Canada News

05/08/2024

In my many years of life, I have learned that when we have completed our time on earth, we will go, no matter the struggle. No one can stop it. We have one life to live. The material things we invest in are left behind. Memories therefore, are important to me. And so, I'm going to start a "reunion of friends". The idea is to see who reads a post without a picture. If no one reads my post, this will be a very short experiment. But if you are reading this message, make a comment using a single word about how we met. After that copy this message on your wall and I will also leave you a word. Please, don't leave a word and then not bother doing the second thing. Let’s go. Friends are important. Those we see and talk to often and those we think of often. This is especially important because we can lose a friend and not know it before we're gone!

01/08/2024

Anyone driving from Toronto (Mississauga) to North Bay who can deliver a set of golf clubs to my brother Chris Vezina to practice with before the ?

Join us at VEZ Cup

29/07/2024

Vezina: Disruptions on the Horizon report offers scant details | Toronto Sun, July 28, 2024
xhttps://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/vezina-disruptions-on-the-horizon-report-offers-scant-details

On April 22, Policy Horizons Canada put out a document titled ‘Disruptions on the Horizon’.

This document provides a list of 35 future disruptions that the Government of Canada is recommending we look closer into.

They also provide likelihood and consequence values to each of these on a scale of 1 to 5 for each in a chart, this is a risk matrix.

There is no further explanation, quantification or qualification to the 1 to 5 score, this would normally discredit the entire document until fixed.

There are also some flaws around methodology and how these conclusions were reached.

While input from “500 stakeholders, colleagues, and foresight experts across the Government of Canada and beyond” went into making this document, there are no details as to what this input was or how it was collected.

It is entirely plausible that 500 people were sent a 70-question list: “Please grade each of these 35 disruptions on a scale of 1-5 for likelihood and consequence” without any further context being provided. These results would then be plugged into a spreadsheet and averaged.

Regardless, this appears to be the Government of Canada’s position, and there appears to be an information vacuum in this area for the public.

In the public interest I will do the following if readers are interested:

A follow-up column series on any, up to all, of these risks identified to provide greater depth or information into the issue, or at minimum some direction where to go to seek more credible information on these topics.

Here is a list of all 35 disruptions, verbatim, a menu of sorts for readers:

Under the category of ‘Society’:

Ageing population has no support. Artificial intelligence runs wild. Basic needs go unmet. Downward social mobility is the norm. Food is scarce. Men are in crisis. People cannot tell what is true and what is not. Values-based clashes divide society.

Under the category of ‘Economy’:

Biodata is widely monetized. Energy is inaccessible and unreliable. Homemade bioweapons go viral. Household debt reaches a tipping point. Immigrants do not choose Canada. Infrastructure and property are uninsurable. Large economies face public debt crises. People cannot afford to live on their own. Space is commercialized and underregulated. The North experiences an economic boom. Vital natural resources are scarce.

Under the category of ‘Environment’:

Biodiversity is lost and ecosystems collapse. Emergency response is overwhelmed. Geoengineering takes off. Healthy environments are a human right. Many Canadian regions become uninhabitable.

Under the category of ‘Health’:

Antibiotics no longer work. Healthcare systems collapse. Mental health is in crisis.

Under the category of ‘Politics/Geopolitics’:

Billionaires run the word. Canadian national unity unravels. Civil war erupts in the United States. Cyberattacks disable critical infrastructure. Democratic systems break down. Indigenous peoples govern unceded territory. International alliances are in constant flux. World war breaks out.

If a particular topic or topics are of interest, email contact information is provided at the end of this column and I will be reading the comments provided on the Toronto Sun website where this column is published.

For any that are interested in the more detailed concerns I have with this report overall, they are covered at length in Chapter 3, Risk Assessments, of the book Continuity 101: A hybrid continuity and disaster risk reduction approach.

— Vezina is the CEO of Prepared Canada Corp, teaches Disaster and Emergency Management at York University and is the author of Continuity 101. He can be reached at [email protected].

25/06/2024

Trees and flowers looking good!

25/06/2024

Karen Rowbotham post I shared on this day 8 years ago...

The meaning of modern life in our so-called civilized society discovered?

06/06/2024

Brian Crombie serves Notice of Libel, Legal Claim against CBC, organizers of three Mississauga Mayoral election debates

Candidate Crombie uses Ontario's new "False Light" Tort, seeks triple damages and double legal costs under Statute of Monopolies for exclusion from debates.
"The debate organizers and sponsors excluded me from these three debates using rigged, biased or outdated polls and false claims I didn't have a clear, cohesive and accessible platform..."
— Brian Crombie, Mayoral Candidate

MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO, CANADA, June 6, 2024 / -- Mississauga's June 10, 2024 Mayoral By-election candidate Brian Crombie has served a Notice of Libel and Legal Claim against the organizers, sponsors and several of their officers and directors of three Mayoral debates including the CBC, More Homes Mississauga, newsBeyond Inc, polling company Mainstreet Research, and the University of Toronto Mississauga ("UTM") for also violating Ontario's University Free Speech Policy.

The three debates that excluded Brian Crombie were:

More Homes Mississauga debate between Dipika Damerla and Alvin Tedjo on May 13 at the UTM.

newsBeyond Inc, Mainstreet Research, Aurora Strategy Global and the University of Toronto Mississauga’s Student Union mayoral candidates debate with Dipika Damerla, Stephen Dasko and Alvin Tedjo on May 27th at the UTM Student Centre.

CBC Toronto mayoral candidates debate with Dipika Damerla, Stephen Dasko and Alvin Tedjo on May 30th at the Mississauga Living Arts Centre and streamed online.

All three of these Debates excluded Brian Crombie and violated his Canadian Charter of Rights and Ashby v. White common law rights, placing him in a "false light" by doing so, which is now recognized in Ontario as a fourth form of Libel.

As a result he suffered substantial damages including monetary damages for which he served notice he will file a STATEMENT OF CLAIM and seek "Double Legal Costs" on a "Full Indemnity basis" and "Triple Damages" in accordance with the Ontario Statute of Monopolies.

Legal Grounds and Claims:

1. Violation of Charter Rights and Common Law Precedents:

o Brian Crombie's exclusion from the debates is a violation of his rights under Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly his freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association.

o Ashby v. White established the principle that individuals should not be prevented from exercising their legal voting or political rights. In this case, the court held that the defendant's actions, which prevented the plaintiff from voting, constituted a violation of his legal rights. Similarly, Brian Crombie's exclusion from the debates may be seen as an attempt to hinder his participation in the electoral process, thus invoking the principles established in Ashby v. White, which guarantees a complainant a remedy at law.

2. Relevant Ontario Laws and Statutes:

o False light libel occurs when someone is portrayed in a misleading or false manner that is highly offensive to a reasonable person. By excluding Brian Crombie from the debates, the organizers and moderators may have misrepresented him to the public, placing him in a false light. This misrepresentation has harmed his reputation and subjected him to public ridicule or contempt, thereby constituting false light libel under Ontario law.

o The Statute of Monopolies, An Act concerning Monopolies, and Dispensation with penal laws, etc., R.S.O. 1897, c. 323, prohibits anti-competitive behavior and unfair practices that may restrict competition in the marketplace. Brian Crombie's exclusion from the debates was also an attempt to stifle competition in the electoral arena by limiting voters' exposure to alternative candidates and viewpoints.

As a result of the debate organizers and sponsors actions these debates were partisan and an underhanded political contribution in an effort to circumvent prohibitions on non-individual corporate contributions of goods and services to the candidates that were allowed to participate.

Brian Crombie’s exclusion is completely inappropriate, especially when polls showed him within a week of registering on April 25, 2024 (a day prior to the close of nominations) at 6% and then two weeks later at 9%, exhibiting the attention and momentum of his campaign.

Mr. Crombie has an extensive record of policy statements on his website, on social media, on his daily radio show on Mississauga's Sauga 960 AM and on YouTube. It is astounding that CBC appears not to have reviewed his website, watched his video or listened to his podcasts or radio show.

The restriction of participation to only elected Councillors by these debate organizers and sponsors shows a complete lack of understanding of Canadian’s distrust with career politicians and gatekeepers. It is no wonder voter turnout in the 2022 Mississauga municipal election had sunk to 21.8%.

A similar violation of US campaign laws has been alleged by Independent Presidential Candidate Robert Kennedy for his exclusion from their current election debates. However in Ontario, similarly aggrieved individuals are not limited to using election or broadcasting laws to seek a remedy, they have an many other legal procedures and potential remedies available, including those noted herein.

References: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. files complaint over rules for CNN's presidential debate next month | CityNews, May 29, 2024

A simple experiment reveals why it’s so hard to measure R.F.K. Jr.’s support |The New York Times, May 14, 2024 ("If a poll doesn’t list them, however, it can’t capture their support at all.")

Brian Crombie
Brian Crombie Campaign
+1 416-409-5102

Visit us on social media:
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
YouTube

04/06/2024

The Lorax was unable to protect the Dr. Seuss tree from the wind. Have to brace it.

04/06/2024

Second colour change from the Eastern Redbuds, flowered first, now green (Colombus) and red (Forest Pansy) leaves.

04/06/2024

Tri-colour Beech tree's fantastic pink and purple leaves.

29/05/2024

VEZINA: Germany softens child po*******hy laws, pedophiles celebrate | Toronto Sun, May 28, 2024
xhttps://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/vezina-germany-softens-child-po*******hy-laws-pedophiles-celebrate
Why is Germany softening its laws against child po*******hy?
Here is a breakdown of what’s happened, some of the responses to the policy change, and an analysis of them.
In 2021, the German government passed a law making the possession of child po*******hy a crime with a minimum one-year custodial sentence.
It is now lowering the minimum sentence for possession to three months and for distribution of child po*******hy to six months.
Under German law, this will reclassify the offences from felonies to misdemeanours.
This will give judges more leeway in determining guilt or innocence, and in sentencing, particularly in cases where young people break the law without understanding the implications of what they have done.
The other reason is to differentiate between child pornographers and those trying to protect children, such as parents and teachers, who may possess and/or distribute child po*******hy in order to combat it.
Consider a scenario where a legal minor sends another legal minor explicit images of themselves. This is surprisingly common and why the issue of so-called “s*xtortion" has become a significant societal concern.
Add to this the entirely plausible outcome that these revealing images are then distributed among fellow students, and one of those student’s parents finds these images on their child’s phone and recognizes the identity of the child who sent it.
Now consider that the concerned parent who discovered the pornographic image contacts the parents of the child who sent them and sends them that image or images at the request of those parents, so they know what they are dealing with.
The problem is that the concerned parent who discovered the images on their child’s phone is now technically both in possession of child po*******hy and distributing it.
This same issue exists for a concerned teacher who might find this image on a student’s phone and inform the school principal or the parents involved.
Supporters of the amendments say that the law as it was originally written created a barrier to people reporting child po*******hy, including to the police, on the grounds they might be breaking the law.
They also argued it imposed unduly harsh sentences on young people who didn’t realize the implications of possessing and/or distributing images classified as child po*******hy — such as s*xually explicit pictures of themselves sent to boyfriends, girlfriends or others.
One issue that hasn’t been clearly explained is why the law couldn’t have been amended to exempt parents, teachers or anyone else from prosecution for child po*******hy if their efforts were intended to combat it.
Complicating the issue is that pedos*xual advocacy groups — people who support adults having s*x with children — have been emboldened by the new legislation, celebrating the change and arguing politicians had yet to apologize to those convicted under the previous law.
Pedos*xual activists argue that consensual in*******se should not be between consenting adults but between consenting people and if, for example, a child is able to consent and receive life-altering medical care — such as reproductive organ altering surgery — with or without parental consent, then the child should be able to make an informed decision about his or her s*xual partners.
Of course this argument is absurd.
A child giving consent to a medical procedure is a complex issue, which depends on the circumstances.
Similarly, while a parent can consent to their eight-year-old’s arm being amputated in an emergency, or to gender-altering surgery for an older child, a parent cannot consent to a 40-year-old having s*x with their eight-year-old.
The issue is not parental consent.
It is that as a society we have decided children should not be having s*x with adults, or be involved in s*xually explicit behaviours with adults.
Vezina is the CEO of Prepared Canada Corp, teaches Disaster and Emergency Management at York University and is the author of Continuity 101. He can be reached at [email protected].