHSA, is also a charity, and appears to be a private — or semi private — corporation. The structure of the Government is convoluted, to say the least.

In addition to advancing this lawsuit, many people want Bonnie Henry to be forced to take the witness stand. It’s one thing to give dictates at a press conference. It’s another to have to answer questions under oath. And she certainly has a lot to answer for.

Below are a significant portion of those documents. It’s not exhaustive, but should provide readers with much needed background information. These can be saved or duplicated at will.

DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FROM CASE
(A) CSASPP 20210126 Notice of Civil Claim
(B) CSASPP 20210321 Request for Assignment of Judge
(C) CSASPP 20210331 Response to Civil Claim
(D) CSASPP 20210531 Cease and Desist Letter to Regulators
(E) CSASPP 20210621 CSASPPs Case Plan Proposal
(F) CSASPP 20210621 Dr Bonnie Henrys availability requested
(G) CSASPP 20210731 Defendants Case Plan Proposal
(H) CSASPP 20210813 Requisition for JMC for 1 October 2021
(I) CSASPP 20210817 Demand for Particulars
(J) CSASPP 20210821 Plaintiffs Response to Demand for Particulars
(K) CSASPP 20210913 Oral Reasons for Judgment Short Leave Application Seeking Stay
(L) CSASPP 20210915 Amended Notice of Civil Claim
(M) CSASPP 20211025 Affidavit No 2 of CSASPP Executive Director
(N) CSASPP 20211028 Proceedings in Chambers Defendants Application for Further Particulars
(O) CSASPP 20221101 Affidavit No 3 of Redacted Deponent Redacted
(P) CSASPP 20221102 Dr Henry and HMTKs Application Response for Webcast Application
(Q) CSASPP 20221115 Respondents Requisition Seeking 16 Nov 2022 CPC to Be Held by MS Teams

(1) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(2) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/court-documents
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates
(4) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/faq
(5) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/transparency
(6) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/hearing-videos
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc2108/2022bcsc2108.html

Posted on

21 Months Later, No Progress In Police On Guard/ Children’s Health Defense Cases

It was reported back in July 2022 that 2 high profile anti-lockdown lawsuits in Canada hadn’t seemed to go anywhere in well over a year.

(a) bodily autonomy of police officers, organized by Police on Guard
(b) children’s rights and masks in Ontario schools, organized by Children’s Health Defense (Canada)

Both were filed in April 2021. After some initial hype in the alternative media, there were no updates to report. As we enter 2023, and approach the 2 year anniversary, it appears that there’s still nothing to write back about.

Even though (most) of the Respondents now are represented by lawyers, it looks like nothing has happened to the cases themselves. There have been no Motions, evidence sworn or hearings so far.

Interestingly, while no Motion to Strike has been brought, there was a Rule 2.1.01(6) request filed in May of 2021 for the CHDC case. That seems odd, as it isn’t really the best mechanism for getting such a case thrown out.

Both organizations are still asking for donations, and it’s implied that at least portions of those funds would be used towards these Court cases.

As is shown by the Court records, there are no previous Orders that have been handed down in either case. Nor are any hearings scheduled as of now.

Of course, members of the public can SEARCH FOR FREE as to the updates on such cases. Instead of taking the word of people who have incentives to drive fundraising — or some reporter on the internet — go check the cases for yourselves.

Ontario Superior Court, Civil Branch
330 University – Toronto
330 University Ave.
Toronto ON M5G 1R7

Court file#: (plug in the file number)

Civil – Superior Court of Justice
tel. 416-327-5440 (front desk)

CSD.SCJRecords(at)ontario.ca (records department)

It’s worth noting that the POG Application and the CHDC Applications are almost identical. It’s as if one was cut-and-pasted into the other, with the facts and names changed.

Why keep reporting on this? Because they are public cases, and public donations are — still — being solicited. People have a right to know what’s happening, and what’s not happening.

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online

POLICE ON GUARD/OFFICERS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021

POLICE ON GUARD CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Police On Guard Incorporation
(2) Police On Guard Registered Office & Directors
(3) Police On Guard Directors
(4) Police On Guard Bylaws
(5) Police On Guard Directors Later

ONTARIO STUDENTS/CHDC:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021, Masks On Students
(2) Schools – Rule 2.1.01 Decision
(3) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Robert Kyle
(4) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Halton Durham

CHD CANADA CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
(2) Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
(3) Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
(4) Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

Posted on

Federal Vaccine Passport Case Hears Motion To Strike Claim

Thursday, January 19th was an interesting day in Federal Court. Ottawa brought a Motion to Strike a lawsuit brought by over 600 people challenging a 2021 Order which mandated experimental shots for their continued employment. This applied to: (a) Government workers; and (b) industries that were subject to Federal regulation.

For those who don’t know, this is not a Motion to decide a case on its merits. Instead, it’s designed to throw out a case — either in whole or in part — before it goes through the various stages of litigation. Typically, there’s either some serious error in law, or the case (even if the facts are assumed to be true) is still insufficient.

Originally, the Motion to Strike was to be heard in writing (which means no arguments at a hearing). However, that changed at the last moment, as the Justice decided to allow a 3 hour session. It went a bit past the allotted time, and took about 3 1/2.

If this hearing is to be any indication of where things are going, there were several main issues that needed to be addressed.

1. Are Some Plaintiffs Statute Barred From Going To Court?

No Right of Action
Marginal note: Disputes relating to employment
.
236 (1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

Approximately 2/3 of the more than 600 Plaintiffs were members of the Federal Government. The other 1/3 or so were part of companies that were Federally regulated. This can create a split, as only some of them may be eligible for this lawsuit.

Section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act states that employees have the right to have their problems dealt with via collective bargaining, in lieu of Court action. If this holds, then presumably it would apply to everyone, at least the employees of the Federal Government.

Most union employees, especially in the public sector, are prohibited from taking their problems to Court. Instead, they have to follow a grievance process that eventually leads to arbitration. Granted, those rulings may be appealed if the process is unfair, but that’s where things start out.

This was discussed at length at the hearing: the prospect that the majority of Plaintiffs may be barred from the case. It doesn’t appear any of them ever tried to go through arbitration.

2. Are Other Plaintiffs Suing Wrong Defendants?

While the public sector workers may be barred because of arbitration requirements, the employees of Federally regulated sectors have a different issue: did they sue the wrong people?

The notion was discussed that the individual employers ought to be sued instead, or at least in addition to the Government. After all, shouldn’t a former worker at Air Canada be suing Air Canada? Shouldn’t a former bank employee be suing that bank? Of course, there is the counter-argument that these industries were simply following the rules that Ottawa mandated.

We’ll have to see how that plays out.

3. Why Aren’t All Plaintiffs In Lawsuit Named?

This should be common sense, but, if people wish to take their grievances to Court and ask for money, they need to identify themselves.

Instead, there are 40 “John Does” listed, and another 49 “Jane Does”. The Crown Counsel brought this up at the hearing, and complained that he had no idea who they were. Despite the Defendants’ attempts, these people apparently remain unidentified.

It’s unclear why they weren’t named in the Statement of Claim. One possibility was that they didn’t want their names splashed around, given the rampant fundraising that was going on. It was suggested that this was to prevent retaliation against friends and family who still held jobs. However, that makes little sense, as they’d still have to be identified as some point.

4. Should Have Been An Application For Judicial Review?

One of the grounds that the Defendants bring up in their Motion is that these proceedings really should have been done up as an Application for Judicial Review. Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act are cited, and it seems pretty clear cut.

Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Remedies to be obtained on application
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.

At the hearing, the Judge stated that he would have no problems with a Statement of Claim, if it were only damages and/or declaratory relief. However, challenging the Order itself presented a complication, as it likely should have been an Application.

This alone may not be fatal. If it were simply a matter of the wrong form, the Judge could theoretically grant an extension of time to refile properly.

5. Is This Suit Considered “Moot”, And Does That Matter?

Ottawa is claiming the issue is “moot” and not worth wasting everyone’s time. Moot, in the legal sense means that the issues are over and done with, and cannot be fixed by the Court. Here, Crown Counsel states that since the Orders have lapsed, there’s nothing to try. That’s what happened with Brian Peckford’s case.

In fairness, this appears to be something that may be selectively employed to deny someone their day in Court. It seems underhanded to pull an Order (or let it expire) as a means of avoiding having to answer for it. There’s also the possibility that similar Orders may be imposed at some point in the future.

It should be noted that “moot” issues can still be tried, if the Court finds there to be compelling public interest in doing so. And so far, that has been applied unevenly.

6. Does Claim Follow The Basics Of Civil Procedure?

This was addressed at length in the first critique of this suit. This Claim appears to not follow even the basics of the Federal Court Rules, which could lead to it getting thrown out. At a minimum the Judge could order that a rewrite be performed.

(a) Lack of material facts pleaded
(b) Overall disorganization
(c) Claim lacks particulars (specifics) needed to proceed
(d) Nature of damages needs to be clearly specified

The Motion to Strike addressed these concerns, along with several others. Striking a pleading won’t (typically) lead to the case being thrown out. However, it does take time — and hourly billings — to amend or redraft it.

The Judge did discuss the possibility of allowing a rewrite, if the Claim weren’t barred for other reasons. This includes the arbitration requirement mentioned earlier.

7. How Much Damage Does A4C Precedent Cause Here?

Crown Counsel brought up the valid point that large sections of this Federal case are similar — and sometimes identical — to the Action4Canada case that was struck on August 29, 2022. (See Order)

Justice Alan Ross found the Action4Canada case:
(a) Prolix, or far too long
(b) Embarrassing to the Court
(c) Made non-justicable demands
(d) Was “bad beyond argument”
(e) Contained many pages of irrelevant material
(f) Was not something that could be adequately responded to
(g) Was so poorly written that mere amendments were inadequate

Now, a fair amount of the content from that NOCC, or Notice of Civil Claim, was cut and pasted into the Federal case. Not only are Plaintiffs not getting quality work, they aren’t even getting original work.

The Federal Judge would likely be obligated to strike the sections of the Claim that are identical or substantially similar to the Action4Canada case.

Despite the NOCC’s horrible quality, Justice Ross did allow Action4Canada the chance to redraft it properly. Instead, they appealed the Decision, because, reasons…

Now, the choice to let Action4Canada rewrite may very well influence this Court if it decides to allow another shot at the Federal vaxx pass case.

Predictions For The Motion Outcome?

Just a guess, but here we go:

  • The case will have to be refiled as an Application for Judicial Review
  • The (ex) Federal employees will be barred, as they should have pursued arbitration
  • The (ex) workers of Federally regulated industries will be allowed to proceed
  • All Plaintiffs will have to identify themselves
  • The pleadings will be struck in their entirety, but a rewrite will be allowed, at least for the Plaintiffs who are not barred.
  • Despite being “moot”, it will be in the public interest to proceed
  • The duplication with Action4Canada case will have to be removed
  • Expect an appeal, and more requests for donations

We’ll have to wait until the decision comes down to see how accurate all this is.

Update: a copy of the retainer agreement is now available for viewing. Turns out that Plaintiffs were paying $1,000 each for the privilege of being represented in this suit. Doesn’t look like they got their money’s worth.

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

EARLIER REVIEWS
(1) https://canucklaw.ca/federal-vaxx-pass-claim-fatally-defective/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/ottawa-files-motion-to-strike-federal-vaccine/

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Declaration on the North American Partnership for Equity and Racial Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Postmedia Periodicals: Taxpayer Handouts From 2015 – 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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