Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

National

Canadian mayor has bank account garnished after standing up to LGBT activists

Published

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

The garnishment was issued by the court and delivered to the CIBC in Emo, which is the only bank in that community.

LGBT activists aren’t used to politicians refusing to do what they say. That’s why Mayor Harold McQuaker of Emo, Ontario—population 1,200—has become a source of their ire. 

As I reported previously, in 2020 Emo’s town council voted not to issue a “Pride Proclamation” or fly the LGBT flag. The town hall doesn’t even have a flagpole. In response, Borderland Pride sued the town, and last month the Ontario Human Rights Commission ordered the township to pay the LGBT group $10,000, and McQuaker was ordered to personally pay $5,000 and take a re-education class called “Human Rights 101.” 

The town council has yet to vote on whether to pay the fine or appeal, but McQuaker told the Toronto Sun that he would not be “extorted” and thus would not be paying the fine, attending the re-education classes, or sanctioning “Drag Queen Story Hour” in the local library—one of the events Borderland Pride is calling for.  

In response, Borderland Pride went around the mayor and requested that $5,000 be taken directly from his bank account. The request granted, they went on a victory lap on social media. “Sure, sex is great, but have you ever garnished your mayor’s bank account after he publicly refused to comply with a Tribunal’s order to pay damages?” the group posted on Facebook. The “damages,” of course, were the mayor declining to proactively endorse their ideology. 

“Mayor McQuaker’s comments in the Toronto Sun and other media were very clear that he did not respect nor intend to comply with the Tribunal’s orders,” Borderland Pride told the Sun. “Consequently, it was apparent he would not voluntarily make payment of the damages ordered. We took immediate action to garnish his bank account. The garnishment was issued by the court and delivered to the CIBC in Emo, which is the only bank in that community.” 

“There is no hearing or application to issue a notice of garnishment – it is a service provided at the court counter or online once a person has an order for the payment of money,” Borderland Pride stated. “Orders of the Tribunal can be enforced in the same manner as any civil judgment for the payment of money. We intend to ensure the Tribunal’s orders are complied with.” Joe Warmington of the Toronto Sun sounded the alarm: 

Cancel culture is cancelling this mayor and digging into his personal savings too. On a weak premise that there is discrimination of LGBT people there, the enforcement is harsher than most violent criminals receive. It seems like a heavy-handed, undemocratic move, not to mention a violation of personal finances, and cruel and unusual punishment. It’s also a slippery slope. The state using legal instruments to take from one person and give to others amounts to communism and authoritarianism that should scare every citizen. First, we saw government and banks freezing accounts of pandemic lockdown protesters, seizing donations to crowdfunding sites, and now in woke Canada comes word they can raid bank accounts, too. 

Despite Borderland Pride’s insistence that they are mere enforcers of tolerance, their Facebook page features post after post mocking those who object to the fact that their mayor and their community is being bullied. It also includes images like this: 

The meaning of that picture is pretty clear—and just imagine if the roles were reversed. What would Borderland Pride say if a Christian posted a photo of a steamroller with a cross on it, chasing screaming people labeled “LGBT values” and “same-sex ‘marriage’” on it? I think we know. They would say that it was threatening and inappropriate. Yet a rainbow steamroller crushing screaming people labeled “Traditional Family” and “Christian values” and “Sanctity of marriage” is just fine. This isn’t just a double standard—it is a new standard, where the values of LGBT activists take precedence over those of everyone else. 

It was never about tolerance. 

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National PostNational ReviewFirst Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton SpectatorReformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture WarSeeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of AbortionPatriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life MovementPrairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Business

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

It’s now more than four years since the federal Liberal government pledged $30 billion in spending over five years for $10-per-day national child care, and more than three years since Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government signed a $13.2 billion deal with the federal government to deliver this child-care plan.

Not surprisingly, with massive government funding came massive government control. While demand for child care has increased due to the government subsidies and lower out-of-pocket costs for parents, the plan significantly restricts how child-care centres operate (including what items participating centres may purchase), and crucially, caps the proportion of government funds available to private for-profit providers.

What have families and taxpayers got for this enormous government effort? Widespread child-care shortages across Ontario.

For example, according to the City of Ottawa, the number of children (aged 0 to 5 years) on child-care waitlists has ballooned by more than 300 per cent since 2019, there are significant disparities in affordable child-care access “with nearly half of neighbourhoods underserved, and limited access in suburban and rural areas,” and families face “significantly higher” costs for before-and-after-school care for school-age children.

In addition, Ottawa families find the system “complex and difficult to navigate” and “fewer child care options exist for children with special needs.” And while 42 per cent of surveyed parents need flexible child care (weekends, evenings, part-time care), only one per cent of child-care centres offer these flexible options. These are clearly not encouraging statistics, and show that a government-knows-best approach does not properly anticipate the diverse needs of diverse families.

Moreover, according to the Peel Region’s 2025 pre-budget submission to the federal government (essentially, a list of asks and recommendations), it “has maximized its for-profit allocation, leaving 1,460 for-profit spaces on a waitlist.” In other words, families can’t access $10-per-day child care—the central promise of the plan—because the government has capped the number of for-profit centres.

Similarly, according to Halton Region’s pre-budget submission to the provincial government, “no additional families can be supported with affordable child care” because, under current provincial rules, government funding can only be used to reduce child-care fees for families already in the program.

And according to a March 2025 Oxford County report, the municipality is experiencing a shortage of child-care staff and access challenges for low-income families and children with special needs. The report includes a grim bureaucratic predication that “provincial expansion targets do not reflect anticipated child care demand.”

Child-care access is also a problem provincewide. In Stratford, which has a population of roughly 33,000, the municipal government reports that more than 1,000 children are on a child-care waitlist. Similarly in Port Colborne (population 20,000), the city’s chief administrative officer told city council in April 2025 there were almost 500 children on daycare waitlists at the beginning of the school term. As of the end of last year, Guelph and Wellington County reportedly had a total of 2,569 full-day child-care spaces for children up to age four, versus a waitlist of 4,559 children—in other words, nearly two times as many children on a waitlist compared to the number of child-care spaces.

More examples. In Prince Edward County, population around 26,000, there are more than 400 children waitlisted for licensed daycare. In Kawartha Lakes and Haliburton County, the child-care waitlist is about 1,500 children long and the average wait time is four years. And in St. Mary’s, there are more than 600 children waitlisted for child care, but in recent years town staff have only been able to move 25 to 30 children off the wait list annually.

The numbers speak for themselves. Massive government spending and control over child care has created havoc for Ontario families and made child-care access worse. This cannot be a surprise. Quebec’s child-care system has been largely government controlled for decades, with poor results. Why would Ontario be any different? And how long will Premier Ford allow this debacle to continue before he asks the new prime minister to rethink the child-care policy of his predecessor?

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Canada Caves: Carney ditches digital services tax after criticism from Trump

Published on

From The Center Square

By

Canada caved to President Donald Trump demands by pulling its digital services tax hours before it was to go into effect on Monday.

Trump said Friday that he was ending all trade talks with Canada over the digital services tax, which he called a direct attack on the U.S. and American tech firms. The DST required foreign and domestic businesses to pay taxes on some revenue earned from engaging with online users in Canada.

“Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately,” the president said. “We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.”

By Sunday, Canada relented in an effort to resume trade talks with the U.S., it’s largest trading partner.

“To support those negotiations, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, announced today that Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States,” according to a statement from Canada’s Department of Finance.

Canada’s Department of Finance said that Prime Minister Mark Carney and Trump agreed to resume negotiations, aiming to reach a deal by July 21.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Monday that the digital services tax would hurt the U.S.

“Thank you Canada for removing your Digital Services Tax which was intended to stifle American innovation and would have been a deal breaker for any trade deal with America,” he wrote on X.

Earlier this month, the two nations seemed close to striking a deal.

Trump said he and Carney had different concepts for trade between the two neighboring countries during a meeting at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, in the Canadian Rockies.

Asked what was holding up a trade deal between the two nations at that time, Trump said they had different concepts for what that would look like.

“It’s not so much holding up, I think we have different concepts, I have a tariff concept, Mark has a different concept, which is something that some people like, but we’re going to see if we can get to the bottom of it today.”

Shortly after taking office in January, Trump hit Canada and Mexico with 25% tariffs for allowing fentanyl and migrants to cross their borders into the U.S. Trump later applied those 25% tariffs only to goods that fall outside the free-trade agreement between the three nations, called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Trump put a 10% tariff on non-USMCA compliant potash and energy products. A 50% tariff on aluminum and steel imports from all countries into the U.S. has been in effect since June 4. Trump also put a 25% tariff on all cars and trucks not built in the U.S.

Economists, businesses and some publicly traded companies have warned that tariffs could raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from U.S. families, and pay down the national debt.

A tariff is a tax on imported goods paid by the person or company that imports them. The importer can absorb the cost of the tariffs or try to pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices.

Trump’s tariffs give U.S.-produced goods a price advantage over imported goods, generating revenue for the federal government.

Continue Reading

Trending

X