To Justin Trudeau et al. - Letter from a grandmother

To: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, The Ottawa Police, Ottawa Mayor, CTV Ottawa, CBC Ottawa, Global News Ottawa

From: Maureen Ward

February 24, 2022 

To whom it may concern,  

I am not sure who to address my outrage to in this matter because the people who should be concerned are the guilty parties.  

The horrific scenes in this video; the disgusting acts of violence against numerous peaceful protestors including an 80-year-old woman as well as Andrew Lawton, of True North and Alexandra Lavoie, of the Rebel disgusted me to my very soul and not a word of concern do I hear from our Prime Minister, the Mayor of Ottawa our mainstream media, CBC, and CTV, Global TV etc. Nothing! 

I transcribed the portion of the video that depicts some of the disgusting and violent actions of the Ottawa Police on the weekend. It begins around 10 minutes into the video, and I ask that you watch and listen to the entire video. Please take the time to watch it to the end to see the absolute hypocrisy of the legacy media spinning the events to suit their own untruthful agenda. It is absolutely hateful to demonize once again the protestors and ignore the truth and spin everything to suit an agenda. I can't even think of a word to describe such a web of lies surrounding the Freedom Convoy since the beginning including the demonizing of everyone involved with the protest along with their supporters. You know what I mean,

And I thank Candice Malcolm from True North for her truthful and honest presentation. What a breath of fresh air.

Maureen Ward, Ottawa Ontario 

Transcript of a small portion of the video beginning  at around 10 minutes into the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23RdwjBsiew&t=132s Unreal use of propaganda in Canada from True North.

What is happening in Canada? Great question. What is happening in Canada? Well, what is happening in Canada? It's a Great question. Well, over the weekend, what did we see? We saw a militarized police zone using undue force using over-the-top force and completely disproportionate force against a group of unarmed and peaceful protesters just by virtue of them being in Ottawa meant that they were the target of the police and the Trudeau government efforts.

And unsurprisingly, It devolved into a very chaotic, very dangerous situation, so I'll show you some of the low lights from the weekend of police brutality. And let me just make this point. If this was happening at any other circumstance in recent history. If this is happening at any other point in the last two years against any other group, if this was not a group of working-class truckers, of people who said we've had enough of this government overreach of this medical tyranny that we've been living under. If it was any other group and you saw images like this of the police, the left would be on the complete other side. There would be over the top calls for these cops to be fired, to be reprimanded, defund the police, any small act of police using force, not even disproportionate force, just police using force in their job over the past two years has been completely blown out of proportion as an instance of police brutality and why we ought to defund the police, OK? I see people who spent the last two years yelling about that issue are now either completely silent or they're cheering on the police brutality because they are cracking down on a group of conservative adjacent or conservative align protesters. People who come from a working-class background. It is so stark. It is so hypocritical. It is unbelievable.  

Regardless, here are a couple instances of what it looked like. So first we have a veteran who is manhandled by police officers: knee him several times in the kidney. Here's what that looked like.  

Next, we have a protester who is hauled away by cops. Watch for the end of the clip because a police officer takes his rifle, takes his gun, and uses it to beat a protester with the stock of his gun and you can see him do two solid blows there with a stock of his gun. This is police brutality. This is totally unacceptable. Here is what that looked like.  

Next, here is a police officer rushing a protestor and hitting him once he's already on the ground.  ( you can hear people crying for the police to stop)

And so, as the police were using increasingly violent tactics in order to crack down on these peaceful protesters, they at some point decided to bring in horses for what? To do some kind of crowd control? I don't even understand. This is right outside the Chateau Laurier hotel and upscale hotel, right in the heart of Parliament, right in the center of Ottawa. They bring out the police and as you can see in the kerfuffle in the excitement of police going through a crowd trampled 2 individuals and knocked them over, stepped on one of the women, including an 80 year old First Nations woman.. This is tough to watch, but here is what this looks like.  Just in case you want to see how bad it was Here Is the aerial view and still you can see the horses trampling on two individuals who just failed to get out of the way, you could see from the footage there that it wasn't like people knew that these horses were coming. They kind of came out of nowhere. They whipped around the corner. These two individuals clearly didn't see what was going on. The woman who was knocked over, the 80 year old woman was on a mobility scooter and from the aerial picture you can see the scooter on the ground. So its not like this is an agile woman who could easily get out of the way. She obviously had no idea this was coming, and I don't know what was worse the fact that this was the way the police were behaving and acting or the fact that there were a lot of people cheering them on cheering this kind of thing on and that the media didn't really bat an eye, didn't really bat an eye over the use if anything they were out there saying, oh, this isn't trampling. These people weren't trampled.  

And we had something new that I'd never seen before. The Ottawa police were tweeting in real-time pushing out their own propaganda, their own version of events. So they weren't really taking questions. They weren't really responding.  

Journalists at one point I was on the phone trying to confirm whether or not anyone had been killed in the protests. No response, no replies. I left messages. I called multiple lines. I emailed. I sent the messages on Twitter. No response. Whatsoever, the only response you get from the Ottawa police the're tweeting their own timeline of events in their own perspective, twisting and spinning the facts to fit their narrative of what was going on.  

So here is an example of that, Ottawa police wrote. We hear your concern for people on the ground after the horses dispersed the crowd, anyone who fell got up and walked away. We're unaware of any injuries. A bicycle was thrown at a horse further down the line and caused the horse to trip. The horse was uninjured. OK, so a lot of people on Twitter were really upset about this because the idea that everyone who was hurt got up and walked away. Well, it just simply isn't true. Here is a woman who was trampled. Her name is Candy, and she wrote this.   I dare to correct the "no injury" statement of the Ottawa Police.  I was nearly killed. Again, 80 year Old First Nations woman. Usually, this would be the kind of woman that the left would hold up as a victim of police brutality and they would be on her side and they would be there demanding the resignation of the officers of whoever ordered that, the police chief or the local politicians, but instead, because of the backdrop of this freedom convoy. Nothing. Nothing. No. No, you don't hear anything from the left in support of this woman.  

It is absolutely wild and his whole nonsense about a bicycle being thrown at the horse again. I tried to verify that I looked at a lot of footage over the weekend. A lot of people were saying that the bicycle was actually the mobility scooter. So we go back to that aerial photo. You can see how the horse knocked over the woman with the mobility scooter. And that is lying on the ground. So people were like, is that where you're talking about throwing a bicycle is actually just a mobility scooter. Someone did send me footage of a man with a bicycle. But In no way did he throw this at the police. He used a bicycle to pull himself back, if anything, to stop the police from beating him. He kind of had the bike in front of him. And then you could see him leave. So this whole idea that he threw at a horse and was causing the horse to trip. Is is just completely, completely untrue.  

OK, there is more. so, here is the police hauling away a protester and kneeing him once he's on the ground so here, that's what that looked like.  

And so it wasn't just this kind of force in kneeing people and hitting people with guns that we saw. We also saw the police start using pepper spray or some kind of a chemical irritant. And you can see it in this clip, the Ottawa police are just sort of wildly spraying this pepper spray, it's not targeted at any individual. It's not an individual in a crowd who is ruckus and who is causing chaos and you want to target that one individual. Presumably, that is what pepper spray is for. No, in this case, you're just sort of willy nilly just spraying the crowd, getting anybody who's there sort of punishing them for being there. Here's what that looked like.  

So caught up in all of this chaos was our own Andrew Lawton, journalist Andrew Lawton was on the ground for True North throughout the entire weekend. He was doing live streams. He was reporting he was talking to people. He was trying to keep an eye on what was happening in the same way as many journalists. There was lots and lots of journalists from lots of outlets who were right there, sort of on the front lines or a few steps back from the front lines filming this whole thing, taking pictures, relaying the information to Canadians and to people all over the world because people all over the world were watching, so Andrew Lawton was in there he was doing that and for the crime of committing journalism, 

Andrew Lawton was pepper-sprayed in the face by a cop. It seemed to be targeted. It seemed to be aimed directly at him. So here is what Andrew looked like afterwards. Not a pleasant feeling to be sprayed in the face pretty much point-blank, or at least at close range with pepper spray.  

He got it really bad and because of that we, here at True North, I decided to retain a lawyer. So we hired a lawyer we're now working with a lawyer here at True North. We are suing the police for assault and for targeting a working journalist. Andrew was just there doing his job trying to cover this event, trying to relay the information to Canadians. So we want to send a message to the police and Justin Trudeau and his emergency order. You don't get to beat up on journalists in this country. This is Canada. You do not get to do that and we will see you in court.  

Unfortunately, Andrew Lawton was not the only journalist to be the victim of police brutality. 

Over the weekend. Alexa Lavoie over at the Rebel was beat up by a police officer. This is unbelievable footage. She was pushed, she was hit multiple times with the baton from a large male police officer on the line. She's sprayed with pepper spray and finally, she was shot in the leg at point-blank from a few feet away with some kind of a rubber bullet or a tear gas canister. This woman was brutalized and beat up by a cop, all caught on camera. Here is what that looked like and just to warn you, this is pretty gruesome. It is pretty hard to watch, but I think it's important to show you what was happening to a working journalist in our country over the weekend. Here's that clip.  

So with a journalist sprayed in the face with pepper spray, another one brutalized and hit with a baton multiple times, you would think that the mainstream media, the legacy media there would be some kind of solidarity with journalists in this country that you would hear from legacy media saying, hey, that kind of force against journalists is absolutely not acceptable in this country. So did we hear that? No, no, we didn't hear that. What did we hear instead? Well, that the journalists thought it was disgusting? No, it wasn't disgusting that Andrew Lawton was sprayed with pepper spray. It wasn't disgusting that Alexa Levar was beaten with a baton.  What was disgusting? Well, there was this clip that was circulating of a Quebec TV journalist who got pushed on air by a protester. Here's what that looked like.  Incredibly stupid stuff. OK. Whoever pushes whoever pushed a journalist on air is just completely stupid. There's no reason to do this. It is mean. It is stupid. It doesn't help anyone. If anything, all it does is galvanizes people. against you, it proves legacy media point correct that the protesters are just a violent group of thugs and that they're here to harass, intimidate the media and the legacy media did exactly what you would expect and milk every last ounce of that clip that that footage of one guy getting pushed, that is the big story for the journalist out of the news.  Forget about all the police brutality that I just showed you. Forget about a guy getting hit with a stock of a gun. Forget about a woman getting trampled by a horse. Forget about a young female journalist getting beat up with a police baton. They didn't cover any of that. They don't care about any of that. What do they care about? A push? The guy getting shoved on air. That is the main focus.

This is what happens when you have brains scrambled by misinformation.

Well, the propaganda continues, Please watch the video to the end.

Maureen Ward

Ottawa Ontario

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Deceitful on Crisis Pregnancy Centres (Post 6)

Part 8 – Arthur’s “high and low” reports

So let’s talk now about the so-called “studies or investigative reports” Arthur found in Canada (Source: Page 6 of Arthur’s 2016 report):

 The Pretenders (CTV 2000; W-Five).

 Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC (Arthur 2009).

 Deception Used in Counselling Women against Abortion (Smith 2010a; Toronto Star).

 Are Anti-Choice Crisis Pregnancy Centres Targeting Female Students on Ontario
University Campuses? (Tilley 2011).

 Surrey charity gives dubious abortion advice: investigation (Woodward 2012; CTV).

 Phony Abortion Clinics In Canada Are Scaring Women with Lies (Khandaker 2013a;
VICE).

 Enjeux éthiques de l’intervention auprès de femmes vivant une grossesse imprévue au
Québec (Gonin et al. 2014).

 Mieux comprendre les ressources conseil grossesse anti-choix au Québec (FQPN 2014).

 Toll free but not judgment free: evaluating postabortion support services in Ontario
(Laroche and Foster 2015).

Now there are a couple of interesting things to note about these “studies”.

First, of these nine studies, six of them are not referenced at all in Arthur’s current study (all the ones in bold above). So why are these even included in this 2016 study?

Clue: look at the titles of the studies. All are inflammatory and one-sided in their negativity of CPCs. Their main purpose for being identified at all is simply to make sure the reader is well aware of other anti-CPC reports out there. They add no additional information to Arthur’s current study, and as mentioned before, all of them used limited sources or were retracted, or found fraudulent (e.g. Arthur’s Exposing CPCs in BC) or penned by pro-choice writers with a partial axe to grind.

Of the two Quebec studies Arthur mentions, one of them relies heavily on Arthur’s own 2009 discredited report.

Lastly, Arthur identifies her own 2009 report, but never references the report that rebuts that deceptive and discredited report. I suggest that Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia: A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report doesn’t have the same cachet as Arthur’s other nine examples. Especially if you place its title right beside the title of her own Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC like this:

“Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC”

“Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia: A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report”

I thought it was very gracious of CAPSS in their choice of the word “disrespectful” to describe Arthur’s 2009 report. In fact, it was very Christian of them.

The Pretenders (CTV 2000; W-Five). This isn’t online so I couldn’t review it. I’ve asked CTV twice now to provide me with a link to the show. They never responded. 

Upon further investigation, I learned something very interesting about this show. A CPC involved in this CTV story sued the CTV’s W-Five for serious inaccuracies in the show. I also learned that an out-of-court settlement was agreed upon by both parties. 

 

Apparently, the disputed broadcast is not to be aired again.

 

No wonder I couldn’t find it online. So why is Arthur identifying it at all then? I assume the public is unaware of the show since if you Google it, you won’t find it. So anyone reading Arthur’s current report would think:

“Wow, CPCs are pretending, and maltreating women, how horrid, and I can’t find it online but it must be true!” (Source: Imagination of Patricia Maloney getting fed up of the untruths, deception and misinformation about CPCs)

 

And now Joyce Arthur is using this no longer available and disputed report as further “evidence” that all or most CPCs in Canada mislead women. Arthur even helps the reader along by this notation in her report about the show, a notation that we have only Arthur’s word for, since the show is unavailable for viewing:

“CTV. Nov 5, 2000. ‘The Pretenders.’ W-Five documentary news program exposing maltreatment by the Calgary Pregnancy Care Centre of a woman seeking abortion. (Not online)” (Page 34 of Arthur’s 2016 report)

“Maltreatment” by a CPC? No proof and no evidence that this is true. And no way to see the W-Five show. Just Arthur’s say so. And it infers a generalization to all CPCs.

Next we have this:

Surrey charity gives dubious abortion advice: investigation (Woodward 2012; CTV).

This CTV investigation was initiated by a “client complaint,” CTV stated. When I first heard about this allegation, I could only imagine that the “client” had a copy of Joyce Arthur’s 2009 report in hand, a report that has been shown to be inaccurate.

In fact, when I researched the accuracy of this allegation, I discovered – wait for it – that there never was a client complaint. Astonishing.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/surrey-charity-gives-dubious-abortion-advice-investigation-1.754309

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/national-christian-charity-probes-questionable-advice-on-abortion-1.754285

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/schools-suspend-counselling-centre-s-sex-ed-classes-1.754359

Further, the CTV clips had its own inaccuracies. After airing, the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Vancouver sued CTV for defamation. The Vancouver CPC settled out of court. Here is a statement made by their executive director Brian Norton following the settlement at that time:

“CTV NEWS Update - We described in previous communications with our supporters concerns we had with how CTV News portrayed our Vancouver CPC in a series of television broadcasts earlier this year. We are pleased CTV has since amended the broadcasts posted on its website, as well as the associated web articles.

CTV News Director Margo Harper wrote us concerning its investigation’s purpose:

Our investigation focused predominantly on whether the medical information claims offered by Crisis Pregnancy Centres were accurate … [and] the abortion risks outlined in the brochures offered by these centres were accurate.

Ms. Harper confirmed to us in writing of CTV’s conclusion on these critical issues:

Video of the Vancouver centre was featured briefly in the second story with a voice-over that said the centre offered ‘no far-fetched health warnings’.

CTV News made no claims in our reports suggesting [your CPC] brochures were inaccurate.

While far from a perfect outcome, many of our concerns have been addressed and we will not be spending any more of our time or resources on this issue.” (Source: Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver, Newsletter, dated December 2012 (page 2)) (emphasis added)

In a nutshell, CTV said that the centre offered “no far-fetched health warnings’ and made “no claims in our reports suggesting [your CPC] brochures were inaccurate.”

So then what was the point of Arthur mentioning the show at all, when it is not even referred to in her report other than identifying it as one more example to support Arthur’s anti-CPC crusade? Once again it is the title of the initial report and what it implies about CPCs (e.g. Surrey charity gives dubious abortion advice) that Arthur likes.

It seems the show was just another notch in Arthur’s belt of CPC attacks. She had to mention it notwithstanding CTV’s News Director Margo Harper’s written statement.

Here is what the BC Catholic says about this CTV investigation: http://bccatholic.ca/the-news/1842-crisis-pregnancy-overseer-sues-ctv-alleging-defamation

“Norton said the investigation didn’t focus on the medical authenticity of CPC Vancouver’s medical information and instead used abortion-supporting ‘experts’ to denounce all crisis pregnancy centres for misleading the public with abortion misinformation.

He said CTV gave extensive coverage to Greg Smith, the executive director of Options for Sexual Health (Planned Parenthood B.C.) and Dr. Wendy Norman of BC Women’s Hospital and the former president of Options for Sexual Health. He added that CTV did not interview any of the medical experts involved in writing CPC Vancouver’s … [client options] brochures.”

And this from LifeSite News, quoting extensively from a statement issued by then MP Maurice Vellacott: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-mp-releases-his-own-expose-on-ctv-pregnancy-centre-investigation

“The report ignored the scientific literature referenced in the centres brochures which substantiates the centres’ claims that abortion is associated with increased physical and psychological health risks. The reporter was told that this brochure had been reviewed and approved by 25 professional counsellors, physicians and medical researchers. None of this was mentioned in the CTV report.

“CTV also declined to interview physicians with expertise in the area of health risks associated with abortion who had been willing to corroborate, on air, the claims made in the brochure.

“Furthermore, Dr. Dan Reilly, an obstetrician/gynaecologist who also teaches ethics at McMaster, was interviewed by CTV and briefly appeared on the broadcast, but only his comments that challenged the validity of some of the comments made by the Surrey centre volunteer were aired. Dr. Reilly’s written confirmation of the accuracy of the health risks described in the centre’s brochure was passed on to CTV, but those comments by Dr. Reilly never made it into CTV’s report. Also left out of CTV’s report was the fact that the counsellor at the Vancouver centre received a complete endorsement from Dr. Reilly that her comments were medically correct.

“CTV chose to air Dr. Wendy Norman’s comments about abortion being ‘very safe’, neglecting to tell the viewers that Dr. Norman is an abortion provider and researcher and ‘has practiced exclusively in the area of abortion since 1997.’ Her comments to CTV seem to be at odds with the results of a study she herself co-authored which found that ‘Postabortion infection after therapeutic abortion, although uncommon, may have devastating consequences including infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and pelvic pain syndrome.’”

Part 9 - Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC

As noted previously, CAPSS wrote a lengthy rebuttal of Joyce Arthur’s first report in 2009. Arthur’s “study” can pretty much be discounted in its entirety if anyone, including Arthur herself, had the goodwill to actually read the CAPSS 55-page rebuttal to that horrid 2009 report:

http://www.christianadvocacy.ca/pdf/Crisis_Pregnancy_Centres_in_BC_A_Respectful_Rebuttal_to_a_Disrespectful_Report.pdf

I’ll go out on a limb here, and say that I’m pretty sure Arthur read the CAPSS rebuttal. But she never commented on it publicly. She never told the BCHA about it.

I don’t imagine she much liked it. I believe it was too close to the truth. What did Jack Nicholson say in that movie A Few Good Men?

“You can’t handle the Truth.”

I’ve also written extensively on Arthur’s 2009 report on my blog:

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2010/04/status-of-women-canada-pays-extreme.html

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2013/01/joyce-arthurs-pro-can-grant.html

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2013/03/joyce-arthurs-pro-can-grant.html

http://www.lifenews.com/2010/01/19/int-1440/

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/07/why-joyce-arthurs-report-is-harmful-to.html

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2013/11/exposing-specificity-of-exposing-crisis.html

Here are more moot references in her 2016 report. They are all American references, and / or are invalid web sites: 

NARAL (American) https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/329/abortion-debateprint.htm (invalid link: page not found)

The American National Abortion Federation https://prochoice.org/ (American) 

The American Cosmopolitan Magazine (American) 

CPC Watch http://www.cpcwatch.org (This site is about Car Seat Safety Checks; nothing about CPCs on this site)  

The American Guttmacher Institute (American) https://www.guttmacher.org/

And of course Arthur references her own writings at Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada and her Pro-Choice Action Network, the credibility of which are as suspect as any of Arthur’s writings.

Two French studies:

http://www.fqpn.qc.ca/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/rapport-de-recherche.pdf

http://www.fqpn.qc.ca/main/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/RESS_CG_WEB_FIN.pdf

One of these sites references Arthur’s 2009 report twelve times, plus two other references to her ARCC website. That’s fourteen references in total to Arthur’s own writing. Naturally she would include these references.

CONCLUSION

On the whole of it, one must wonder what Arthur’s agenda is as she continues to hound and persecute CPCs for the good work they do for women in crisis pregnancy situations. Why does Arthur feel this obsessive need to denigrate and spread falsehoods about CPCs on a continual and unabated basis? Where does this hate come from?

I can’t answer any of these questions. But I can provide the reader, in contrast to Arthur, an honest and verifiable perspective about crisis pregnancy centres.

Crisis pregnancy centres are safe places for women to go to when experiencing confusion or fear about an unintended pregnancy. There they will receive love and compassion from people who are trained in giving them information about their options, and ultimately supporting them whatever they decide to do.

It’s difficult to read and research the hatred that exists towards these centres. There is so much misinformation and untruths out there made by persons – prominently here in Canada by abortion activist Joyce Arthur – who clearly have an agenda to destroy these centres.

Their motives are difficult to understand, but the results of their actions harm and discredit the centres, the people who work there, and the women they serve. Ultimately, it will be the women and men who use these centres who will be most affected by the witch hunts of persons who wish to see these centres closed.

One quote I found regarding the work CPCs do was this: “They share God’s love through their actions.”

Amen I say to that.

Don Martin and Pierre Lemieux - let's talk about abortion

Dear Don Martin,

Thanks for your great interview with Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Lemieux.

Mr. Lemieux speaks for many many social conservatives in this country with his strong stand against abortion (he's not afraid to say he's against abortion) and for free speech rights. I myself am very concerned with both these issues.

Like Mr. Lemieux I am opposed to abortion, and am currently awaiting a ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ontario on our Charter Challenge against the Ontario government for hiding abortion information. Our case is based on freedom of speech rights: how can I practice my freedom of expression rights in commenting meaningfully on how many abortions are performed in Ontario, and their cost, when the Ontario government prevents me from seeing that information?

I can't really think of two more important Canadian values, than the right of life for ALL Canadians including the pre-born, and the very old. And Freedom of Speech itself is the cornerstone of Canadian democracy. 

Mr. Lemieux stands for both of these values. I will be voting for him, and I thank him sincerely for his standing for what I believe in.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

CFRA fires another good commentator

If you missed John Robson on CFRA this morning, it's because CFRA has dropped him. John was one of the last decent commentators on CFRA. Now he's gone. 

CFRA is so losing it, thanks of course to Bell Media. Bell obviously has no idea what they're doing with CFRA. They have even taken to regurgitating the previous evenings CTV newscasts in the morning. Lame.

I wonder how long advertisers will continue to advertise on CFRA. Bell is slowly but surely killing the station.

This is what John told me:

"Alas, they have indeed dropped me from the morning lineup. You can find details (including a pitch to help me carry on online) here:

It was a good run and I’m sorry it ended on the radio. But it will continue as a podcast if people support it, as I hope and trust they will."

Good-bye CFRA

I've had it with CRFA. Now they've laid off Mark Sutcliffe, John Counsell, Ron Corbett and Nick Vandergragt. This after they laid off other hosts a while ago, and Steve Winogron a year ago. Steve Madely retired recently (at least that's the official story).

Mark Sutcliffe was the only reason I've continued listening to CFRA as of late. Now that he's gone, well that's it for me. Rob Snow is still there, but for how long? And Brian Lilley is on in the evenings but I don't listen in the evenings.

Bell media owns CTV and CFRA and Lord knows I can't stand Bell (who lied to me) or CTV, who ripped apart CPCs in BC, based on Joyce Arthur's inaccurate, atrocious, nonsensical, fictitional "report":
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/surrey-charity-gives-dubious-abortion-advice-investigation-1.754309
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/national-christian-charity-probes-questionable-advice-on-abortion-1.754285
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/schools-suspend-counselling-centre-s-sex-ed-classes-1.754359

I don't know what Sutcliffe's or Corbett's abortion leanings are, but Counsell, Vandergragt, Madely, and Winogron were all pro-life. Interesting coincidence? 

CTV and Bell deserve each other. It's just too bad they had to decimate whatever was still good at CFRA.