Strategic Plans

It's that time again, and Agenda 2030 is on the horizon.

I had expected this next post to be another in my ongoing series on neoliberalism, after my recent Tish Talk conversation, and a flurry of activity following. I will follow up on this soon (and do please check the two interesting reinterpretations / re-posts, by Our Greater Destiny and Karafree ), but for now, I must share input and comments requested for the Region of Durham’s upcoming Strategic Plans.

At an event in Uxbridge on April 24th, I reminded the audience that our Region had specifically requested input from residents. The ‘Engagement’ period was to continue until the beginning of June, I understood; but the next day I began receiving emails saying the survey had concluded (prematurely, it seemed) and that further submissions were not being accepted. I circulated the following (which I’d first seen in March) and then wrote to the Region:

Happily, there was a prompt reply from staff to say that comments would still be welcome from residents, until May 31st. A number of additional submissions were made (some of these I will share with my regular mailing list) and, for the record, I felt I should document my own comments (and tell this tale) here on Substack.

The whole point of this exercise, of course, is to encourage more participation from our Town’s residents. If we are not communicating our concerns, someone will step into the void; those C40 mayors, Partners for Climate Protection, the conscientious Vision Zero folk, and all manner of United Nations and WEF inspired officials — our Chief Administrative Officers, Sustainability Managers, and of course, with the advent of ‘Stakeholder Capitalism,’ a litany of ambitious corporate stakeholders. If there is no direction from the people (which our existing Strategic Plans still suggest is the case), someone will have the ear of our elected representatives — Horror Vacui. As we abdicate our responsibility as citizens, our Towns simply take their direction from others.

Never mind though, the way things are going, AI will soon be running everything — at least that’s what they’ll tell us. Who needs engaged citizens (who need government for that matter) when we can have ‘Data Driven Decisions for Healthy, Equitable Mid-Sized Cities’? More on this nightmarish Technocratic vision in the not-too-distant future.

If you’ve read my posts before, you’ll know they’re typically rather long; and this one might well be my longest yet. If you’re determined to read on though, I thank you for your patience. I suspect all of you here will find the following of interest, and I will post Neoliberalism PART IV soon. . . I promise.

David

Notes on the Uxbridge Strategic Plan 2026 – 2030

(Please see 'Specific suggestions' on pg 7) May 30th 2024

Thank you for this opportunity to 'weigh in' on the drafting of the Uxbridge 2026 - 2030 Strategic Plan. Since I'm sending this to the Region, I hope this information will be taken into consideration there as well. I'm wondering, of course, if a study of progress made on the 2023-2026 Strategic Plan will be made in conjunction with the drafting the new document?

There are very few specifics in these documents of course, but this is the nature of Strategic Plans. I'd like to comment on the existing document, and add a few important issues. Really, this is an inquiry into the language as much as it is an exploration of ideas and values expressed.

As an 'aspirational' document, this is understandable, but in this postmodern world of ours (where language is routinely appropriated and re-purposed), words can mean anything, or nothing at all. Clarification is required therefore, as in some legislation. Perhaps a list of definitions might be added to the new document? For example, the 2016 'Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan,' 'TOWARDS RESILIENCE,' provides a 'Terms and Acronyms' section, on the second page/panel.

Returning to the Strategic Plan, perhaps we can begin with the 'Mayor's Statement':

'. . . our commitment to focus on the most important community priorities. . .' and, to this end, the subject of 'Community Engagement':

The Town's Strategic plan should be suited to the unique character, and needs, of the community; 'cut and paste' buzzwords from United Nations documents appear out of place. Words such as 'vibrant, safe, inclusive, sustainable and resilient' are all 'suspect' now, as they appear to have acquired new meanings, beyond whose we typically understand. The reason for this, of course, is that these words appear, repeatedly, in numerous International documents, and they now pepper the political discourse of the day.

Thus, I would suggest, different wording could effectively express the unique identity of this town, differentiating it from other towns in Durham, and the Region itself.

The word 'inclusive' is clearly defined however, as a desire to 'seek input from and develop services for all residents' (pg 5 of the existing Strategic Plan). This is a great starting point for the drafting of the new (2026 - 2030) document.

If not specifically defined, the language of the next Uxbridge Strategic Plan should not be that of International documents; in particular (given the time frame) that of 'Agenda 2030' and its 'Sustainable Development Goals' (SDGs). Maybe the word 'sustainable' can also be explicitly defined?

This way residents know the document is not a commitment to advance the unpopular United Nations Agenda above, but rather (as suggested in the current Strategic Plan) a promise to serve the interests of local residents.

To that end, I would suggest a definition similar to that of Loblaws' ChoiceREIT Environmental Social

Governance (ESG) statement, which interprets 'Sustainable' as 'economic sustainability,' for investors in its funds. Much more could be said on this of course, but for now, the 'Values' section of the next Uxbridge Strategic Plan (pg 5 in the current plan) might define 'Sustainable' as follows:

'Local environmental stewardship and sustainable financial and economic planning.'

Or words to this effect. The emphasis being on 'Local' of course, since 'Localism' (also known as 'Regionalism') is gaining momentum as unpopular and out-moded Globalist (one-size-fits-all) solutions are now being abandoned.

The United Nations 'Agenda 2030,' signed onto by the Harper administration in 2015, is often dismissed by the uninformed as 'conspiracy theory'. However, a recent 'Corporate Services Department' 'deputation denial' document (available on request) from the town of Orillia confirms two things:

1. Agenda 2030 is an actual United Nations program that some (if not all) local Municipalities and Regions have been guided by, and;

2. the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) contained therein, appear to have been given priority over local concerns.

Such an agenda is in direct conflict with the expressed intent of our Strategic Plans, in which direction is to be taken from residents.

According to the Uxbridge 2023-2026 Strategic Plan, and 'Strategic Priority' number 4 ('community engagement'), 'Township staff [will] establish this plan to define a long-term vision for our community' . . . '[b]ased on direction from Council, and reflecting the priorities of our residents.'

The Mayor and Councillors, therefore, should take direction from those who elected them; this is what constituents expect of their elected representatives. I have itemize some of the 'priorities' of Uxbridge residents at the bottom of this document; for now though, with reference to the existing Strategic Plan:

VISION: 'The Township of Uxbridge is a thriving, supportive and vibrant community that values our environment, our history, and one another.’

Perhaps these words could be defined? Are we, for example, to understand them as defined in the Oxford dictionary? Otherwise, it might be assumed they were chosen to specifically echo the language of select United Nations documents. As mentioned above, 'Definitions' (a glossary of terms or 'Terms and Acronyms' could be included here as well, without adding an additional page to the existing document. Language is all important, and clarity is absolutely essential in such an important, foundational, document. To underscore the idea of 'inclusivity' as outlined above.

MISSION: 'The Township of Uxbridge is committed to responsible government and the delivery of exceptional public services to provide a vibrant community where everyone feels welcome, safe and connected.'

The use of this term – 'responsible government' – is important; it will have been chosen, no doubt, to emphasize the idea of 'good governance' (mentioned elsewhere in the current Strategic Plan). These words should remain as their meaning, in the context of Canadian political history, is quite profound:

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/responsible-government

'It became an important part of Confederation. It is the method by which Canada achieved independence from Britain without revolution.'

'In this form of government, laws are made and taxes are levied by a body that answers to its citizens.' (my emphasis)

In a deputation I made in Uxbridge last year, I mentioned the idea of 'taxation without representation,' and this is as important today, as it was in centuries past.

'Advocates of responsible government wanted to reduce the power and influence of the small groups of local elites — the Family Compact and the Château Clique — that controlled the colonial governments. Their abuse of power was causing unrest among the colonists.'

In this 'Globalized' age of ours we have, instead, 'small groups of International elites' exerting too much power and influence; but the essential story (and the lesson to be learned) remains the same. This history however (I understand from teachers I have spoken with), has been removed from the curriculum in Ontario high schools, and this is a tragic situation because (as we are told) if we forget our history we are doomed to repeat it.

We wouldn't want a repeat of the Rebellion of 1837 of course, in 2037. Although this event did precipitate the end of a privately controlled Central Bank in Ontario (the Bank of Upper Canada), so maybe we should hope for a little more 'engagement' from the people. Wikipedia's take on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsible_government

'They [elected officials] must never attempt to set up a "shadow" government of executives or advisors and attempt to use them as instruments of government, or to rely upon their "unofficial" advice.'

One of the fundamental points to keep in mind, for any Town, is that the Corporation (of that Town) works for the Town (and the residents), and not the other way round. With questions surfacing recently around the swearing of 'Declarations of Office' by elected officials, instead of the traditional 'Oaths of Office' (since the so-called United Nations inspired 'Municipal Primer' was circulated in 1994), this issue too, should be closely examined before the next Municipal elections.

As stated in the Introduction to the 2023-2026 Strategic Plan, the new Plan, should also commit to 'a long-term vision for our community' in keeping with the tradition character of this area and the values and history of this town (as echoed in the town's Vision).

N.B. United Nations documents are not legally binding, they are guidelines only, and participation in any of these programs (ICLEI especially) is voluntary.

'The long-term strategic goals and objectives for the Corporation,' to quote the CAO's 2023-2026 message / 'commitment to action,' should be similarly informed, and not guided (or influenced) by the corporate Stakeholders sponsoring plans such as 'Vision Zero' (3M, providing signage materials, selfdriving car start-ups, and the like). Such corporate stakeholder driven initiatives (since these are forprofit companies) would likely result in additional costs to the Town (and thus, taxpayers). So we should take a closer look at these 'fiscal sponsorship projects' and this new business model, in general.

'The Vision Zero Network is a fiscally sponsored project of Community Initiatives' Meaning: it is paid for through tax revenues.

https://communityinitiatives.org/ - https://communityinitiatives.org/about/our-history/

'Our project leaders tell us that they chose fiscal sponsorship with Community Initiatives because it saves them time, resources, and provides them with support from industry experts.'

This might be more credible if these same 'industry experts' were not marketing their products and services to our Towns. In the 'New Fiscal Age,' Public-private Partnerships (P3s) are the the basis of a new business model. The World Economic Forum (WEF), which also exerts unacceptable influence on our elected representatives (particularly at the Federal level) has two core mandates: To Promote Public Private Partnerships (socialize costs and privatize profits) and to Promote a new 'Stakeholder Capitalism' (as described above).

Needless to say, this kind of influence, and these types of relationships, must end. Given the increasing economic hardship for many of the residents of this Region,'Net Zero' and other 'local climate investment' initiatives (which will result in further tax burdens) should be abandoned.

The 'Climate Emergency' should be rescinded, as the science linking carbon with current weather patterns is not nearly settled. As we will see below, in the 'Disclaimer' of the 'Durham Community Energy Plan' (DCEP), the authors republished only information that supports the argument put forth in this document, and did no further research or 'fact checking.'

In the Region's January 29, 2020 'Climate Emergency Declaration' statement, 'Region of Durham declares climate emergency and commits to additional action' the Manager of Sustainability is quoted as saying: “We know that we can have the most impact working in partnership with all levels of government and the private sector to unlock capital for local climate investment.”

'Capital' from government, whether it be Municipal, Provincial or Federal, always comes from the taxpayer, so this is the time for a serious reassessment of Climate 'Investment' in general.

On 'investments':

Local Towns and the Region, should take their lead from Wall Street in this regard. With the world's largest Investment funds, first Vanguard and now BlackRock, walking away from 'Environmental, Social Governance' (ESG), local taxpayers should not be expected to pay for such programs either.

The Region's staff are not qualified 'investment advisors' and they have yet to look at evidence countering the so-called climate consensus, or even (below) check the accuracy of the material presented thus far.

We should not, therefore, be entering into Public-Private Partnerships, by which private companies (especially globalist firms based outside of Canada) provide technology or services paid for by residents of Durham. The Region should also not be incurring more debt, in order to pay for related infrastructure. It is now demonstrated that the world's shrewdest investors have decided such programs are not important enough to maintain (too detrimental to the bottom line that is), and our Region must follow suit.

On 'the Science':

In the Durham Community Energy Plan, 'Seizing the Opportunity' (in lieu of a page 2 'Terms and Acronyms' section) is a 'Disclaimer,' which states:

'This document, the information it contains, the information and basis on which it relies, and factors associated with implementation of the pathway are subject to changes that are beyond the control of the authors. The information provided by others is believed to be accurate, but has not been verified.'

Perhaps there were plans to verify this information later, but this work has clearly not yet been undertaken. An interesting overview is presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle. There are many documents to follow up on here (since the Region is not familiar with this material) and there is a great deal more information available. The following, for example, prepared by over 1600 scientists from around the world: 'There Is No Climate Emergency.'

Since the Region has apparently not done its due diligence on this subject, it is imperative that this material (presenting the other side of this argument) be received (reviewed and debated) before any further climate initiative expenditures are made. The original report of the United Nations' 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change' (IPCC) must be reviewed along side the documents cited therein. Additionally, the mathematical models upon which climate projections are made have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, most notably, in light of the notoriously exaggerated pandemic modelling from Oxford University's Imperial College, in March 2020.

I mentioned this as page 14 of the 'Towards Resilience' 'environmental stability' document refers to the 'most credible scenario' for the IPCC's mathematical Climate models, again indicating that the science is not settled. Rather, that this is a best guess scenario, upon which Durham Region tax increases will be justified if this theory is not questioned and countered.

'Some of the activities identified in this Plan are low-cost or even no cost and it is expected that many of these can be accommodated within the existing budgets and business plans of the responsible agencies. In other cases, the costs for capital programs in particular, may be beyond the capability of the agency (and its taxpayers/ratepayers) to fund on its own.' (page 78 of the document above)

Should the Ontario Climate Resilience Fund (OCRF) not secure the hoped-for additional funding, fees from 'Enforcing building standards and codes' (page 72) will most likely be increased as well.

'The concept calls for significant amounts of dedicated funding to be committed by the federal, provincial, and municipal levels of government and the property insurance industry to a joint fund to provide support for high-priority infrastructure investments by municipalities in Ontario.' (my emphasis)

The property insurance industry's involvement in this explains a great deal for those who may have wondered why property insurance costs continue to escalate beyond the rate of inflation.

To reiterate, documents countering the climate narrative must be received, studied and debated, before the Town and Region goes any further with these costly and speculative programs.

The spurious claim that almost 100 percent of the world’s scientists agree CO2 is the cause of global warming (and climate change) must be challenged.

When elections happen in some Banana Republic, and the local dictator wins with 100% of the vote, no one in a real democracy actually believes this was a fair and open election (and for good reason). It is the same here. Science is always open to debate, or it is not science; it is 'Scientism' – as defined by Friedrich Hayek in his appropriately name book, The Road to Serfdom.

An interesting point from the Chair of the Durham Region Roundtable on Climate Change, from Durham Region's publication on Environmental Stability:

'As citizens we are responsible for reducing our carbon footprint. We now also need to be responsible for our own climate adaptation strategies. Working together, we continue to learn and be models for others across the globe.'

We look forward to working together on this, the citizens and taxpayers of this Region, along side our elected representatives and staff. If we really are to 'be models for others across (around) the globe' (if these are not just more empty, politically motivated, words) we better have all of the facts in hand.

Durham Region could be a leader (I firmly believe this), but only if we can think outside the proverbial box and have the courage to jump off the 'climate change' bandwagon – as Wall Street insiders (who are generally ahead of the curve) are already doing.

Let Durham Region lead the way (in the dying days of the failed Globalist experiment) and define what a New Regionalism could look like for the world. Not insular or isolationist (we learned those lessons already), but with new lessons learned (or relearned) from the trials and tribulations of last few decades, the Neoliberal Era. To quote Henry Ford from his 1922, My Life and Work Chapter XIV ‘Tractor and Power Farming’:

‘Why a steer raised in Texas should be brought to Chicago and then served in Boston is a question that cannot be answered as long as all the steers the city needs can be raised near Boston. The Centralization of food manufacturing industries, entailing enormous costs for transportation and organization, is too wasteful long to continue in a developed community.’

In this theme, apropos the history of this Region (and the contradiction inherent in the Globalist's economic/environmental model – ‘Cargo Ship CO2 Emissions’ ), below are a few items for the new Strategic Plan.

Specific Suggestions:

The Region's agricultural heritage (the lands and people associated with this) should be treasured above all, particularly in communities like Uxbridge.

Food and Energy Security should be top priority for the Town and Region.

Different wording could be chosen for this new 2026-2030 Strategic Plan; or definitions added, to distinguish the language from that used in United Nations documents.

Traditional Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) should also be encouraged and incentivized (in contrast to the Distribution Centre model of Monopoly Capitalism that is the hallmark of centralized, Globalist 'Technofeudalism.').

Public Private Partnerships (P3s) should come to an end. The Request for Proposal process should be totally transparent, and clearly in the best interest of Durham's taxpayers (as opposed to the interests of 'corporate stakeholder' partners).

The residents of Durham require a 'Digital Charter' to protect their privacy and their information (particularly in light of the 2021 'cybersecurity incident' , which will become more common place).

Climate debate counter-arguments must be received and discussed openly. The Region should end its association with ICLEI, and the 'Climate Emergency' should be rescinded.

Thank you for your time. I appreciate this opportunity to provide some direction for the Town

and Region, and look forward to discussing these ideas prior to the drafting of the final 2026 – 2030 Strategic Plan.

David Ward

Ward 1 resident, Uxbridge