CPC Policy Convention To Be Held During National Abortion Week (Satire)

It is official: the Conservative Party of Canada’s 2020 policy convention will be held the week of October 15th, in Vancouver, to coincide with the 4th Annual National Abortion Week.

This comes not long after the leadership race was held in Toronto, to accommodate gay pride. Party insiders agreed that they must do more to attract new voters. The Vancouver Convention was scheduled with that in mind.

In its ever expanding goal of being more inclusive, the Party has booked the Metro Vancouver Convention Center for that week. The halal-only event was supposed to be in Mid-Town, but Muslims protested the degeneracy being promoted in their neighbourhood. CPC officials promptly apologized for their Islamophobia.

The CPC has also announced there will be changes coming to employment insurance for maternal leave. According to new Party Leader, Peter “the Shank” MacKay, the CPC will not discriminate between babies who live, and those who die, when it comes to handing out EI. He said it’s important those women (and other people who give birth) get treated the same.

Furthermore, abortion services will also become available to trans-women. Party officials agreed that not having ovaries or a uterus shouldn’t exclude a person from accessing their “reproductive health care”.

It was noted that as a conservative, promoting abortion made sense. Eliminating the clump of cells could be done for under $1,000, while years of child care and tax credits would cost far more.

MacKay also announced expanding immigration levels, including making it easier to get students permanent residency. “We’re going to staple green cards to diplomas.” Since the Canadian birth rate was falling it was necessary to import a replacement population. However, MacKay denied any connection between expanding abortion usage and birth rates.

The policy convention will be kicked off with Drag Queen Story Hour, followed by a demonstration of how to self-abort using drugs and coat hangers. Discount ball-waxing and gynecological services will be available to all transgender people. The CPC claimed it was committed to diversity and inclusion.

The Conservative Party asserts that “Diversity is a product of our strength, and that strength is freedom.” No longer would it cling to archaic ideas such as CONSERVING the heritage, culture, traditions, customs, languages, demographics, or spirituality of the nation. Last year it voted to not even conserve the ladies’ room.

People’s Party Leader Maxime Bernier mocked the event, saying that it was just more shameless pandering. When asked when the PPC leadership race and policy vote would be, Bernier looked confused. “Why would we do that? We don’t even have a party constitution.”

Detractors criticized the event, claiming that the CPC is conserving nothing, and panders to every imaginable fringe group. The CPC response was to say that bigots will not be welcome at their events. To emphasize that point, the CPC stated that party members are allowed to believe in the pro-life agenda, but must keep it to themselves.

The convention is expected to attract at least 10,000 people over 6 days.

TSCE #10: Does Allowing Illegal Aliens Into Canada Violate International Agreements?

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

1. Important Links

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)
https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-9-other-accounts-worth-following/

Links On Trafficking/Smuggling
CLICK HERE, for UN Review On Smuggling Migrants.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention On Transnational Crime.
http://archive.is/q0XqK
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol Against Human Trafficking.
http://archive.is/cjnJt
CLICK HERE, for UN Opt. Protocol On Rights Of The Child.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for UN Global Initiative To Fight Trafficking.
http://archive.is/Fjuv6
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol To Prevent/Punish Trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for UN Rights Of The Child, Sale, Prostitution, Porn.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for Eliminate Worst Forms Of Child Labour.
http://archive.is/OZQM
CLICK HERE, for the Rome Statute, Int’l Criminal Court.
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t Of Canada On Trafficking.
http://archive.is/RQVYA

CLICK HERE, for Washington Times on child abduction for border crossings.

From S3CA Court Case
CLICK HERE, for abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Prothonotary strikes out Statement of Claim.
CLICK HERE, for Uppity Peasants on the moral arguments.
CLICK HERE, for arguments to appeal S3CA dismissal.
CLICK HERE, for reply submissions in S3CA appeal.
CLICK HERE, for hypocrisy in Toronto/Vancouver cases.
CLICK HERE, for appeal in S3CA challenge dismissed.

2. Context For This Piece

Canada has signed several international treaties, relevant to the prevention of trafficking, smuggling, and other exploitation of people. These agreements include:

  • “Protocol to Prevent. Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. Especially Women and Children. supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime”, in 2000
  • “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography”
  • “ILO Convention 182 concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst forms of Child Labor”

The purpose, as you can imagine, is for governments around the world to cooperate in preventing these activities from happening. Also, it is to punish those responsible when it does happen. Accordingly, they must be taken seriously.

But what happens when certain governments turn a blind eye to people illegally crossing their borders? What happens when governments enact policies that openly encourage human smuggling and trafficking to occur? Does this not help circumvent the very treaties which are designed to keep vulnerable people safe?

This is a bit of a rhetorical question, but I believe the answers are “yes”. Should make for interesting discussion, especially if this ever gets advanced in court. As outlined in the last article, the appeal of the Prothonotary’s decision was dismissed. This is unjust, considering how big the issue of illegal crossings into Canada is.

3. Link Between Illegal Crossings/Trafficking

More on the research is available in this review. It details the size and scale of smuggling and trafficking, and gives much needed background information on the people who are likely to be involved. The original source is linked here, and well worth a read.

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

(There is a connection between smuggling and “irregular migration”)

(UN abhors smuggling, but fake refugees get a pass)

2.1 Smuggling of migrants and the concepts of irregular migration and trafficking in persons
2.1.1 Irregular migration
The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration.

In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents.

Yes, this has been brought up before, but it is designed to hammer the point home. Smuggling of people across borders is directly connected to the “irregular migration” that occurs at the end. It is the end result of these actions which show no respect for national borders or sovereignty. The UN review is rather blunt on the subject.

2.2 Conceptualization of smuggling of migrants
2.2.1 Smuggling as an illegal migration business
The conceptualization of smuggling as a migration business was formally developed by Salt and Stein in 1997, even if one may find reference to this theory in earlier literature. This new interpretation of the smuggling phenomenon had a great influence on academic circles, and the concept was then borrowed by many academics. In a critical analysis of this concept, Herman stresses that the focus of expert discussions then revolved around the notion of a migration industry and its professionalization, in which migrants are seen as “products” and “people who aid migrants are called ‘smugglers’, and are portrayed as illegal ‘entrepreneurs’”

Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both
legitimate and illegitimate sides
. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.

The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.

In some sense, this is quite obvious. Of course smuggling and trafficking are businesses, where the commodity being shipped is the people.

4. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress/Punish Trafficking

The full name of this treaty is the “Protocol to Prevent. Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. Especially Women and Children. supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. New York, US November 2000”.

Canada is a signatory to this treaty, and as such, should be expected to participate in good faith. Here is the preamble to the treaty, followed by a few Articles contained within.

The States Parlies to this Protocol,
.
Declaring that effective action to prevent and combat trafficking in persons, especially women and children, requires a comprehensive international approach in the countries of origin, transit and destination that includes measures to prevent such trafficking, to punish the traffickers and to protect the victims of such trafficking. including by protecting their internationally recognized human rights,
.
Taking into account the fact that, despite the existence of a variety of international instruments containing rules and practical measures to combat the exploitation of persons, especially women and children, there is no universal instrument that addresses all aspects of trafficking in persons,
.
Concerned that, in the absence of such an instrument, persons who are vulnerable to trafficking will not be sufficiently protected,
Recalling General Assembly resolution 53/111 of 9 December 1998, in which the Assembly decided to establish an open-ended intergovernmental ad hoc committee for the purpose of elaborating a comprehensive international convention against transnational organized crime and of discussing (he elaboration of, inter alia, an internationa.1 instrument addressing trafficking in women and children,
.
Convinced that supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime with an international instrument for the prevention, suppression and punishment of trafficking in persons, especially women and children, will be useful in preventing and combating that crime.
Have agreed as follows:

The goal is pretty straightforward, to create a universal and inclusive agreement on how to combat human trafficking.

The main difference between smuggling and trafficking is one of consent. Smuggled people are willing accomplices, while trafficked people are essentially prisoners. While this treaty specifically refers to trafficked people, the same measures should be taken considered people who are smuggled.

First, you can’t usually tell right away if the person is willing or not.

Second, the nations these people are entering should have some rights.

Article 2
Statement of purpose The purposes of this Protocol are:
(a) To prevent and combat trafficking in persons, paying particular attention to women and children;
(b) To protect and assist the victims of such trafficking, with full respect for their human rights: and
(c) To promote cooperation among States Parties in order to meet those objectives.

Article 11
Border measures
I. Without prejudice to international commitments in relation to the free movement of people, States Parties shall strengthen, to the extent possible, such border controls as may be necessary to prevent and detect trafficking in persons.
2. Each State Party shall adopt legislative or other appropriate measures to prevent, to the extent possible. means of transport operated by commercial carriers from being used in the commission of offences established in accordance with article S of this Protocol.
3. Where appropriate, and without prejudice to applicable international conventions, such measures shall include establishing the obligation of commercial carriers. including any transportation company or the owner or operator of any means of transport, to ascertain that all passengers are in possession of the travel documents required for entry into the receiving State.
4. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures, in accordance with its domestic law, to provide for sanctions in cases of violation of the obligation set forth in paragraph 3 of this article.
5. Each State Party shall consider taking measures that permit, in accordance with its domestic law, the denial of entry or revocation of visas of persons implicated in the commission of offences established in accordance with this Protocol.
6. Without prejudice to article 27 of the Convention. States Parties shall consider strengthening cooperation among border control agencies by, inter alia. establishing and maintaining direct channels of communication.

Our current process of letting the RCMP escort people across the border only to release them a few hours later does the public no good at all. Even if people are being willfully smuggled (as opposed to trafficked against their will), we should not be letting such people enter the country on these terms.

The 2000 agreement Canada signed onto “should” mean something substantive. It shouldn’t allow people to flaunt our laws, with possibly trafficked persons in the group.

5. Rights Of Child Not To Be Exploited

This UN Protocol is called the “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children,
child prostitution and child pornography”.

Considering also that the Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development,
.
Gravely concerned at the significant and increasing international traffic in children for the purpose of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography,
.
Deeply concerned at the widespread and continuing practice of sex tourism, to which children are especially vulnerable, as it directly promotes the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography,
.
Recognizing that a number of particularly vulnerable groups, including girl children, are at greater risk of sexual exploitation and that girl children are disproportionately represented among the sexually exploited,

Article 9
1. States Parties shall adopt or strengthen, implement and disseminate laws, administrative measures, social policies and programmes to prevent the offences referred to in the present Protocol. Particular attention shall be given to protect children who are especially vulnerable to such practices.
2. States Parties shall promote awareness in the public at large, including children, through information by all appropriate means, education and training, about the preventive measures and harmful effects of the offences referred to in the present Protocol. In fulfilling their obligations under this article, States Parties shall encourage the participation of the community and, in particular, children and child victims, in such information and education and training programmes, including at the international level.
3. States Parties shall take all feasible measures with the aim of ensuring all appropriate assistance to victims of such offences, including their full social reintegration and their full physical and psychological recovery.
4. States Parties shall ensure that all child victims of the offences described in the present Protocol have access to adequate procedures to seek, without discrimination, compensation for damages from those legally responsible.
5. States Parties shall take appropriate measures aimed at effectively prohibiting the production and dissemination of material advertising the offences described in the present Protocol.

Article 10
1. States Parties shall take all necessary steps to strengthen international cooperation by multilateral, regional and bilateral arrangements for the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution and punishment of those responsible for acts involving the sale of children, child prostitution, child pornography and child sex tourism. States Parties shall also promote international cooperation and coordination between their authorities, national and international non-governmental organizations and international organizations.
2. States Parties shall promote international cooperation to assist child victims in their physical and psychological recovery, social reintegration and repatriation.
3. States Parties shall promote the strengthening of international cooperation in order to address the root causes, such as poverty and underdevelopment, contributing to the vulnerability of children to the sale of children, child prostitution, child pornography and child sex tourism.
4. States Parties in a position to do so shall provide financial, technical or other assistance through existing multilateral, regional, bilateral or other programmes.

This protocol seems reasonable enough. Making sure that children are not being harmed or exploited is a valuable societal function.

However, when we allow people to enter Canada illegally, and release them into the country soon afterwards, we have no way of knowing what will happen. Our system, which rewards people for deliberately bypassing official border crossings does everyone a disservice.

No decent person wants children to be exploited, sexually or otherwise. But having laws that make it easy to do so ensures that it will happen at some point.

6. Eliminating Worst Child Labour

This international agreement is the “CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION AND IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE WORST FORMS OF CHILD LABOUR ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE AT ITS EIGHTY-SEVENTH SESSION, GENEVA, 17 JUNE 1999”.

Article 2
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “child” shall apply to all persons under the age of 18.

Article 3
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “the worst forms of child labour” comprises:
(a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
(b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances;
(c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties;
(d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.

Article 4
1. The types of work referred to under Article 3(d) shall be determined by national laws or regulations or by the competent authority, after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, taking into consideration relevant international standards, in particular Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation, 1999.
2. The competent authority, after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, shall identify where the types of work so determined exist.
3. The list of the types of work determined under paragraph 1 of this Article shall be periodically examined and revised as necessary, in consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned.

Article 5
Each Member shall, after consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations, establish or designate appropriate mechanisms to monitor the implementation of the provisions giving effect to this Convention.

Article 6
1. Each Member shall design and implement programmes of action to eliminate as a priority the worst forms of child labour.
2. Such programmes of action shall be designed and implemented in consultation with relevant government institutions and employers’ and workers’ organizations, taking into consideration the views of other concerned groups as appropriate.

All of these articles are completely reasonable, and admirable goals. However, to repeat from earlier, how do we enforce these things we have committed ourselves to doing if we aren’t willing to properly enforce a border? How can we make sure the children (and adults too) are being let in under the pretenses we are told?

Without taking the time to check thoroughly, how can the RCMP, (and Border Services) ensure that they are not unwitting accomplices to human trafficking or human smuggling?

7. What If People Aren’t Who They Claim?

Canada of course has other international obligations. These listed are just 3 of them related to prevent of people being exploited.

  • “Protocol to Prevent. Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. Especially Women and Children. supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime”, in 2000
  • “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography”
  • “ILO Convention 182 concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst forms of Child Labor”

Let’s take a look at what is happening across the U.S./Mexico border: people are abducting children in order to pass as a “family unit” when illegally crossing into the U.S.

The government warned federal judges in 2016 that their attempts to create a catch-and-release policy for illegal immigrant families would lead to children being “abducted” by migrants hoping to pose as families to take advantage.

The court brushed aside those worries and imposed catch-and-release anyway.

Two years later, children are indeed being kidnapped or borrowed by illegal immigrants trying to pose as families, according to Homeland Security numbers, which show the U.S. is on pace for more than 400 such attempts this year. That would be a staggering 900 percent increase over 2017’s total.

This Washington Times article details how adults wanting to illegally cross into the U.S. are actually abducting children to appear as a “family unit”. That’s right, children are being kidnapped to make it easier for others to stay in the United States illegally. An article in May 2019 suggested that 1/3 of “families” crossing were not blood related at all.

Sure, the adults use children to cross the border. What happens to them afterwards?

Is permitting illegal crossings a violation of international agreements? In context, many people who say yes they are.

8. How Diligent Is IRB/CBSA?

This evidence transcript is from a Parliamentary meeting on the illegal crossings going on. Let’s look at a few sections of the testimony.

Spoiler, it’s not very encouraging. 16 month wait times, and it’s based largely on the honour system. Of course, we take people at their word that they, and “their” children, are who they claim to be.


The response team has both operational and adjudicative thrusts. I’d like to underline that this response has not diminished in any way IRB’s ongoing commitment to one of the key objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is the security of Canadian society. For example, the IRB has a publicly accessible policy that requires that the RPD not accept a refugee claim until CBSA has had a reasonable opportunity to complete its security screening. This policy remains in place for all claims, including those heard through the response team. There are other processes related to security matters that I would be happy to discuss during the question period, if they are of interest.

Since July 1, more than 8,000 claims were referred to the RPD. Before this, we were projecting an intake of 40,000 cases for this fiscal year. The strain on the organization to handle this many people's hearings is enormous, as our capacity to hear cases this fiscal year, following a plan of action for efficiency and internal reallocation of funds, is roughly 2,000 per month, or 24,000 per year. 

Naturally, claimants whose hearings are not brought before a decision-maker of the response team in the next two months will wait to be scheduled like other claimants. Wait times before the <strong>Lacolle arrivals were already at approximately 16 months per person</strong>. Intake in the eastern region, in the month of September alone, was equal to the eastern region's intake for all of 2016.

Mr. Larry Maguire:
What kind of lag time would we see in that?

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
We have a 16-month wait time for our regular stream. But are you asking me about when the basis of claim form will be expected?
That practice notice is just a temporary practice notice. We’re going to wait to see probably until the end of November before we reconsider whether or not we suspend that practice notice in which case it would go back to 15 days.

Mr. Larry Maguire:
How do you keep track of those people in the meantime? Where are they?

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
If you go to our website, it says that you need to submit all the information around tombstone data, like address, and you have to keep us apprised of your changes of address and contact information. If you have counsel or if you have a consultant who is working with you, we need their contact information as well.
We are in contact with them about the scheduling and their claim processing.

Mr. Larry Maguire:
Are either of you aware of any process that CBSA or others would use to make sure they know where all the illegal immigrants that come across are in Canada at all times?

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
Do you mean by that, people who have crossed the border irregularly?

Mr. Larry Maguire:
Yes.

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
You have to ask CBSA but we all keep track of the claimants relative to the information they’ve given us. They are responsible for keeping all of us up to date on their changes of address and where they are in the country, which is how my colleague was able to describe where the secondary migration to other cities has happened.

Mr. Larry Maguire:
When you say “they”, is that information that immigration or CBSA has given you, or is it the individuals themselves?

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
The claimants are responsible for maintaining their files up to date. Like any court procedure, you would always be responsible to that tribunal for your information. These are very official processes with the claimants.

Mr. Larry Maguire:
You were saying there were 8,000 crossings since September 1, or was it July 1?

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
That’s the number that had been referred to us since July 1, and we don’t keep the statistics about the number of people crossing. We only become seized with the matter when the referral has been by CBSA or IRCC. Our data are always about our caseload, not about the number of people who have interfaced with IRCC or CBSA.


S3CA Appeal Dismissal: Quotes From Ruling

1. Previous Posts

CLICK HERE, for abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Prothonotary strikes out Statement of Claim.
CLICK HERE, for Uppity Peasants on the moral arguments.
CLICK HERE, for arguments to appeal S3CA dismissal.
CLICK HERE, for reply submissions in S3CA appeal.
CLICK HERE, for hypocrisy in Toronto/Vancouver cases.

2. Quotes From Ruling W/Feedback

Rule 221 is the rule which the original motion to strike was brought. However, the reason for citing the Toronto cases was another part of Rule 221, which prohibits inconsistent pleadings. More on that later

It’s interesting that these allegations are seen as bare assertions, when court protocol dictates that allegations be taken as fact at least in initial pleadings. Despite the abundance of evidence available about illegal crossings, they were considered “personal opinions” by the original Prothonotary.

This summary is actually pretty accurate here.

Okay, this isn’t too bad.

The Justice fails to mention that in the appeal motion there was an evidence affidavit submitted which contained plenty of evidence that the illegal crossings were going on.

Why was this not done initially? Because initial pleadings are not supposed to include evidence. And motions to strike are not allowed to contain evidence. So the appeal motion was the first opportunity to add proof.

And yes these are “discretionary”, meaning that Prothonotaries can essentially do what they like.

Yes, they should be read as generously as possible. This was not done here.

Some real mental gymnastics here. Wanting a secure border is cited, but apparently that doesn’t count for the purposes of asserting a personal interest. Nor is objecting unscreened/unvetted people into the country and posing a potential danger seen as asserting a personal interest.

Obviously, having a secure border benefits a person individually, as well as society as a whole. This is arguing for the sake of arguing.

Not sure what to make of this. The Appeal Justice asserts that providing security for the people is a legitimate state function, and that there is a real person interest in pursuing this.

However, despite having a real and recognized interest in the matter, it apparently doesn’t translate into having standing to bring such. I need to demonstrate how letting unvetted illegals into the country impacts me personally.

The million dollar question here: is protecting Canada’s borders a serious justifiable issue? Most people would probably agree that it is. As for (iii), where else could the matter be brought? If the politicians won’t fix it, then what remedies are available?

“If as the Plaintiff repeatedly asserts”…. Okay, is letting people simply bypass border controls because of the wording NOT a loophole?

Not a serious issue worth the court’s time, apparently.

Interesting how the court both claims:
(a) Material facts were not plead; and
(b) These are personal opinions are bare assertions

Yes, crossing the border illegally to get benefits one is not entitled to is unjust enrichment.

However, nice strawman. The “it’s not about money” line referred to stating this matter was not brought for personal enrichment. it was not that there was not money at stake paying for these fake refugees. This is being taken completely out of context.

This was addressed in a previous post. Currently, there are 3 cases in the Toronto Branch of Federal Court. These cases involve people trying to overturn the Safe 3rd Country Agreement altogether. It seems absurd that the Government can tell a Toronto Court that the S3CA is necessary, but tell a Vancouver Court that there is no need to close any loopholes.

There are the 3 cases.
They can be found online.
And yes, these files were cited in the appeal motion.

MOHAMMAD MAJD MAHER HOMSI ET AL v. MCI ET AL
Court File: #IMM-775-17

NEDIRA JEMAL MUSTEFA v. MIRC ET AL
Court File: #IMM-2229-17

THE CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES ET AL v. MIRC ET AL
Court File: #IMM-2977-17

Yet, Prothonotaries have broad discretion to rule things “opinion” even before evidence is allowed to be heard. The Court can simply “choose” to not hear certain matters, no matter how meritorious.

3. So, What Happens Now?

This ruling by Justice Crampton is nonsensical, and not something that can be ignored.

Guess the next step is Federal Court of Appeals.

What’s Really In U.S. Defense Bill S.1790

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Senate Bill S1790, signed Dec 21, 2019.
http://archive.is/81Hbp
CLICK HERE, for the PDF version.

2. Context For This Article

Donald Trump campaigned to become U.S. President in 2015 and 2016. He ran on an openly “America FIRST” platform. That sounded great, but is he living up to that promise?

Well, importing a replacement work force to put your own people out of their jobs isn’t really “America first”. However, it does provide lots of cheap labour, driving down wages.

That aside, what about defense spending? Donald Trump’s recent defense spending bill may provide some insight into how (if at all) that pledge is being kept.

3. Section 214: Affirmative Action Edu Research

SEC. 214. RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FOR HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND MINORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.
Section 2362 of title 10, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (e) and (f), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection
(c) the following new subsection: ‘‘
(d) INCENTIVES.—The Secretary of Defense may develop incentives to encourage research and educational collaborations between covered educational institutions and other institutions of higher education.’’.

Focusing on pandering to a group, instead of choosing the best people. Affirmative action is a failed concept, and we should be honest about it. Also see section 262 for mandating a study about it.

4. Section 223: Climate Change Policies

SEC. 223. DIRECT AIR CAPTURE AND BLUE CARBON REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
(a) PROGRAM REQUIRED.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Energy, and the heads of such other Federal agencies as the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate, shall carry out a program on research, development, testing, evaluation, study, and demonstration of technologies related to blue carbon capture and direct air capture. (2) PROGRAM GOALS.—The goals of the program established under paragraph (1) are as follows:
(A) To develop technologies that capture carbon dioxide from seawater and the air to turn such carbon dioxide into clean fuels to enhance fuel and energy security.
(B) To develop and demonstrate technologies that capture carbon dioxide from seawater and the air to reuse such carbon dioxide to create products for military uses.
(C) To develop direct air capture technologies for use—
(i) at military installations or facilities of the Department of Defense; or
(ii) in modes of transportation by the Navy or the Coast Guard.

Spoiler, but Carbon Dioxide is not pollution.

5. Section 229: Racial/Gender Diversity

SEC. 229. DIVERSIFICATION OF THE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING WORKFORCE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, shall conduct an assessment of critical skillsets required across, and the diversity of, the research and engineering workforce of the Department of Defense, including the science and technology reinvention laboratories, to support emerging and future warfighter technologies.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The assessment required by paragraph
(1) shall include analysis of the following:
(A) The percentage of women and minorities employed in the research and engineering workforce of the Department of Defense as of the date of the assessment.
(B) Of the individuals hired into the research and engineering workforce of the Department in the five years preceding the date of the assessment, the percentage of such individuals who are women and minorities

Who cares about the melanin and chromosomes of the engineers involved? Simply hire the best and most qualified people to begin with. There shouldn’t be any such considerations.

6. Section 529: Strategy For More Diversity

SEC. 529. STRATEGIC PLAN FOR DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION.
(a) PLAN REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall design and implement a five-year strategic plan for diversity and inclusion in the Department of Defense.
(b) ELEMENTS.—The strategic plan under this section—
(1) shall incorporate existing efforts to promote diversity and inclusion within the Department; and
(2) may not conflict with the objectives of the 2018 National Military Strategy.
(c) DEADLINE.—The Secretary shall implement the strategic plan under this section not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Whatever happened to simply selecting qualified people?

7. Section 540I: Race & Gender Crime Stats

SEC. 540I. ASSESSMENT OF RACIAL, ETHNIC, AND GENDER DISPARITIES IN THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall provide for the carrying out of the activities described in subsections (b) and (c) in order to improve the ability of the Department of Defense to detect and address racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in the military justice system.
(b) SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES.—The activities described in this subsection are the following, to be commenced or carried out (as applicable) by not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act:
(1) For each court-martial conducted by an Armed Force after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall require the head of the Armed Force concerned—
(A) to record the race, ethnicity, and gender of the victim and the accused, and such other demographic information about the victim and the accused as the Secretary considers appropriate;
(B) to include data based on the information described in subparagraph (A) in the annual military justice reports of the Armed Force.

Here’s a spoiler: 13% do 50%.
That’s according to the FBI.
Probably a true principle here as well.

8. Section 1123: Criminal Record Disclosure

Sure, let’s remove the mandatory advance disclosure about criminal records.

9. Section 1205: Gender Perspectives Req.

SEC. 1205. GENDER PERSPECTIVES AND PARTICIPATION BY WOMEN IN SECURITY COOPERATION ACTIVITIES.
Consistent with the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 (Public Law 115–68), the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, should seek to incorporate gender perspectives and participation by women in security cooperation activities to the maximum extent practicable.

At least Trudeau is open that he promotes this sort of thing. Here, it is slipped into a defense bill that is thousands of pages long.

10. Section 1215: Special Visa Reporting Req.

SEC. 1215. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM REPORTING REQUIREMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the Department of State shall submit a report, which may contain a classified annex, to—
(1) the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
(b) CONTENTS.—The report submitted under subsection
(a) shall evaluate the obstacles to effective protection of Afghan and Iraqi allies through the special immigrant visa programs and suggestions for improvements in future programs, including information relating to—
(1) the hiring of locally employed staff and contractors;
(2) documenting the identity and employment of locally employed staff and contractors of the United States Government, including the possibility of establishing a central database of employees of the United States Government and its contractors;
(3) the protection and safety of employees of locally employed staff and contractors;
(4) means of expediting processing at all stages of the process for applicants, including consideration of reducing required forms; (5) appropriate staffing levels for expedited processing domestically and abroad;
(6) the effect of uncertainty of visa availability on visa processing;
(7) the cost and availability of medical examinations; and
(8) means to reduce delays in interagency processing and security checks.

Serious question: will there be a pathway to citizenship for these visa holders?

11. Section 1219: Extending Afghan Visas

SEC. 1219. MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF THE AFGHAN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM.
(a) PRINCIPAL ALIENS.—Subclause
(I) of section 602(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended to read as follows: ‘‘(I) by, or on behalf of, the United States Government; or’’.
(b) EXTENSION OF AFGHAN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT PROGRAM.— Section 602(b)(3)(F) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended—
(1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘2015, 2016, AND 2017’’ and inserting ‘‘2015 THROUGH 2020’’;
(2) in the matter preceding clause
(i), by striking ‘‘18,500’’ and inserting ‘‘22,500’’;
(3) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘December 31, 2020’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2021’’; and
(4) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘December 31, 2020’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2021’’.

Interesting. This defense spending bill includes extending visas for Afghans, and issuing more of them. One might think this would be an immigration matter.

12. Section 1260I: Huawei Not Entirely Banned

SEC. 1260I. LIMITATION ON REMOVAL OF HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD. FROM ENTITY LIST OF BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Commerce may not remove Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. or any of its affiliates (in this section collectively referred to as ‘‘Huawei’’) from the entity list unless and until the Secretary certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that—
(1) Huawei has sufficiently resolved or settled the charges that were the basis for the addition of Huawei to the entity list in a manner that is consistent with the standards for the removal of an entity from the entity list under the Export Administration Regulations;
(2) Huawei has sufficiently resolved or settled any other charges that Huawei violated sanctions imposed by the United States;
(3) regulations have been implemented that sufficiently restrict exporting to, and importing from, the United States items that would pose a national security threat to telecommunications systems in the United States; and
(4) the Department of Commerce has mitigated, to the maximum extent possible, other threats to the national security of the United States posed by Huawei.

Why not just ban them outright? You do know that China uses it to spy on you and gather intel. Business interests should not override national security concerns.

13. Section 1749: Ban On Confederate Names

SEC. 1749. PROHIBITION ON NAMES RELATED TO THE CONFEDERACY.
(a) PROHIBITION ON NAMES RELATED TO THE CONFEDERACY.— In naming a new asset or renaming an existing asset, the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military department may not give a name to an asset that refers to, or includes a term referring to, the Confederate States of America (commonly referred to as the ‘‘Confederacy’’), including any name referring to—
(1) a person who served or held leadership within the Confederacy; or
(2) a Confederate battlefield victory.
(b) ASSET DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘asset’’ includes any base, installation, facility, aircraft, ship, equipment, or any other property owned or controlled by the Department of Defense or a military department.
(c) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section may be construed as requiring a Secretary concerned to initiate a review of previously named assets.

Way to erase a part of American history.

14. Section 5321: Climate Change Concerns

SEC. 5321. ESTABLISHMENT OF CLIMATE SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Title I of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3021 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section: ‘‘SEC. 120. CLIMATE SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL. ‘‘
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director of National Intelligence shall establish a Climate Security Advisory Council for the purpose of— ‘‘
(1) assisting intelligence analysts of various elements of the intelligence community with respect to analysis of climate security and its impact on the areas of focus of such analysts; ‘‘
(2) facilitating coordination between the elements of the intelligence community and elements of the Federal Government that are not elements of the intelligence community in collecting data on, and conducting analysis of, climate change and climate security; and ‘‘(3) ensuring that the intelligence community is adequately prioritizing climate change in carrying out its activities.

Yes, the military, which is in charge of keeping the nation safe will also have to factor climate change or “climate security” into everything that they do.

15. Section 5712: Chinese Infiltration?

SEC. 5712. REPORT ON BEST PRACTICES TO PROTECT PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF CHINESE AMERICANS.
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the People’s Republic of China appears to be specifically targeting the Chinese-American community for intelligence purposes;
(2) such targeting carries a substantial risk that the loyalty of such Americans may be generally questioned and lead to unacceptable stereotyping, targeting, and racial profiling;
(3) the United States Government has a duty to warn and protect all Americans including those of Chinese descent from these intelligence efforts by the People’s Republic of China;
(4) the broad stereotyping, targeting, and racial profiling of Americans of Chinese descent is contrary to the values of the United States and reinforces the flawed narrative perpetuated by the People’s Republic of China that ethnically Chinese individuals worldwide have a duty to support the People’s Republic of China; and
(5) the United States efforts to combat the People’s Republic of China’s intelligence activities should actively safeguard and promote the constitutional rights of all Chinese Americans.

I’m not convinced this is just a stereotype. China does send spies under pretenses of being students or being temporary workers. It is not paranoid or discriminatory to wonder about this. Ethnic ties ARE generally much stronger than civil ties.

16. Section 5713: Infiltration In Academia?!

SEC. 5713. OVERSIGHT OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE IN ACADEMIA.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) COVERED INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The term ‘‘covered institution of higher education’’ means an institution described in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002) that receives Federal funds in any amount and for any purpose.
(2) SENSITIVE RESEARCH SUBJECT.—The term ‘‘sensitive research subject’’ means a subject of research that is carried out at a covered institution of higher education that receives funds that were appropriated for—
(A) the National Intelligence Program; or
(B) any Federal agency the Director of National Intelligence deems appropriate.
(b) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and not less frequently than once each year thereafter, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with such elements of the intelligence community as the Director considers appropriate and consistent with the privacy protections afforded to United States persons, shall submit to congressional intelligence committees a report on risks to sensitive research subjects posed by foreign entities in order to provide Congress and covered institutions of higher education with more complete information on these risks and to help ensure academic freedom.
(c) CONTENTS.—The report required by subsection
(b) shall include the following:
(1) A list of sensitive research subjects that could affect national security.
(2) A list of foreign entities, including governments, corporations, nonprofit organizations and for-profit organizations, and any subsidiary or affiliate of such an entity, that the Director determines pose a counterintelligence, espionage (including economic espionage), or other national security threat with respect to sensitive research subjects.
(3) A list of any known or suspected attempts by foreign entities to exert pressure on covered institutions of higher education, including attempts to limit freedom of speech, propagate misinformation or disinformation, or to influence professors, researchers, or students.
(4) Recommendations for collaboration between covered institutions of higher education and the intelligence community to mitigate threats to sensitive research subjects associated with foreign influence in academia, including any necessary legislative or administrative action.

I don’t suppose any of those hordes of foreign students may be complicit in all of this? Foreign students, foreign funding, and U.S. taxpayers pick up the rest of the tab. What could possibly go wrong?

17. Section 6746: “Might” Allow Spies In?

SEC. 6746. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CONSIDERATION OF ESPIONAGE ACTIVITIES WHEN CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT TO PROVIDE VISAS TO FOREIGN INDIVIDUALS TO BE ACCREDITED TO A UNITED NATIONS MISSION IN THE UNITED STATES.
It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State, in considering whether or not to provide a visa to a foreign individual to be accredited to a United Nations mission in the United States, should consider—
(1) known and suspected intelligence activities, espionage activities, including activities constituting precursors to espionage, carried out by the individual against the United States, foreign allies of the United States, or foreign partners of the United States; and
(2) the status of an individual as a known or suspected intelligence officer for a foreign adversary.

Right. Don’t outright block and prohibit the people known or suspected to be involved in espionage. Instead, it should be “considered”.

18. Section 7438: Sunset Clause

SEC. 7438. SUNSET.
This title shall cease to be effective on the date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Okay, it expires in 5 years.

19. Section 7611: Liberian Refugees

SEC. 7611. LIBERIAN REFUGEE IMMIGRATION FAIRNESS.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise specifically provided, any term used in this Act that is used in the immigration laws shall have the meaning given the term in the immigration laws.
(2) IMMIGRATION LAWS.—The term ‘‘immigration laws’’ has the meaning given the term in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)).
(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (3), the Secretary shall adjust the status of an alien described in subsection (c) to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien—
(A) applies for adjustment not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act; (B) is otherwise eligible to receive an immigrant visa; and (C) subject to paragraph
(2), is admissible to the United States for permanent residence.

Why is an amnesty for Liberians slipped into this “defense spending” bill? How does it have anything to do with defense spending, or military capabilities?

20. Final Thoughts

Yes, there is some money for the wall (or rather, replacing sections of fencing). There’s also a ton of money for various weapons and toys.

But an awful lot of garbage that doesn’t need to be in there. There doesn’t seem to be any sign that Trump is ending, or even scaling down existing U.S. wars and military ventures.

How will all of this be paid for? Just put it on the national credit card of course. Annual deficits, or overall debts, no longer seem to matter to Federal politicians. All of this isn’t really “America first!”

Canadian Parliament Discusses Work Permits That Are Issued For Illegals

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for 42nd Parliament on illegals entering Canada.
http://archive.is/elDlW
CLICKI HERE, for September 28, 2017 meeting evidence.
http://archive.is/uxtIR
CLICK HERE, for October 3, 2017 meeting evidence.
http://archive.is/cAsj9
CLICK HERE, for the October 5, 2017 meeting evidence.
http://archive.is/H7uM7
CLICK HERE, for the May 3, 2018 meeting evidence.
http://archive.is/GBRrl
CLICK HERE, for the May 29, 2018 meeting evidence.
http://archive.is/zIFLn
CLICK HERE, for a 2001 StatsCan longitudinal study.

Previously On Canuck Law
https://canucklaw.ca/facts-figures-the-ugly-truth-about-replacement-migration-in-canada/
CLICK HERE, for the hypocrisy in Federal Court cases.
CLICK HERE, for abuse in Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for a small amnesty-for-illegals program in Toronto.
CLICK HERE, for a critique against sanctuary cities.
CLICK HERE, for 22M+ illegals in US, amnesties.

2. Context For This Piece

Canadians want secure borders. They don't want people just strolling in an staying on obviously bogus refugee/asylum claims. Understandably, they also want to know what their Parliament is doing about this issue.

And while our politicians, particularly "conservatives" repeatedly claim to be taking the issue very seriously, the records speak otherwise. So let's take a look at what exactly has been going on.

3. Witnesses And Meetings

May 29, 2018 (Meeting 112)
Canada Border Services Agency
Jacques Cloutier, Vice-President, Operations Branch

Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Mike MacDonald, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Government Operations Centre, Emergency Management and Programs Branch

House of Commons
Hon. Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Hon. Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Commr Brenda Lucki

May 3, 2018 (Meeting 108)
Canada Border Services Agency
Jacques Cloutier, Vice-President, Operations Branch

Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Louis Dumas, Director General, Domestic Network, Operations
Mike MacDonald, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Government Operations Centre, Emergency Management and Programs Branch

Immigration and Refugee Board
Greg Kipling, Director General, Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs Branch
Shereen Benzvy Miller, Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Protection Division

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Gilles Michaud, Deputy Commissioner, Federal Policing
Jamie Solesme, Superintendent, Federal Policing, Criminal Operations

October 5, 2017 (Meeting 73)
Canada Border Services Agency
Jacques Cloutier, Acting Vice-President, Operations

Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Michael MacDonald, Director General, Operations Sector
Paul MacKinnon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Niall Cronin, Director, North America Advocacy

Department of National Defence
BGen Lise Bourgon, Director General Operations, Strategic Joint Staff

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Government Operations Centre, Emergency Management and Programs Branch

House of Commons
Hon. Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Hon. Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Joanne Crampton, Assistant Commissioner, Federal Policing Criminal Operations

October 3, 2017 (Meeting 72)
Department of Citizenship and Immigration
André Baril, Director, Asylum Policy
Michael MacDonald, Director General, Operations Sector
Paul MacKinnon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Greg Kipling, Director General, Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs Branch
Shereen Benzvy Miller, Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Protection Division

September 28, 2017 (Meeting 71)
Canada Border Services Agency
Jacques Cloutier, Acting Vice-President, Operations

Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Louis Dumas, Director General, Domestic Network, Operations
Michael MacDonald, Director General, Operations Sector
Paul MacKinnon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Government Operations Centre, Emergency Management and Programs Branch

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Joanne Crampton, Assistant Commissioner, Federal Policing Criminal Operations

4. Sept 28, 2017 "Evidence"

Here are some quotes from the meeting. The topic of open work permits will be mentioned many times in these 5 meetings.

[Translation]
.
Through these measures, we are working to reduce the wait times for eligibility interviews from a few months to a few weeks, after which eligible claims are referred to the IRB.
[English]
This timely scheduling of eligibility interviews is crucial because in order to apply for an open work permit, an asylum seeker must first have their initial eligibility interview, have their claim referred to the IRB, and undergo an immigration medical examination.
.
To also help ease pressures, IRCC has begun to fast-track all work permit applications across Canada from asylum claimants with a commitment to process these within 30 days. In most cases, asylum claimants become eligible for interim federal health program, IFHP, coverage only after an officer has determined that their claim is eligible to be heard before the IRB. IFHP coverage is now available to asylum seekers who enter Canada between ports of entry in Lacolle, and are being processed on or after June 1, for those who have not yet had an eligibility interview.
.
To date, more than 5,600 persons have been issued this interim federal health program coverage under this special provision.
In closing, Chairs, IRCC, with the CBSA and all other partners in the federal family, continue to address irregular migration in accordance with Canadian and international law and in keeping with our values of an open and welcoming country.

A/Commr Joanne Crampton:
In terms of someone crossing the border between the ports of entry, the RCMP would intercept the person or persons. We then advise them that they are breaking the law under the Customs Act by crossing the border between ports of entry. The persons are then detained. Their possessions are searched to ensure there is no contraband or other illegal items. Their person is searched, because they are under arrest under the Customs Act. We then verify their identification. We do background checks and local indices checks, as well as international indices checks. If there is no noted criminality or concerns for national security and, once we have interviewed them and had a lengthy discussion as to where they came from and what their intentions are, if nothing negative comes as a result of that, we pass the individual over to Canada Border Services for further processing.

Mr. Jacques Cloutier:
At this point, for the CBSA, we receive the individual from the RCMP, as well as the information collected by the RCMP. We proceed with fingerprinting, taking of biometric information, and a cursory interview to elicit additional information. We verify identity. In those cases where we are satisfied that there are no immigration-related issues from an admissibility perspective, these individuals would be released on the terms and conditions and given an appointment to complete their eligibility interview. In cases where issues are discovered, several actions are taken immediately, including completing the interview for eligibility in its entirety, or proceeding with detention if the person is deemed to pose a risk to the public.

To be clear, the police are not detaining people illegally crossing the border for any length of time. Once identity (or who they allege to be) is determined, then they are released into Canada on a promise to appear.

Ms. Jenny Kwan:
If I may interrupt, I'll ask if you can share this information with the committee then. Has the federal government provided any additional resources to provinces with these asylum seekers, not just for the housing component but also to support the asylum seekers as they wait for their claims to be processed?
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
The federal government does not provide direct support to provinces for asylum seekers awaiting their claims. The support comes at the permanent resident granting determination process, afterwards. That being said, we have taken various measures to help the provinces and to help asylum seekers by expediting across Canada all work permit applications and trying to—
.
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
If I may interrupt then, how many work permit applications have been processed and approved?
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
About six or seven weeks ago, we had over 6,000 work permit applications for all asylum seekers across Canada in our inventory. That is now almost eliminated, and we are processing in under 30 days any new asylum seeker's work permit that is coming in from across Canada. We are doing those in well under 30 days. The idea is to help people get into the work force quicker.

Exactly, Very few if them will ever be forced to leave Canada. This is about putting them to work as cheap labour. Funny how the "conservatives" seem less apprehensive about illegals in this context.

Mr. Michael MacDonald:
The key to this from our perspective is allowing all asylum claimants to get their work permit faster and be able to enter the workforce if they have to.
.
At the same time, we work with community organizations as part of our regular outreach, and we do that across Canada so partnerships and getting that work permit is the key.

5. October 3, 2017 "Evidence"

After a claim is made, individuals may also apply for social assistance, which is the responsibility of provinces and territories. To help ease pressure on the social assistance budgets of provincial governments, IRCC has been fast-tracking work permit applications for all asylum claimants across Canada with a 30-day service standard.
.
In recent weeks, the government has also taken a number of steps to inform people in Canada and the United States of the facts regarding the asylum process here in Canada and to dispel false information. We are spreading the word that temporary protected status in the United States does not automatically entitle anyone to any status in our country. Some asylum claimants have believed this.

This is a bit of a review from the last meeting.

Two, many of the claimants who appear before the board are vulnerable and suffer from mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, as a result of the trauma suffered in their homeland. So far in 2017, 93% of claimants required the assistance of an interpreter. We have the capacity to provide this service in 240 languages and dialects.
.
Three, in addition, the RPD members must be up to date on the developments of the law and must be experts on the country conditions of 126 countries so far in 2017, most of which are constantly in flux.

Wow, 93% of those coming in have such a poor grasp of English and French that they need an interpreter. Sure, we'll be able to put them to work in no time.

It is in that context that the Refugee Protection Division developed its approach to respond to the influx of refugee claimants crossing the Quebec border. The fact that many of those refugee claimants are living in temporary tents and do not have work permits has created a number of problems, both for the refugee claimants and for the Refugee Protection Division's processing of refugee claims.
.
First, since a large number of those refugee claimants were in a very precarious situation in Canada, fairness required that the Refugee Protection Division use all means available to process the refugee claims quickly. That means we have to prioritize the processing of as many cases as possible, to the extent that our resources permit, while meeting our overall mandate. Therefore, on August 11, we immediately created a response team, which will be active from September until the end of November.

Mr. Marwan Tabbara (Kitchener South—Hespeler, Lib.):
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today.
.
I want to talk about the work permits. You were here before to testify, Mr. MacDonald, and you discussed work permit applications as one of the measures that the government is taking to respond to the influx of asylum seekers in Quebec. I just want to read out something to you. The Canadian workers to retiree ratio today is 4:1, and by 2035 it will be 2:1.
.
Can you say that there's a correlation, knowing that we have an aging population, with our admitting a lot of work permits, because this is great for our economy and we need this to fuel our economy? We know the numbers of our aging population and we want to fill those gaps.
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
I suspect there will be in a downstream effort if one were to draw that comparison. However, the most important point of the asylum seekers' experience at this stage, their journey towards possibly being accepted and then into settlement, is to get them as established as quickly as possible to help their settlement into Canadian society. That is the real goal of the work permit for today, in the present.

Here we get some more blunt honesty. The real reason we are letting so many people in with bogus "asylum" claims is because we are looking for a replacement work force. And while the overwhelming majority of these cases are fake, certainly we will be able to accommodate these new "Canadians".

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Surrey Centre, Lib.):
Thank you.
This question is to IRCC.
How many work permits have been issued to foreign national claimants who arrived at irregular points of entry this year?
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
The data I have is not quite broken down like that, but I will give you some data that is very helpful nonetheless. Prior to August 24, which was when the minister made the decision to issue work permits, we had issued 5,913 of those permits. Since August 24, we have issued 3,902. Further along, I think a very important point, which again references what I mentioned last week, is that we committed to process work permits, post-August 24, in under 30 days. Our average processing time is 13 days.
.
Mr. Randeep Sarai:
Can you describe how many or what percentage of refugee claimants are finding gainful employment? Are you tracking that? Are you able to track that with this particular cohort versus the other refugees who come through ports of entry?
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
No, we don't track finding gainful employment. They're open work permits, so people can obviously find employment and then move to other employment. The natural course of people in their settlement process is finding employment and going forward.
.
Mr. Randeep Sarai:
I can rephrase that. How many are you finding who are getting employment versus going on social assistance? That's probably what I'm trying to get at.
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
Unfortunately, our department does not track that level of detail more or less at the municipal level, people finding employment in their home communities.
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
There are two parts to my response.
First, you are correct in your statement that the government-assisted refugee overseas selection has nothing to do with this and the work permits that are processed. We do know for the Lacolle movement that the Government of Quebec is very quickly moving to help people get their social assistance cheques while many of them are still in the interim lodging sites. If you don't have a work permit, one would assume in the Lacolle movement you're on social assistance and vice versa.

Serious question here: is issuing these open work permits a way of relieving the financial burden, or was this always the goal (let fake refugees in as a form of cheap labour)?

6. October 5, 2017 "Evidence"

We figured out a way to fast-track work permit applications from asylum claimants across Canada in order to alleviate the pressure on the social assistance budgets of provincial governments. This is an issue that was raised by the Government of Quebec, and we moved quickly to establish a new 30-day service standard for work permit applications so that asylum seekers may support themselves and become self-sufficient while they await the final decision on their claims. This minimizes the impact they have on provincial social assistance programs.
.
Similarly, we have built in flexibility to ensure that asylum seekers are covered under the interim federal health program immediately after background checks are completed, but while they are awaiting their initial hearing. This is important because we want to ensure that public health is protected, that asylum seekers have access to basic care, and that there is no undue burden on hospital emergency rooms and provincial health care budgets.

Sure, people who have no secure status in Canada (93% speak limited English of French), and no real means or skills will suddenly go find jobs. And who will support such precarious employees?

7. May 3, 2018, 2017 "Evidence"

Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Thank you.
Mr. MacDonald, you just mentioned that we would welcome the DACA cohort through an economic immigration stream, as they are skilled. Who is “we”?
.
Mr. Mike MacDonald:
I think Canada overall and the labour market needs within Canada is the “we” when you look at a high-skilled labour market that could be there, which would benefit the country.
.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Have you or has anybody in your department brought up a proposal for an economic stream regarding the DACA migration class to the minister?
.
Mr. Mike MacDonald:
I'm not aware of any analysis specifically on the DACA cohort, other than what you see in the media.

8. May 29, 2018, 2017 "Evidence"

Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
Thank you very much.
.
My visit to Nigeria was very productive. I visited the capital city of Abuja, as well as the commercial capital city of Lagos. In Abuja I met the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Interior, and on the same day I met the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Nigeria. I was able to indicate to both officials what we were facing. I made it very clear that, overall, the number of Nigerians coming regularly to Canada is actually high. There are a lot of visitors and tourists as well as international students and people who come through the express entry system, as well as the provincial nominee program.
.
In fact, the number that is coming irregularly is smaller than the regular numbers. However, it is an issue, and I emphasized to them the need for that government to co-operate closely with Canada on the issue of reiterating the message that we are always making, which is that we welcome newcomers, but we want people to come through regular migration.
.
The second request I had of the Nigerian government was that they should work closely with us to expedite the issuing of travel documents for Nigerian nationals who have exhausted the procedures and are set to be removed from Canada. On both of those requests, the Nigerian government officials I met, including the foreign minister, were clearly supportive and indicated very clearly that they will work with us on both those issues.
.
Very quickly, I also met representatives of various media outlets in Nigeria to, again, make the point that we value the contributions that Nigerian Canadians have made to our country, but that irregular migration is an issue. I also met civil society organizations who were very kind to let me know some of the challenges, some of the misinformation that was being fed to some of these officials.

So why exactly are we allowing Nigerian "refugee claimants" into Canada? They clearly aren't in danger, so this is all a total scam.

Hon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC):
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On May 23, in the Stanstead Journal, the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie was quoted as saying, “We had [a lot of] calls from local businesses last year telling us they would gladly go pick them up there and hire them,” since Canada is short on manpower and the influx of people entering illegally through Roxham Road is welcomed by a lot of people.
Do the ministers share the opinion of their colleague?
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
The fact of the matter is that the issue of issuing work permits to asylum seekers was something that was brought to us through the intergovernmental task force on irregular migration. It was brought forward by the Province of Quebec. They felt that it was important for the federal government to help the Province of Quebec and other provinces expedite the issuing of work permits so that asylum seekers can support themselves as opposed to relying on provincial social services, and we've done that.
.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
The sentiment the Minister of International Development expressed is that it's a good thing that people are illegally entering the country, and that this was a way to meet Canada's labour needs. Is that now Canada's policy?
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
The provinces have indicated their preference for asylum seekers to support themselves while they await their hearings, to work, and for us to assist them in expediting the issuing of work permits, which we have done, from three months to three weeks—

Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Just in the interest of time, I'd like a yes or no answer. Does the minister want to stop the vast influx of people illegally crossing the border at Roxham Road from the United States?
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
Yes.

Rempel seems to have done a 180. Now she seems to have a problem with people entering illegally, even if they are of economic value. And how valuable can they be, if 93% of people need an interpreter when they arrived in Canada?

9. Is Cheap Labour The Real Goal?

139. Immigration by Temporary Workers The Conservative Party recognizes that temporary workers can be a valuable source of potential immigrants because of their work experience in Canada. We believe the government should:
i. continue development of pilot projects designed to address serious skills shortages in specific sectors and regions of the country, and that attract temporary workers to Canada;
ii. examine ways to facilitate the transition of foreign workers from temporary to permanent status; and

AS has been shown before, Article 139 of the CPC Policy Declaration is to create new immigration pilot programs, and, to transition TEMPORARY workers into PERMANENT residents.

10. How Many Are Really Working?

Consider this StatsCan report from 2001. Table 4 includes employment rates. Just 21% of "refugees" in the 15-24 year group were employed years later. The 25-44 group was marginally better, at 25%.

So, a lot of welfare cases, bringing their foreign cultures and often incompatible views with them. But hey, diversity is our strength.

Public Policy #9: The Case For A Moratorium On Immigration

It is easy to target illegal entries into the country. Without borders, and enforcement of those borders, the nation ceases to exist. Everyone should be against illegal entries, sanctuary cities, voting rights and access to social services for those in the country illegally.

That being said, the mass LEGAL immigration is actually a much larger problem.

People excluded from Canada for various reasons (such as criminality, serious criminality, organized criminality, non-compliance, terrorism or human rights violations) should stay excluded. Global News reported on a program which brought in 3,000 people since 2010 under Rule 25.1 of IRPA, but omitted another 186,000 “inadmissibles” allowed in under Rule 24(1) of IRPA from 2002 to 2017. Considering we don’t even track people leaving the country, it’s hard to say where they are.

In recent years, we have been taking in a million people LEGALLY into Canada. In 2017, for instance, we had 950,000 people enter through regular immigration channels, refugee claims, and various temporary programs. This does not include visitors or illegals.

To start off with: our governments lie about the total number of people entering annually. Categories such as student visas (students and their families), temporary foreign workers, & International Mobility Program bring in hordes of people — are not temporary. These groups generally have access to a permanent residency pathway, and other ways to stay longer. There are several pilot programs underway on top of these, including a small amnesty-for-illegals program in Toronto. Heck, we even expedite work permits for fake refugees sneaking in from the U.S.

Even if these temporary workers were to go home (and many don’t), there is the topic of remittances. According to the World Bank, hundreds of billions of dollars are sent from the West annually. How does it help our economy when money is pulled from it?

Perhaps we can replace the money lost via remittances with money from selling investor visas, regardless of how well the business does.

Bringing in large numbers of people as cheap labour results in our own citizens having to compete against foreign, often subsidized labour. It does a huge disservice to those who really need the help.

Importing students at this scale means that Canadian graduates are forced to compete against others for a limited number of jobs. This is includes professional and skilled programs. How does it benefit Canadian graduates to have their prospects cut out like that? Does the downward pressure on wages help? How does it benefit other nations when their talent leaves is a sort of brain-drain?

It doesn’t seem to matter if the “students” are really students.

Considering all the fuss about environmentalism and climate change, answer one question. How does mass immigration remove or minimize stresses to the eco-system? How does clearing new areas for farming and housing avert this climate emergency that we are supposedly in?

The overwhelming majority of immigration coming into Canada over the last several decades is of 3rd World, non-European migrants (80 to 90%). A quick glance at the top 10 “source” countries tells the same story year after year: (a) China; (b) India; (c) the Philippines; and (d) an awful lot of Muslims. Multicultis and Civic Nationalists — which are the same thing — tell us that people who have nothing in common with each other can form a cohesive society based on abstract “values”. It’s nonsense. While other groups want to retain their identity, why are Europeans considered bigots for attempting the same?

The result is predictable: enclaves forming in the major cities, such as Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. In reality, multiculturalism is a lie that never works out as planned. Balkanization is not diversity. Furthermore, it is not a lack of screening, but the deliberate efforts to forcibly remake Canada.

The breakdown of social cohesion is obvious. And anyone who has read Robert Putnam’s study will see why.

At the heart of this is the replacement agenda going on in Western nations. Canada, for example, was 96% European, according to the 1971 census. It was 72% based on the 2016 census, and still falling. Europeans will be a minority in the next decade unless something drastic happens.

This is about preserving the foundation of European nations and ones formed in that image. Replacing the population replaces the culture and the history. It doesn’t matter to me whether it is replacement by Muslims, or by high IQ, high skill Asians. I still don’t want it, and nor should others. Call it tribalism, but Westerners should be allowed to protect their identities too.

We also now have a program for survivors of domestic abuse to apply for temporary, or even permanent residence. Guess that’s what happens with importing violent cultures.

It never seems to dawn on “conservatives” that bringing in large numbers of people from left-leaning nations means political suicide. Demographic shifts will make their ideology completely unelectable. Their only concerns seem to be: (a) come legally; (b) be economically productive; and (c) don’t be a terrorist. But beyond that, conservatives have no will to preserve their people, culture, heritage, and traditions.

While the solution may seem to be to import more Europeans, they cannot be spared as THEY are being replaced in their homelands as well. Europe is being flooded with Middle Eastern and African “refugees” and migrants. We cannot help ourselves at the Europeans’ expense. Still, we must resist the replacement here.

For these reasons, and other facts and figures, I support a moratorium on immigration into Canada. With a more complete picture of the actual situation in Canada, many more people should agree.

Canadian HoC Foreign Affairs Committee Endorses UN Parliament In 1993, And Again In 2007

(Canada’s House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee approved the idea of a UN Parliament in 1993, and again in 2007)

1. Important Links

https://canucklaw.ca/un-parliamentary-assembly-proposed-a-k-a-global-government/

CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia listings on topic.
http://archive.is/mslRy
CLICK HERE, for archive of 1993, 8th Report, Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, House of Commons, Parliament of Canada, Spring 1993, chaired by Hon. Jon Bosley. (archive)
CLICK HERE, for February 1996 for UN Parliament.
http://archive.is/e9IMH
CLICK HERE, for the 2007 FAC Standing Report, Democratic Development.
CLICK HERE, for “conservative” Senator Douglas Roche.

CLICK HERE, for the actual link to the proposal.
http://archive.is/GMgwO
CLICK HERE, for supposed research data.
http://archive.is/KpIqW
CLICK HERE, for Canadian politicians who support this.
http://archive.is/P7ZS9

CLICK HERE, for First UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2007
http://archive.is/NKaj8
http://archive.is/kRdVJ
CLICK HERE, for Second UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2008
http://archive.is/z1jUo
http://archive.is/tNX9Z
CLICK HERE, for Third UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2009.
http://archive.is/5lMyX
http://archive.is/dXbo6
CLICK HERE, for Fourth UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2010.
http://archive.is/dXbo6
CLICK HERE, for Fifth UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2013.
http://archive.is/xloAX
http://archive.is/I4Mtb

2. Context For This Article

While the story of the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) is still in the news, it is still a theory, at least for now.

However, Canada’s globalist politicians have been at it since well before 2007. In fact, Brian Mulroney’s Government originally approved the idea in 1993.

Why should Canadians care? Well, if you think getting fair and adequate representation from Ottawa is difficult, try getting it from a global government.

3. Timeline For UN Parliament

  • Spring 1993 – CDA HoC Foreign Affairs Comm endorses UNPA
  • July 1995 – Brian Mulroney replaced by Campbell as PM
  • October 1993 – Jean Chretien elected as PM
  • 1996 – Support in Chretien’s Gov’t for UNPA
  • 2002 – Sen. Douglas Roche endorses UNPA
  • January 2006 – Harper replaces Martin as PM
  • July 2007 – CDA HoC Foreign Affairs Comm endorses UNPA
  • August 2007 – Bernier replaces MacKay as FA Minister
  • November 2007 – First UNPA Int’l Meeting, Switzerland
  • November 2008 – Second UNPA Int’l Meeting, Belgium
  • October 2009 – Third UNPA International Meeting, USA
  • July 2010 – Trudeau endorses UNPA as an MP
  • October 2010 – Fourth UNPA Int’l Meeting, Argentina
  • October 2013 – Fifth UNPA Int’l Meeting, Belgium
  • September 2015 – Harper signs Agenda 2030
  • October 2015 – Trudeau replaces Harper as PM
  • 4. Quotes From 1993 Standing Comm Report

    The decline in Canadian support for things international – and the decline is palpable – is explained more by loss of self-confidence among Canadians than by lack of caring. There is no more important task before us than to recover some of that confidence and no more important means of doing so than through the empowerment of the United Nations. People must see that the centre can hold and that they have a role to play in making it so.

    By way of building the public and political constituency for the United Nations, the Committee recommends that Canada support the development of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (21) and that we offer to host the preparatory meeting of the Assembly in the Parliament Buildings as the centrepiece in our celebration of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in 1995. We would further recommend that the Government work closely with the national organizing committee for the 50th anniversary and encourage the active participation of non-governmental organizations in the planning and holding of the Assembly.

    Conclusion
    .
    In closing this long letter the Committee wishes to commend the Government for being one of the few that has contributed energetically to keeping An Agenda for Peace alive. But alive is not good enough. Much more needs to be done. The proposals of the Secretary General should be the beginning of a vital international process of reform and renewal of the United Nations system. Canada should work hard to help make it so. The Committee intends to keep the empowerment of the UN high on its agenda and to hold additional hearings in the new session of Parliament. We would ask that the Minister respond in writing to this letter by early May.

    This is what it sounds like. The Mulroney Government, which calls itself “conservative”, has the Foreign Affairs Committee approve in principle participation in a United Nations Parliament.

    Note: Mulroney had a huge majority at that time, so there was no real need to get opposition approval on this. So no one can say he was pressured into doing it.

    5. Approval Of UNPA In 1996

    In recent years the demands on the United Nations have increased. In response, the organization has been given more autonomous powers and responsibilities. At the same time, it is necessary that the UN maintain support for its actions and decisions of the world’s citizens and governments. Creation of a UN Parliamentary Assembly is a vital first step in this process of democratizing the United Nations and ensuring its legitimacy in the eyes of world public opinion.

    The European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), demonstrate the important contributions that supranational parliamentary bodies can make to the work of international institutions. The history of both of these supranational parliaments also demonstrates the important, indeed essential, role in their creation to be undertaken by committed national parliamentarians.

    Under Andrº Ouellet, Canadian foreign policy was distinguished primarily by its emphasis on international trade issues. Trade promotion overshadowed some other progressive initiatives taken by Canada, notably Canada’s work at the UN on creation of an International Criminal Court, and the Canadian peacekeeping proposal (entitled Toward a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations) which was presented at last Fall’s session of the UN General Assembly.

    As Foreign Affairs critic when the Liberals were in opposition, Lloyd Axworthy was a strong proponent of arms control and human rights issues and is a strong advocate of improved multilateral institutions. Many analysts expect that under Mr. Axworthy these international law and ‘world order’ issues will become a greater priority.

    In the Spring of 1993, the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade (SCEAIT) brought forward a report on Canada’s role in the United Nations. One of the Committee’s three recommendations called for Canada to support creation of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA), and for Canada to host the preparatory meeting of the Assembly in the Canadian Parliament Buildings. Following release of the SCEAIT Report, an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians and non-governmental representatives was established to build political support for a UNPA. Lloyd Axworthy was among a handful of Liberals who participated in the ad hoc Committee’s two meetings. Unfortunately, very little was accomplished before the 1993 general election was called and the 1993 session of the House of Commons ended.

    The New Liberal Chretien Government shares the globalist appetite and ideas that the previous Mulroney Government did. More support for creating of the actual world government.

    6. Senator Douglas Roche & UNPA, 2002

    The arguments below contain these assumptions in their essence. However, it is understood (perhaps reluctantly) that world federalism and the end of the state system is not in the mainstream political agenda for a contemporary UN. The objectives of UN reform and addressing issues of international governance are reasonable and feasible in contemporary politics. Implications for a Kantian vision of world federalism can be bruited, but at this point not much more.1 A UNPA would not be a world parliament, although some supporters and detractors of a UNPA think of it as a step towards a form of world government or global federalism.

    World government is not a necessary criterion in discussing a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. World government is not the case here. What is at issue is governance, by which is commonly understood to be the regulation of an increasingly complex and interconnected world comprising States, societies, corporations, individuals and epistemic communities.

    The question of a UNPA, then, becomes one relating to a UNPA within the UN system and a UNPA within both the growing interconnectedness of trans-national politics and existing networks of global governance. Governance, transparency, democracy, diplomacy and international norms of behaviour – how states behave when their affairs are so intertwined – these are the issues in the background when discussing the formation of a UNPA.4 Specifically discussed below are those aspects of these phenomena that today seem to drive the argument for a UNPA.

    Some nice double speak here. Senator Roche is trying to argue that a United Nations Parliament would not actually amount to a world government. Okay.

    7. Quotes From 2007 Standing Comm Report

    CHAPTER 8 CANADA’S ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND MULTILATERAL APPROACHES TO DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT
    [W]e need democracy as a basis of a safer world, we need democracy as the basis for a just system of international relations …
    Her Excellency Nino Burjandze, Speaker of the Parliament of Georgia

    The Committee has already made reference in previous chapters to Canada’s welcomed multilateralist approach to democratic development and to its valued contribution to multilateral bodies. We believe that should be continued, and enhanced where most effective, as part of the evaluation of all Canadian support for international democratic development that we have recommended.
    The Committee observes as well that international organizations are increasingly expanding their work into all areas of democratic development and governance. For example, in our meeting at the Commonwealth Secretariat, its Secretary General told the Committee that the Secretariat is trying to work both at the cultural level and with parliaments and political parties on understanding the role of the opposition and on introducing accountability measures. Mr. Christopher Child, Advisor and Head of the Democracy Section, commented that “we’d like to do much more party training.” Strengthening party systems has also become an important area of work for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Systems (IDEA). The role of political parties in democracy-building was the subject of the Council of Europe Forum for the Future of Democracy which took place in Moscow in October 2006 with the involvement of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to which Canada sends observers.

    The World Bank, to which Canada is an important contributor through the Department of Finance, is not allowed by its Charter to take into account the nature of the political regime, hence its role in “political development is obviously constrained,” as Sanjay Pradhan, Sector Director in the Public Sector Governance Unit told the Committee in Washington, D.C. However, within a broader conception of good governance that is linked to democratic development: “We are doing a lot in terms of accountability of the state to its citizens.” So the Bank works on things that might be considered “building blocks” of democracy. Mr. Pradhan distributed a paper “How Ongoing Operations of the World Bank Currently Strengthen Participation and Accountability,” which lists six major program areas for Bank interventions. One of these includes “parliamentary capacity development.”

    Mr. Steen Lau Jorgensen, Director of the Bank’s Sustainable Development Network, elaborated that the Bank has programs directly involving local communities in development decisions, thereby increasing the effectiveness of projects. In the Bank’s experience, more open countries do much better in achieving their development goals. The Bank therefore has an interest in building the capacity of civil society and it now even gets close to election-related processes, as in Ivory Coast where it is helping with the compiling of a national registration list. In this case, the Bank is working with the EU and the UN and through the country’s prime minister’s office. Registration is not just about elections but about establishing citizen’s eligibility for social services.

    As Mr. Jorgensen put it, there has been a “fundamental change in mindset” towards seeing poor people as citizens having rights and responsibilities. The Bank’s consequent shift away from major infrastructure projects since the late 1980s has been approved by its Board. The Bank sees this as linked to development effectiveness, which incorporates a good governance and anti-corruption agenda. For example, in the public procurement process, the Bank has established oversight through a “Procurement Watch” mechanism, and it now has a “zero tolerance” policy on corruption in World Bank-supported projects. Mention was also made of a “Global Integrity Alliance” as part of an anti-corruption strategy involving leaders in the recipient countries.

    The role of a major international financial institution like the World Bank is noteworthy in another sense, since many believe that these powerful international organizations are not themselves sufficiently democratically accountable to the publics in the countries which make up their memberships. Several of the Committee’s witnesses addressed the issue of the need to advance democratization processes from the local and national levels of governance, to the dimension of global governance. For example, John Foster of the North-South Institute referred to the Finnish-supported “Helsinki Process” which produced a 2005 Report, Governing Globalization-Globalizing Governance, that made recommendations for democratizing oversight of the global economy and strengthening the role of parliamentarians and civil society in that regard. He also made reference to the work of the Forum International de Montreal — which gets most of its funding from non-Canadian sources — and to the Spanish-based “World Forum of Civil Society Networks and its Campaign for an In-Depth Reform of the System of International Institutions…”

    The presentation to the Committee by the World Federalist Movement — Canada also devoted a lot of attention to advancing democratization at the level of international institutions, in particular in the context of United Nations reforms. Indeed it noted that this Committee in 1993 had supported the concept of a parliamentary assembly at the UN, and it went on to state:
    In April 2007, the Committee for a democratic UN (an NGO organizing network working with parliamentarians) will present publicly the “International Appeal for the Establishment of a United National Parliamentary Assembly, at press conferences around the world. Following the Appeal launch in April, an international parliamentary conference is planned for October 2007 in Geneva.

    The World Federalist representatives urged the Committee to give favourable consideration to this international appeal. We note as well that the European Parliament has supported the establishment of UN Parliamentary Assembly as part of overall UN reform, most recently in a resolution of June 9, 2005.

    In terms of working through international organizations, the biggest of all is of course the UN system. Most of the UN funding related to democratic development and governance goes through the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Indeed, when the Committee met with the UNDP’s Pippa Norris, Director of the Democratic Governance Group, Bureau of Development Policy, and other senior staff (many of them Canadians) at the UN in New York, it was noted that this group is the largest within the UNDP.

    Ms. Norris shared with the Committee the group’s Strategic Plan, 2008-2011, and explained that its mandate in the area of democratic governance comes from various UN sources including the Millennium Declaration and a General Assembly resolution in 2000, the 2002 statement Democratic Governance Practice in UNDP, and a recent high-level panel report Delivering As One. Documents provided to the Committee included the UNDP’s Global Programme on Parliamentary Strengthening, on Support for Arab Parliaments, on Strengthening the Role of Parliaments in Reconstruction and the Prevention of Conflicts, and the annual report of its Democratic Governance Thematic Trust Fund. There was also a briefing note on CIDA-UNDP collaboration in Afghanistan. On gender issues, the Committee was told that an international knowledge network on women and politics was to be launched in February 2007, centred on an on-line tool to help education in this area. In addition, the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) does a lot of work on civic education for women. On electoral assistance, it was noted that collaboration between Elections Canada and UNDP goes back as far as Cambodia in 1993. However, another Canadian staff member Elissar Sarrouh (Policy Advisor, Public Administration Reform) — who formerly worked at the Parliamentary Centre — added that Elections Canada is always short of resources. So when countries express interest in having Canadian expertise, sometimes the resources are not there.

    On the UN’s work on election processes, the Committee also met with Craig Jenness (again, a Canadian), Director of the Electoral Assistance Division within the Department for Political Affairs, who explained that this takes the form both of direct electoral support, and work on electoral best practices. Rather than election observation, the UN focuses either on providing assistance to electoral offices in host countries, or on assisting with electoral operations as part of peacekeeping missions in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Haiti. The budget is relatively small, with a dozen people at headquarters, although a large roster of people — including many Canadians — work around the world. Also, there is a small trust fund to allow the quick deployment of people when necessary to places like Nepal. Some 102 UN member states — and four non-member states have requested electoral assistance since 1992, and over 30 countries are now receiving or have requested such assistance — most of them in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

    One important reason UN help is requested is that this helps legitimate the result and get it accepted — for example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The UN does not work with countries unless asked by the host government or there is a Security Council mandate. The UN tries to not run elections themselves, but to assist the host government in setting up the necessary structures to do so. In post-conflict situations, a problem that often comes up is that everyone wants to win an election, but it is often difficult to convince the losers that there is a real role for oppositions. According to Mr. Jenness, “parliamentarians can help” with that since they can talk to colleagues in other countries on a peer-to-peer basis.

    Before turning to UN’s innovation of a “Democracy Fund” in 2005, and Canada’s potential role in that, it is important to recognize that notwithstanding all of this work, many questions still surround the UN’s involvement in democratic development, as well as that of international organizations such as the Community of Democracies or alternatives, which can be more explicit than the UN about their pro-democracy aims since their memberships are limited to at least nominally democratic states.

    In observing that “the UN has often been in a situation where it has been an advocate of democracy”, Jane Boulden, Canada Research Chair in International Relations and Security Studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, told the Committee:
    There are a number of member states that are not happy about the fact that the UN should play a role in advocating democracy, even when it comes to post-conflict situations where parties have agreed to democracy as part of the peace agreement.
    This relates partly to the ongoing questions about sovereignty. With the responsibility to protect, for example, there’s been an increasing acceptance that sovereignty is not sacrosanct, and for those who are resistant to these ideas, the idea that democratization or democracy is an important universal value is seen as yet another hook that western states can use as a criterion for intervention in states.

    If democracy is to be put forward as a universal value, we need to be able to make that case more effectively than we are now. That’s a factor the United Nations is grappling with, but I think it goes across the board for states as well. On this point, the questions of perceptions relate as well to the image or the perception in a number of states that the UN engages in a number of double standards. Why do we, through the United Nations, react to some conflicts and by extension then deal with some post-conflict scenarios with resources and commitment, and not others? When we feed that into the broader question about whether democracy is a western value or not, you can see how the whole package becomes an issue.

    Scepticism about UN multilateralism combined with the need to engage the United States multilaterally has led to various alternatives being suggested. For example, two prominent U.S. scholars have recently made a detailed proposal for the establishment of a 60-member “Concert of Democracies.”

    Yet to get around the fact that the UN includes many non-democracies, there has already been the creation of the Community of Democracies in 2000, with Canada as a founding member, and which met for the first time at the UN in 2004 as a UN “Democracy Caucus”. The Committee was told during our New York meetings in February 2007 that the 100-member “Caucus” is currently chaired by Mali, which is also an active member of the Group of New and Restored Democracies. His Excellency, Cheick Sidi Diarra, Ambassador and Permament Representative to the UN of Mali, was among a group of UN ambassadors and permanent representatives with whom the Committee met. We have already referred in Chapter 4 to Canada’s participation in the Community of Democracies (CD). One of our Canadian witnesses, Jeffrey Kopstein argued that, given the UN’s weaknesses and limitations, the CD should be bolstered. In Washington, where we met with Richard Rowson, President of the CD’s Council, Theodore Piccone, Director of the Democracy Coalition Project (and representative of the Club of Madrid in Washington) argued that “Canada should be a member of the [CD] Convening Group,” and that notwithstanding our multi-lateralist reputation, Canada “has been mostly at the margins in this regard.”
    Others were less convinced of the CD’s effectiveness. Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Committee that the CD defines its democracy membership criteria too broadly and is too large to be a meaningful actor. Thomas Melia, Deputy Director of Freedom House told the Committee in Washington that the Convening Group of the CD represents in part the strategic interests of the member governments. For example, Morocco is a member although it does not meet the democracy criteria. Mr. Melia also had some cautionary words on trying for global coordination, stating that “a lot of effort can be diverted into coordination.” Instead he saw the need for “complementarity,” and “the way to pursue that is to build one’s niche.”
    Gareth Evans, President of the International Crisis Group, has also cautioned:

    Don’t pin too many hopes on Democracy Caucuses and similar grand international strategies. While in principle an attractive idea, there are simply too many institutional and interest differences between democratic countries for a united front to be sustained on anything very much, and it is not at all clear that the tentative moves to create such mechanisms have so far placed any useful pressure on non-democracies, or generated any net positive returns.

    At the same time, Mr. Evans, who remains a strong believer in a strengthened and reformed UN system, points out that individual democratic countries, notably those with great-power interests such as the U.S., are often not the best placed to promote democratic development. Even if, as several U.S. witnesses told the Committee, Canada is sometimes able to do things that the U.S. cannot, Canada cannot go it alone in this field either. Mr. Evans argues that: “One way to have an impact without such visible badging [association with Western big-power interests] is working through collaboration with multilateral coordinating mechanisms in the UN and elsewhere — the new UN Democracy Fund now getting off the ground will hopefully prove of real utility in this respect.”

    The Committee shares that hope. Indeed, there is no substitute for action by the UN, for all its faults, since it is the only truly global body. We, too, want to see it reformed and made into a more credible instrument for advancing democratic development. With respect to the UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF) set up as a result of the September 2005 UN Summit, it is supported through voluntary donations not assessed contributions. The largest donor by far is the U.S., and the second largest donor has been India, the world’s most populous democracy, with a contribution of US$10 million. That amount was matched by Japan in early March 2007, adding to UNDEF’s funding capacity of about US$ 65 million, and making it the Fund’s 28th donor country. So far Canada is not among these.

    When the Committee met with UNDEF representatives, Acting Executive Director Magdy Martinez-Soliman and Senior programme Officer Randi Davis (a Canadian) in New York in February 2007, Mr. Martinez-Soliman observed that the Fund is the first UN organization to use the word “democracy” in its title.377 Moreover, parliaments have been one of the better allies of the new fund; UNDEF staff having met with delegations from India, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States and others, now including Canada. The visit of the Committee was prominently noted on UNDEF’s web site (http://www.un.org/democracyfund/). It was made clear to the Committee that Canada’s involvement would be welcomed, especially as Canada’s democracy is looked upon favourably by many countries in the world.

    The idea for UNDEF was explained as a U.S. initiative proposed as part of the UN reform debate along with priorities such as human rights, management reform and a Peacebuilding Commission. (The Committee also met separately with Canadian Carolyn McAskie, UN Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Peacebuilding Support Office.379) UNDEF currently works mostly through civil society organizations as well as partnerships with other UN organizations, including peacekeeping missions. Its first funding tranche in August 2006 involved some 70 NGOs, including in Canada the Parliamentary Centre and a journalists group in Toronto. Importantly, UNDEF funding also comes from the South; it is not in the “import-export” business in terms of democracy, and does not offer a democratic model for others to copy. Significantly, too, UNDEF does not require host government permission when it decides on funding projects. It operates with the support and legitimization of the Secretary-General and the states that make up its board, composed of the six largest contributors. UNDEF is also one of the earliest examples of the “One UN” model proposed by the report of a recent High Level UN Panel on Coherence, Delivering as One,380 that was also referred to in the Committee’s meeting at the UNDP.

    UNDEF is still a fledgling organization with only six staff (as of February 2007), and has just starting work on the ground, although it already has some 125 projects in 110 states and territories. Its regional priority is Africa (37% of project funding), followed by least developed countries outside of Africa. Project decisions are made on the basis of detailed proposals after consultation with the UN’s Department of Political Affairs and other UN organizations active in each country, following which a short list is made and presented to the board, which makes an even shorter list for presentation to the Secretary-General. With no formal advertising, UNDEF received over 1,300 applications in its first two weeks of operation — although about 700 of these did not meet its criteria. (Even when UNDEF did not fund projects, however, it has shared its database of proposals with other UN bodies, so these projects may get funding from elsewhere.)

    The UNDEF governance structure is bi-level: one composed of UN member states, and one of NGOs, respecting geographic balance, and with an advisory board that includes international democracy experts such as Guillermo O’Donnell cited by the Committee in Chapter 1. Asked why UNDEF has accepted funding from states such as Qatar that are not fully democratic, Mr. Martinez-Soliman responded that UNDEF does not judge the degree to which its donors are democratic, but poses the larger questions of: Do the citizens within a state think it is democratic, and do other states think so?

    Mr. Martinez-Soliman added that UNDEF has about 15 projects that work directly with political parties in countries such as Bolivia, Serbia and Peru. There are obviously sensitivities involved in such work. Observing that some countries have tightened their legislation on the transfer of foreign money to NGOs, in order to prevent these countries from shutting the door, UNDEF specifies that NGOs must be recognized either nationally or internationally. UNDEF also works in partnership with global and regional interparliamentary forums — for example, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), particularly on the issue of support for increasing the number of women parliamentarians, and including the Assemblée parlementaire de la francophonie.

    The Committee was told, by our Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations John McNee, that Canada’s official position on UNDEF remains one of “wait and see.” We agree that UNDEF is a work in progress. But at the same time, it is part of UN reform and a global UN effort to take democratic development seriously. Surely that goal merits Canadian support. We note as well that among UNDEF’s donors are five of Canada’s G7 partners and its Commonwealth partner, Australia. Accordingly, we believe that Canada should consider whether to become a UNDEF donor.

    Finally, there is a recurring theme that has struck the Committee during its meetings with international organizations supported by Canada that are involved in democratic development: namely, the impressive number of Canadians who are working in these organizations, often at senior levels. This is a great pool of expertise and experience upon which to draw. While some of these Canadians may be attracted back to Canada by the new Canada foundation for international democratic development that we proposed in Recommendation 12, it is also a good to have Canadians in positions of influence inside the multilateral organizations that Canada funds.

    The Committee believes that a greater effort should be made to tap into the knowledge accumulated by Canadians working in multilateral organizations. This could enrich Canada’s own approach to democratic development as it is elaborated through an enlarged Democracy Council and through the independent Canada foundation that we have proposed.

    The Foreign Affairs Committee of Stephen Harper’s Government also approved the idea of participating in a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly in July 2007. It seems that all of these successive administrations are globalists.

    8. Recommendations From 2007 Report

    Recommendation 19
    The independent evaluation of all Canadian support for democratic development that we have recommended should also assess the effectiveness of multilateral channels to which Canada provides funding. That evaluation should guide appropriate funding levels.

    Recommendation 20
    Recognizing that the future challenges of democratization processes involve governance at the level of international organizations, as well as in national and local settings, the Canada foundation for international democratic development should include these dimensions within its mandate, and should consider related proposals for support from Canadian non-governmental bodies and civil-society groups working in this area.

    Recommendation 21
    As part of the essential role of a reformed and strengthened United Nations in global democratic development, the Parliament of Canada should give favourable consideration to the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly.

    Recommendation 22
    In light of the establishment of the United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF) as part of UN reform proposals in 2005, Canada should consider whether to become a donor to UNDEF.

    Recommendation 23
    Taking into account the expertise and experience on democratic development that has been accumulated by Canadians working in this field through multilateral organizations, Canada should make an effort to tap into this pool of knowledge in furthering its own approach to democratic development.

    Exactly what it sounds like: create and participate in a United Nations Parliament.

    9. Trudeau Endorses UN Parliament

    Our current Prime Minister endorsed the concept back in 2010. It seems doubtful that he has changed his mind since.

    Interestingly, Green Party leader Elizabeth May (who also sits on the Trudeau Foundation) has endorsed this as well.

    10. CDA Globalist Gov’ts All In Support

    Successive Canadian Governments all support being part of a UN Parliament if it ever became a reality. Canada is pretty screwed.

    Guest Post #2: More Great Work From CdnSpotlight Reposted

    Another researcher getting into the muck and filth that is the Canadian Government and administration. Here is some of the work unearthed and exposed. Worth a good long read, for anyone who is truly concerned about the future of the nation. Here are just a few of the postings. Go check out more.

    In this previous post, CdnSpotlight’s work from Gab is shared on this site. Here is continuation of that fine research.

    6. Goldy Hyer

    Canada’s Deep State Part 6 – Goldy Hyder
    Another one of Dom’s buddies at Century Initiative is Goldy Hyder, currently Pres & CEO of the Business Council of Canada since 2018, previously:

    Hill+Knowlton Strategies Canada (Ottawa) 2001-2018, working his way up to Pres & CEO in 2013

    Hyder, a native Albertan, was PM Joe Clark’s chief of staff (when?) prior to joining Hill+Knowlton in 2001 but there’s no mention of dates exactly when that took place

    Recently named Vice Chair of ABLAC 2020 (Asia Business Leaders Advisory Council), a high-level group of Asian and Canadian business leaders convened annually by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada (APFC) to identify and articulate opportunities for improved Canada-Asia business engagement.

    And guess who some of the APFC members are from Canada – recognize some names from my previous posts?

    Barton, Wiseman, Hyder, Fukakusa (CIB) & Sabia (Porno’s Advisory Council) – ain’t that cozy?

    For some lobbying in Harper’s Government.

    Duffy adviser offered to share secrets with Nigel Wright, defence alleges in cross-examination.

    Defence lawyer Donald Bayne suggested adviser Goldy Hyder was actually working closer with Wright and the PMO than he was with Duffy
    In April 2013, Sen. Mike Duffy engaged longtime Conservative insider and communications expert Goldy Hyder to advise him on how to handle his ongoing discussions with the Prime Minister’s Office over his expense claims.

    Hyder, a consultant, then contacted Nigel Wright, at the time the prime minister’s chief of staff, to say he had been engaged as a Duffy adviser. And, according to Duffy’s defence lawyer, Hyder offered to secretly share information with Wright.

    “Sen. Duffy thinks that Goldy Hyder is working on his behalf,” defence lawyer Donald Bayne told Wright in court, “but really Mr. Hyder is working for you to get to where you want to go.”

    “I never viewed it that way,” replied Wright. “He introduced himself as working for Sen. Duffy.”

    Duffy advisor offered to share secrets with Nigel Wright.

    Then there’s this moronic piece:

    Jaspal Atwal, Sikh Extremist Convicted In Assassination Attempt, Invited To Trudeau Receptions In India.

    The news comes as Trudeau tries to reassure Indian leaders that his government doesn’t support Sikh extremism.

    Goldy Hyder, President of Hill and Knowlton Strategies and a long-time Conservative insider who was in India for part of the Canadian trip, said the Atwal furor is taking away from the positives of the Trudeau tour.

    “I do think it’s unfortunate because it’s taking away from some of the things that are happening on this that, as a Canadian of a different (political) stripe, quite frankly, I’m pleased to see.”

    Hyder said he didn’t think the episode would harm Trudeau’s efforts to improve trade and cultural relations with India, largely because the mistake was fixed as soon as it was discovered.

    7. Jim Leech, ON Teachers’ Pension, CIB

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE Part 7 – Jim Leech – Ontario Teachers Pension Plan & Architect of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

    Currently the Chancellor of Queen’s University after retiring in 2014 as Pres/CEO of the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) 2001-2014, one of the world’s largest and most innovative pension funds. During his tenure as CEO, Teachers’ eliminated its funding deficit and was RANKED FIRST IN THE WORLD amongst peer plans for absolute returns and value-added returns over 5 & 10 years.

    Feb.10, 2017 – he was named Special Advisor “to the Prime Minister of Canada” on the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB), working in collaboration with the Privy Council Office, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, and the Minister of Finance to expedite the swift and successful creation of the CIB

    Mr. Leech is also a SENIOR ADVISOR to MCKINSEY & CO. (location & date unknown) & long-term acquaintance of Dominic Barton & Mark Wiseman.

    Prior to his appointment as CEO, Mr. Leech headed Teachers’ Private Capital as Senior VP, the pension plan’s private investing arm where he oversaw the growth in private equity, venture capital, and infrastructure investments from $2B in 2001 to over $20B by 2007
    –> This is when he and the fund gained world-wide attention

    After retiring from OTPP in 2014, Mr. Leech was also appointed Special Advisor to the Ontario Minister of Finance to review the sustainability of the province’s electricity sector pension. His report was accepted by the government and is currently being implemented.

    from a Globe & Mail interview Jan.2015:
    Is there a particular metric you lean on?
    “It’s funny, the whole time I was at Teachers, if you asked me on any given day what the stock market had done, I wouldn’t have been able to tell you. But in terms of meaty economic analysis, I put some weight in the World Economic Forum in Davos. That’s probably where I got the information.”
    Also an Honorary Colonel in the Canadian Armed Forces

    Check out this speech, from Jim Leech.

    8. Michael Sabia & The Caisse

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE Part 8 – Michael Sabia and the Caisse
    While researching everything & everyone in this series, many questions arose while trying to understand how pension fund managers, global “investment/asset managers” and global “management consultants” became the Crime Minister’s gurus with so much power and say in this government – SO MUCH that an infrastructure bank Crown Corporation was created AND FAST.

    Why?
    How did the core mandate of public pensions morph into that?
    Why does there seem to be an ulterior motive?

    How does this fit in with China, the other key players like Barton & Wiseman, Pension Plans, immigration, the “middle class” & retiring boomers? Future posts to come.

    These all came together with the deep digs on Michael Sabia and Quebec’s public pension the Caisse.

    Michael Sabia is Pres & CEO of Quebec’s Pension Plan : Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec (CDPQ or The Caisse) since 2009. The first anglophone to head the Caisse which ruffled a lot of feathers in Quebec
    Education
    1976 BA political economy, University of Toronto
    – met his wife, Hilary Pearson in 1st year, granddaughter of former PM Lester B.Pearson
    1977-83 MA, MPhil, political economy, Yale University
    Career
    1986-90 Canadian department of finance, tax policy
    1990-93 PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE deputy secretary to the cabinet
    —–> Why do I get bad vibes every time with the PCO or Clerk of the Privy Council?
    1993-95 Canadian National Railway (CN), VP Corp Development
    1995-99 CN CFO
    1999-00 Bell Canada International, chief executive
    2000-02 Bell Canada Enterprise (BCE), Exec.VP & COO
    2002-08 BCE CEO & Pres
    2009-present Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec, CEO & Pres

    Sabia held a number of senior positions in Canada’s federal public service incl. Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet of the Privy Council Office1986-93. As a federal govt bureaucrat, he worked on the tax overhaul that would lead to the creation of GST.
    Sabia’s supervisor, Clerk of the Privy Council Paul Tellier, left the public service in 1992 to become Pres. of CN Rail, a Crown corp., Sabia followed him in 1993 to help in privatizing the company. Sabia held a number of executive positions at Canadian National Railway including the position of chief financial officer.

    Tellier remained CEO at CN until Jan.2003 when he left “unexpectedly” to become Bombardier Corp’s CEO.

    CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED
    On November 17, 1995, after 78 years as a Crown corporation, CN was part of the largest privatization in Canadian history through an initial public offering (IPO) that raised CAD 2.26 billion for the Canadian government.

    This was led by a new management team of ex-federal government bureaucrats, including Paul Tellier and Michael Sabia who began preparing CN for privatization by improving productivity and enhancing profitability.

    These objectives were achieved by massive cuts to the company’s management structure, massive layoffs (CN went from 32,000 employees to about 23,000) and the sale of its branch lines. In Tellier’s final year as CEO, the publicly traded company earned $800 million.

    9. Quebec’s pension – The Caisse (CPDQ)

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE Part 9 – Quebec’s pension – The Caisse (CPDQ)
    Quebec has its own public pension plan and they do not contribute to CPP. It is the 2nd largest pension fund in Canada, after the Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

    As at December 31, 2018, CDPQ managed assets of $309.5B invested in Canada and internationally
    Established in 1965, the Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec (CDPQ) initially focused on bonds before entering the Canadian stock market in 1967. Caisse manages the funds of other public pension and insurance plans, government and public employee pensions, employees of the QUEBEC CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY and more.

    — Remember the Charbonneau Commission?

    It created its private equity portfolio investing in Québec companies then adopted new investment guidelines, placing greater emphasis on equity and entering the real estate market in the 80’s. In 1996, the Caisse’s Real Estate group was the leading real estate owner in Québec and the second largest in Canada.

    As of 2017, CDPQ has 41 depositors, active on Canadian and international markets, holds a diversified portfolio including fixed-income securities, publicly listed shares, real estate investments, and private equity. A shareholder in more than 4,000 companies in Québec, elsewhere in Canada, and around the world, the Caisse is internationally recognized as a leading institutional investor
    Based on Caisse’s success, the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan lobbied the federal gov’t in the 90’s, and won, to allow the same diversification as Caisse.

    Caisse has 3 subsidiaries: Ivanhoe Cambridge, Otera Capital, & CDPQ Infra

    Ivanhoé Cambridge is the real estate subsidiary of the Caisse investing in real estate assets ranging from office space & shopping centers to multi-residential buildings. In 2011 all of CDPQ’s real estate subsidiaries were merged into Ivanhoe Cambridge.

    Otera Capital is a balance sheet lender in commercial real estate debt in Canada. Unknown if acquired or created by CDPQ in the 80’s
    CDPQ Infra is the first Infrastructure Bank in Canada created June 2015 for its first & biggest project – the Réseau express métropolitain (REM) in the Montreal area

    From 2010, this brilliant analysis foretells Caisse’s infrastructure bank – the MODEL for the new Canada Infrastructure Bank

    Quebec: The most corrupt province. See here.

    Why does Quebec claim so many of the nation’s political scandals?

    “…the frankly disastrous state of Charest’s government. In the past two years, the government has lurched from one scandal to the next, from political financing to favouritism in the provincial daycare system to the matter of Charest’s own (long undisclosed) $75,000 stipend, paid to him by his own party, to corruption in the construction industry. Charest has stymied repeated opposition calls for an investigation into the latter, prompting many to wonder whether the Liberals, who have long-standing ties to Quebec’s construction companies, have something to hide. (Regardless, this much is true: it costs Quebec taxpayers roughly 30 per cent more to build a stretch of road than anywhere else in the country,

    (much more on that topic…..)

    10. Rise Of The Pensions

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE – The Rise of the Pensions
    Canada’s economy is, at best, stagnant
    With no economic growth, there’s no new jobs, no additional income or disposable income to spend or INVEST
    Canadians have also reached the limits of being taxed – trapping many in the “middle class” as the working poor near the poverty line

    But the middle class drives the tax revenues of the entire country as well as the contributions to pension plans (CPP)
    So when the middle class declines, when income declines, so do tax revenues, pension plan contributions, disposable income and investment/savings $

    That’s why the Crime Minister & Liberals keep referring to the middle class:
    Announced in the Fall Economic Statement, the Canada Infrastructure Bank – a key component of the government’s Investing in Canada plan – will provide innovative financing for infrastructure projects, and help more projects get built in Canada. It will lead to better projects that create the GOOD, WELL-PAYING JOBS NEEDED to GROW THE MIDDLE CLASS now, and strengthen Canada’s economy over the long term.
    ***Source: Prime Minister announces Special Advisor on the Canada Infrastructure Bank Feb.10, 2017

    All of this is really about lower incomes = lower income tax revenue

    from Jim Leech’s book The Third Rail: Confronting Our Pension Failures:
    “Over the next 20 years (as of 2013) more than 7 million Canadian workers will retire. Baby boomers, the 45- to 65-year-olds who account for 42% of the country’s workforce, will join the largest job exodus in Canadian history, moving to the promised land of retirement.”

    *** Since millennials now outnumber boomers, the “exodus” can be easily replaced, so what’s the big deal?
    “UNLESS OUR CRUMBLING PENSION SYSTEM IS REFORMED, many of these retirees will find this dreamland a bewildering and disappointing mirage.”

    *** Reforming the pension “system” is really what’s going on

    “In the early 1980s, consumers were setting aside 20% of their DISPLOSABLE incomes to their retirement plans;
    TODAY (2013) THE SAVINGS RATE IS A THREADBARE 2.5%

    “Retirement savings plans meant to build Canadians’ personal war chests for their final years have failed to live up to their cheery promises of early retirement “freedom” – MARKET RETURNS ARE LOW, and FINANCIAL FEES ARE CLIMBING.

    Moreover, retirement plans are now being compromised by high pension obligations and a shrinking workforce.”
    *** No shrinking workforce with millennials replacing these workers, but their lower entry-level salaries don’t match the higher boomer salaries because of their decades of work experience

    When public pensions got the green light from gov’ts to invest in real estate & riskier investments, those plans exploded in wealth:
    CPP from $44.5 B in 2000 to $409.5 B in 2019 – an increase of $365 B in 20 yr
    CDPQ from $50 B in 1994 to $325 B in 2019 – staggering – Quebec only!
    OTPP from $69 B in 2001 to $191 B in 2018
    There’s also OMERS, HOOPP, etc

    However, CPP became concerned with decreasing contributions as the workforce declined or retired. CPP had projected a deficiency in contributions vs. pensions being paid in 2021. That means the investment portion of the CPP portfolio has to be used to top up this deficiency.

    But isn’t that what it’s for? See this report.
    Source: Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada

    11. Follow The Money….

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE Part 11 – Follow the Money

    How governments & capitalists are STEALING Public Pension Funds
    Previous posts in this series showed that middle class Canadians and all levels of government are broke, with governments heavily in debt with no real means to create additional tax revenues

    But there’s TRILLIONS of $ in Canada’s Public Pension Plans

    And TRILLIONS of $ of infrastructure needed WORLDWIDE

    Since legislation forbids government access to these funds, this Liberal gov’t has changed the GAME by creating the Canada Infrastructure Bank

    Now that gov’t has created the CIB, gov’t will now work at arm’s length, meaning no formal direct bidding process with the gov’t
    That means SNC-Lavalin gets their “get out of jail free” card – they can bid on anything
    And will likely get them all

    In Dec.2017, Minister of Infrastructure Amarjeet Sohi (and Morneau) wrote the true mandate of the CIB in their Statement of Priorities and Accountabilities – Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB)

    “The Bank will be an innovative financing tool designed to work collaboratively with public and private sector partners to transform the way infrastructure is planned, funded and delivered in Canada”

    Public & private sector partners – otherwise known as PPPs or the 3Ps or P3 – see next post in this thread
    Public sector partners include Institutional Investors – otherwise known as pensions, insurance, etc

    “As other countries face the same challenges of closing the infrastructure gap with private and INSTITUTIONAL CAPITAL and finding new ways to fund infrastructure, our GLOBAL PARTNERS (WHO THE HELL ARE THEY?!?) WILL BE WATCHING AND LEARNING FROM THE BANK”
    Looks like Canada is the guinea pig for the “Global Partners” – see next post in this thread

    Read this archived post.

    12. ….And Go Follow CdnSpotlight

    Should be obvious by now this account contains some real dirt that is politics in Canada. Most Canadians have no idea about the filth and corruption that our nation is immersed in. But CS lays it out.

    Bit Of History: Peter MacKay Shanks David Orchard In 2003 PC Leadership Race

    (Peter Mackay pledges – in writing – no merger with Alliance if he wins)

    (Peter MacKay sticking the knife in again?)

    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for the Peter McKay/David Orchard alliance.
    http://archive.is/DJ6M8
    CLICK HERE, for CBC article on the broken deal.
    http://archive.is/fAEgs
    CLICK HERE, for ONSC denying Orchard’s application in full.
    http://archive.is/niIKc
    CLICK HERE, for an ONSC judge refusing costs for defamation.
    http://archive.is/NgxG0
    CLICK HERE, for Orchard’s ON Court of Appeal Factum.
    http://archive.is/nsX0V/image
    CLICK HERE, for ONCA dismissing appeal/cross appeal/motion.
    http://archive.is/nBrOy
    CLICK HERE, for Stevens v. CPC, Federal Court of Canada.
    http://archive.is/iwCyI
    CLICK HERE, for Stevens v. CPC, Federal Court of Appeal.
    http://archive.is/6S6am

    CLICK HERE, for a May 2019 article on replacing Scheer (before election).
    http://archive.is/ZPFdF
    CLICK HERE, for MacKay commenting on Scheer’s 2019 loss.
    http://archive.is/SFvWr

    2. Context For This Article


    In 2003, the current Conservative Party of Canada did not exist. Instead, there was the Alliance Party, led by Stephen Harper, and the Progressive Conservative Party, undergoing a leadership race.

    Two candidates in that race, David Orchard and Peter Mackay, struck a deal: Orchard would support MacKay’s leadership bid in return for a written pledge not to pursue a merger or deal with the Alliance. At that time, a merger had been seriously considered, as a way to form a united alternative to the Liberal Party. But MacKay promised — in writing — not to pursue this if he was supported for leader of the Progressive Conservative leadership.

    The deal went ahead as planned (so it seemed), and MacKay became leader of the party. However, it appeared he had no intention of honouring his deal. Almost immediately, he pursued merger talks with the Alliance. The eventually merged, and the new party formed government from 2006 until 2015. MacKay’s deceptive and underhanded tactics had won in the long term.

    Fast forward more than a decade from 2003, and another controversy. See section #9 for more on that.

    3. Text Of McKay/Orchard Deal

    May 31, 2003 Agreement between Peter MacKay and David Orchard
    1) No merger, joint candidates w[ith] Alliance. Maintain 301.
    2) Review of FTA/NAFTA – blue ribbon commission with D[avid] O[rchard] w[ith] choice of chair w[ith] P[eter] M[acKay’s] agreement. Rest of members to be jointly agreed upon.
    3) Clean up of head office including change of national director in consultation (timing w[ithin] reasonable period in future, pre-election) and some of DO’s people working at head office.
    4) Commitment to making environmental protection front and center incl[uding] sustainable agriculture, forestry, reducing pollution through rail.
    [Signed by Peter MacKay and David Orchard]

    Looks pretty straightforward.
    No merger. Fix our party instead.

    4. ON Court Challenge By Orchard, Others

    Administrative law — Voluntary association — Political parties — Political parties registered under Canada Elections Act — Leaders of Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance reaching agreement for merger of political parties — Common law principles regarding unregulated voluntary associations did not apply to political parties registered under Canada Elections Act — Canada Elections Act governing merger of registered political parties — Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9.

    On October 15, 2003, Peter MacKay, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (“PC Party”), reached an agreement in principle with Steven [page278] Harper, leader of the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance (“Alliance”), for the establishment of the “Conservative Party of Canada”. PC Party members who were opposed to the agreement applied to the court for several declarations. The premise of these declarations was that the PC Party could not be dissolved or merged with another political party except with the unanimous consent of all its members. The applicants also sought a permanent injunction to prevent anyone from dealing with the party’s assets.

    [4] The applicants are PC Party members who are opposed to the merger of the party with the Alliance. They request that the court make a number of declarations, which are all premised on their view that the PC Party cannot be dissolved or merged with another political party, except with the unanimous consent of all of its members. They also seek a permanent injunction to prevent anyone from otherwise dealing with the party’s assets.

    [5] I note that several items of the relief set out in the Notice of Application are not pursued before me. Paragraph 1(j) requested a declaration that Mr. MacKay is in breach of his written agreement, dated June 1, 2003, with Mr. Orchard, and sought consequential relief. The request for this relief was withdrawn on the consent of counsel prior to the date set for the hearing. Paragraph 1(e) sought a declaration that the procedures set by the Management Committee of the PC Party for the special meeting scheduled for December 6, 2003 are contrary to the Party’s Constitution and by-laws. Counsel for the applicants indicated they [page280] were not seeking such relief and informed the court the applicants were making no attack on the specific procedures adopted by the Party respecting the special meeting. Counsel also informed the court that the applicants were not requesting the court to deal with the relief sought in para. 1(g) which sought a declaration that the Constitution of the PC Party prohibited its leader from agreeing with the leader of another political party that the PC Party will not nominate candidates in every federal constituency in Canada.

    [6] Traditionally, the courts have been reluctant to get involved in supervising the internal affairs of voluntary associations. However, courts do recognize that membership in a voluntary association can give individuals important social rights that are worthy of some protection. Members may request the courts to require that the organization carry out its affairs honestly, in good faith and in accordance with its governing rules.

    [7] In this case we are dealing with a political party. The social interest of members in ensuring that the organization’s affairs are conducted in accordance with its governing Constitution is apparent. Citizens exercise important rights in participating in political activity through membership in political parties. However, the court must be careful not to intrude into the political realm. There were submissions and evidence in this case that I considered to be political rhetoric. I have disregarded all such evidence and submissions.

    [13] I am satisfied that the situation is sufficiently developed to give rise to an actual dispute between the parties. Both sides have important interests at stake. The leadership of the PC Party has embarked on a path to merge the party. The applicants are opposed to the course of action being taken. Counsel for both sides indicated to the court that it would be of assistance to have a decision before the vote is taken tomorrow. Given their national significance, there is good reason to determine the questions raised by this actual dispute, and I am satisfied that the court’s decision will be of practical effect in resolving the dispute.

    [14] I have concluded that this dispute does not fall within the ambit of the internal dispute resolution in Article 13 of the PC Party’s Constitution. I regard the internal process as intended to deal with questions about whether the ongoing affairs of the party are being conducted in compliance with its Constitution and by-laws. This dispute arises in extraordinary circumstances not contemplated by its Constitution, concerns its continued existence, and as will be seen, is in large measure about the proper interpretation and effect of a public statute. In deciding not to defer to the internal arbitration process, I paid no heed to the applicants’ arguments that that process was flawed by relationship and institutional bias. I regard the applicant’s apprehension of bias to be without merit.

    [40] In expressing this view, I should not be taken to be declaring the law. In this proceeding I was asked to make declarations that the PC Party cannot merge, transfer its assets, or dissolve without the unanimous consent of every one of its individual members. I have decided, based on the view I take of the law, that it is not appropriate to make such declarations.

    [41] A further comment must be made about para. 1(h) of the application. Paragraph 1(h) seeks “a declaration that the resolution [before the December 6 special meeting] does not constitute the resolution required pursuant to s. 400(2)(b) of the Canada Elections Act in order for the PC Party to merge with another registered party under the Act”. Whether the resolution being acted upon tomorrow, or any other resolution, satisfies the requirements of the Act must, in the first instance, be decided by the Chief Electoral Officer. I refuse the relief requested in para. 1(h) on that basis.

    [42] The application is dismissed in its entirety. Counsel may make an appointment through my secretary to address costs.
    Application dismissed.

    In short the Court ruled that the matter should be decided internally. The parties have governing documents (such as constitutions) which set out terms for various issues, including mergers.

    One way to look at this would be the “sort out your own business” line of reasoning prevailed. And while members of an organization should expect leaders to behave in a good faith manner, the Court apparently isn’t always the place to demand such a resolution.

    While the Judge “could” have intervened, the decision was made not to.

    See the next section for the Elections Act (400-403)

    5. Canada Elections Act

    [34] I set out the provisions in full, underlining the particular phrases that I find helpful in interpreting the provisions. I discuss some of the particular phrases below.

    400(1) Two or more registered parties may, at any time other than during the period beginning 30 days before the issue of a writ for an election and ending on polling day, apply to the Chief Electoral Officer to become a single registered party resulting from their merger.
    (2) An application to merge two or more registered parties must
    (a) be certified by the leaders of the merging parties;
    (b) be accompanied by a resolution from each of the merging parties approving the proposed merger; and
    (c) contain the information required from a party to be registered, except for the information referred to in paragraph 366(2)(i).

    401(1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall amend the registry of parties by replacing the names of the merging parties with the name of the merged party if
    (a) the application for the merger was not made in the period referred to in subsection 400(1); and
    (b) the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that
    (i) the merged party is eligible for registration as a political party under this Act, and
    (ii) the merging parties have discharged their obligations under this Act, including their obligations to report on their financial transactions and their election expenses and to maintain valid and up-to-date information concerning their registration.
    (2) The Chief Electoral Officer shall notify the officers of the merging parties in writing whether the registry of parties is to be amended under subsection (1).
    (3) If the Chief Electoral Officer amends the registry of parties, he or she shall cause to be published in the Canada Gazette a notice that the names of the merging parties have been replaced in the registry with the name of the merged party.

    402(1) A merger of registered parties takes effect on the day on which the Chief Electoral Officer amends the registry of parties under subsection 401(1).
    (2) On the merger of two or more registered parties,
    (a) the merged party is the successor of each merging party;
    (b) the merged party becomes a registered party;
    (c) the assets of each merging party belong to the merged party;
    (d) the merged party is responsible for the liabilities of each merging party; [page287]
    (e) the merged party is responsible for the obligations of each merging party to report on its financial transactions and election expenses for any period before the merger took effect;

    (f) the merged party replaces a merging party in any proceedings, whether civil, penal or administrative, by or against the merging party; and
    (g) any decision of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature involving a merging party may be enforced by or against the merged party.

    403. Within six months after a merger
    (a) each of the merging parties shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the documents referred to in subsection 424(1) for
    (i) the portion of its current fiscal period that ends on the day before the day on which the merger takes effect, and
    (ii) any earlier fiscal period for which those documents have not been provided; and
    (b) the merged party shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with
    (i) a statement, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, of its assets and liabilities, including any surplus or deficit, at the date of the merger,
    (ii) an auditor’s report, submitted to the chief agent of the merged party, as to whether the statement presents fairly and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles the information on which it was based, and
    (iii) a declaration in the prescribed form by the chief agent of the merged party concerning the statement.

    These sections of the Canada Elections Act are cited in both the Provincial and Federal Court rulings. As such, we should know what they actually say. In short, they quite clearly allow for party mergers. Broken promises and backroom deals don’t actually appear anywhere in the text.

    6. ON Court Of Appeal (Orchard et al.)

    [17] As a preliminary matter, the respondent moves to quash the appeal as now being moot. It argues that there is no longer a live issue affecting the rights of the parties because the merger has happened and the Conservative Party has been registered by the Chief Electoral Officer in place of the PC Party and the Alliance Party.

    [18] In my view, the motion must be dismissed. There remains the same real legal issue between the parties that existed before December 6, 2003, namely, whether the PC Party can be dissolved or merged with another political party without the unanimous consent of all of its members. The only difference is that if [page134] they are successful, the appellants must now seek a remedial order undoing what has happened rather than an order to prevent it from occurring. The respondent has not shown that this would be impossible. The underlying legal issues still have an effect on the rights of the parties and hence mootness does not apply.

    [19] On the appeal itself, the appellants’ fundamental contention is that the common law requires the PC Party to obtain the unanimous consent of all of its members to merge with the Alliance Party. In making this argument they place significant reliance on Astgen.

    [45] By the terms of the constitution this decision is final and binding. Having had the opportunity to participate in that process the appellants are bound to accept it as final and binding, subject to judicial review which they have not sought. This is a corollary to the obligation of an organization like a trade union to give notice of an arbitration to a member whose rights will be affected because the decision of the arbitration board is final and binding. See, for example, Hoogendoorn v. Greening Metal Products and Screening Equipment Co. (1967), 1967 CanLII 20 (SCC), [1968] S.C.R. 30, 65 D.L.R. (2d) 641. It is not open to the appellants to seek a determination by the court that the resolution is of no legal effect because the PC Party failed to comply with the procedures required by its constitution. In this circumstance, that is a matter for the Arbitration Committee.

    [46] In summary, therefore, the appellants’ arguments on appeal must be rejected.

    [47] The respondent has cross-appealed from the decision of the application judge to award no costs because of the public importance of the issues raised. We did not call on the appellants to respond to the cross-appeal. In our view, it was an entirely appropriate exercise of discretion by the judge of first instance.

    [48] As to the costs of the proceedings in this court, success has been divided. The appellants failed on the appeal. The respondent failed to establish mootness and failed on the cross-appeal. Together with the public importance of the questions raised, this makes it appropriate to order that there be no costs in this court. [page141]

    [49] I would therefore dismiss the motion to quash and the appeal and the cross-appeal. No costs in this court.

    Among other things, the Court of Appeals states that relief should have come in the form of an application for judicial review challenging the Elections Commission.

    Beyond that, the Appeals Panel sidesteps the underhanded nature of MacKay’s duplicity. Instead, they point out that the Canada Elections Act explicitly allows for mergers except in very limited cases. Unanimity from all participants is not required.

    To sum up, there is nothing new to add here, so appeal dismissed.

    7. Stevens v. CPC (Federal Court)


    This was not the only case that was launched. There was an Application for Judicial Review started in Federal Court to contest the ruling that allowed the merger.

    [76] The Applicant argued that the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the opinion of the application judge that section 401(1)(b)(ii) of the Act vests the CEO not the Court, with the mandate of determining if the merger application met the statutory requirements. However, he also submits that the Court of Appeal recognized that section 400(2)(b) of the Act implicitly requires that a merger resolution be passed in accordance with the constitution of a merging party.

    [77] Accordingly, the Applicant argues that this holding supports his contention that the CEO erred in law by rejecting the constitution of the PC Party as being relevant to his decision. The Applicant repeats and relies upon his earlier submissions that the constitution of that party specifically prohibits the merger application that was made.

    [78] Further, the Applicant says that the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal does not address the argument that the common law rights of voluntary associations include the right to be heard when such association is a political party that is at risk of dissolution.

    ii) The Respondent

    [79] The Respondent disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision and argues that the Court rejected the arguments that the merger of the PC Party and the Alliance Party attracted application of the common law rule that the unanimous consent of each party member was required for the merger of those parties. Further, the Respondent submits that the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Act did not require unanimous consent for such merger.

    [80] In conclusion, the Respondent relies on the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal as supporting its view that the decision of the CEO to amend the registry of parties on December 7, 2003, was correct.

    <

    p style=”padding: 2px 6px 4px 6px; color: #555555; background-color: #eeeeee; border: #dddddd 2px solid;”>

    [114] A waiting period of sixty days applies when a political party initially applies for registration. In my view, it is reasonable that a waiting period, albeit a reduced one, will also apply when two registered parties apply for merger.

    [115] It follows, then, that in my opinion, the CEO erred by amending the registry of parties on the same day that the merger application was made and without waiting for thirty days, to ensure that no election writ would be issued, thereby activating the commencement of the prohibited period.

    [116] As noted earlier, the Applicant seeks an order quashing the decision of the CEO and reinstating the PC Party on the registry of parties. Alternatively, the Applicant seeks an order setting aside the decision of December 7, 2003 and referring the matter back to the CEO.

    [117] In my opinion, the remedies sought by the Applicant should not be granted. Pursuant to section 18.1(3) of the Federal Courts Act, supra, the Court has discretion in the matter of granting relief upon an application for judicial review. On occasion, relief has been denied and in this regard, I refer to Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. v. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, 1994 CanLII 114 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 202.

    [118] In the present case, I take judicial notice of the fact that no writ for an election was issued in the thirty days following December 7, 2003. In the result, the CEO’s action in immediately amending the registry of parties, although contrary to my interpretation of the Act, had no material effect. In the exercise of my discretion, I decline to grant the relief sought.

    [119] The application for judicial review is dismissed. However, the Applicant has raised a valid point and is entitled to his assessed costs under Column III.

                                             <center>  ORDER</center>
    

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
    .
    The application for judicial review is dismissed, the Applicant to have his assessed costs under Column III

    Much the same as with the Ontario Courts. The Court declines to intervene, and rules the merger allowed under the Canada Elections Act.

    8. Stevens v. CPC (Federal Court of Appeal)

    [49]I therefore find that the only interpretation that would give a concrete meaning to the texts in question is the one that requires the Chief Electoral Officer to let 30 days expire once the merger application is received before accepting it. If this was not Parliament’s intention, it is free to correct our vision with a more specific legislative text.

    Exercising discretionary power for judicial review
    [50]Justice Heneghan refused to grant the relief sought despite the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer, by not waiting 30 days before making his decision, violated the Canada Elections Act. Taking judicial notice of the fact that no writ ordering an election was issued in the 30 days following the merger application, she found, at paragraph 118 of her reasons:
    In the result, the CEO’s action in immediately amending the registry of parties, although contrary to my interpretation of the Act, had no material effect. In the exercise of my discretion, I decline to grant the relief sought.

    [51]Justice Heneghan, in my opinion, judiciously exercised the discretion inherent to the power for judicial review. The existence of this discretion is based both on the text of subsection 18.1(3) [as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5; 2002, c. 8, s. 27] of the Federal Courts Act [R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7 , s. 1 (as am. by S.C. 2002, c. 8, s. 14)] under which the “Federal Court may” [emphasis added] quash the decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal, and on the principles associated with traditional prerogative writs. In this regard, it would be appropriate to return to this long excerpt from Justice Hugessen’s reasons in Schaaf v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, 1984 CanLII 3622 (FCA), [1984] 2 F.C. 334 (C.A.), at pages 342-344, which summarize the basis of this discretion best, with the adaptations required by the new, more explicit formulation of section 18 [as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 4; 2002, c. 8, s. 26]:

    In my view, nothing in the words used makes them other than attributive of jurisdiction. They create the power in the Court to set aside decisions which offend in one of the stated ways but do not impose a duty to do so in every case.

    More of the same. The Federal Court can use discretion and choose not to intervene.

    9. Current CPC Leadership Antics

    This is the follow-up to Section #2. Andrew Scheer becomes leader of the Conservative Party of Canada in May 2017, is a surprise (and contested) 13th ballot over Maxime Bernier. However, it soon becomes clear that many people did not want this, and Scheer is undermined within his own party.

    Bernier leaves in August 2018 to start his own party, the bizarrely named “People’s Party of Canada”. He claims that the CPC is no longer conservative, and that he will form an alternative. He also starts adopting populist rhetoric, something he previously hadn’t shown. Interestingly, Bernier spends more time attacking Scheer than the Liberal Party, which is currently in government.

    Curiously, the People’s Party is missing a lot:
    (a) Bernier has never called a leadership campaign
    (b) No policies have ever been voted on
    (c) There is no party constitution
    (d) There are no by-laws, or other governing documents
    (e) There is no national council, or senior board
    (f) The platform was recycled from Bernier’s 2016/17 leadership run

    Critics claim it is a “temporary” party meant to keep the Conservatives from winning, and to get Scheer ejected. Strangely enough, Peter MacKay’s name gets floated as a possible successor should Scheer not become Prime Minister.

    Ultimately, Justin Trudeau did win again, but this time a minority. Despite winning the popular vote and increasing the seat total, Scheer was pressured to resign from the CPC leadership.

    Could MacKay be at it again? Is this another scheme to undermine the will of conservative party members and select the party’s leader? Was the PPC just a psy-op to get rid of Scheer and install another leader instead?

    10. Politics Is Rotten To The Core


    This current fiasco has relevance to the 2003 one for a simple reason: some of the same people are involved in both. Now, could Peter MacKay be up to his old tricks of deceit and backstabbing? Choosing who becomes leader?

    Actually governing people always seems to take a backseat to the infighting, pettiness, and selfishness of the politicians involved. Public servants appear to be anything but.

    Giving your word, even in writing, seems to mean little. Alliances will always give way to self interest.

    Guest Post: CdnSpotlight Researching Corruption Within Canada’s Ranks

    Another researcher getting into the muck and filth that is the Canadian Government and administration. Here is some of the work unearthed and exposed. Worth a good long read, for anyone who is truly concerned about the future of the nation. Here are just a few of the postings. Go check out more.

    CLICK HERE, for the Gab account where this research can be found.

    1. Dominic Barton

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE
    What began with a negative news article about Dominic Barton becoming our new ambassador to China in Sept. got me curious so I started digging.

    And what I’ve been finding is alarming.
    It is much, much larger than just lowly ol’ Barton as the pic shows.
    The tentacles are far-reaching and the Canadian players involved are so intertwined that it’ll cause some ‘splodey heads like mine.
    So please bear with me as I try to explain this in my series/threads.

    So let me start with the article that started it all:
    Terence Corcoran: Dominic Barton could be the right man for China … if he remembers what makes Canada work:
    Barton’s admiration and support of China’s statist economic ideas, and his frequently stated disdain for market capitalism, certainly give one reason to pause – Sept. 2019

    CLICK HERE for an article on the subject.

    Read every word of that article, it briefly describes Barton’s “philosophy” & ideology

    “China as the world’s leading practitioner of state corporatism. Barton thinks the Communist Party of China has developed some fantastic economic models that might even be exportable to the rest of the world, including Canada.

    Barton and McKinsey, for example, have been enthusiastic backers of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a massive global infrastructure scheme

    the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) infrastructure initiative, the project was described by Barton in 2015 as “inspiring” and a model for “long-term thinking” with infrastructure spending as the foundation for economic growth.

    China’s Belt/Road model, suggests Barton, is the way of the future. “The Chinese saying ‘build a road first if you want to get rich’ is spot on — data suggests that for every $1 billion in infrastructure investment, 30,000 to 80,000 jobs are created, generating $2.5 billion in new GDP.”

    In my humble opinion, this is where Canada’s headed…

    2. CPPIB, Blackrock, Mark Wiseman

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE Part 2
    Now that ambassador Dominic Barton has been identified as the architect, let’s look at some of his buddies and their connections with BlackRock and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB)

    Born in Niagara Falls Ontario, Mark Wiseman became a Senior Managing Director at BlackRock NYC in 2016 as Global Head of Active Equities for BlackRock and Chairman of BlackRock Alternative Investors. He also serves as Chairman of the firm’s Global Investment Committee and on its Global Executive Committee.

    He was President and CEO of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) 2012-2016 after starting there in 2005 as Senior Vice-President, Private Investments.

    Prior to joining CPPIB, Mark was responsible for the private equity fund and co-investment program at the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. He has worked at Harrowston Inc., a publicly traded Canadian merchant bank, and as a lawyer with Sullivan & Cromwell, where he practiced in New York and Paris.

    He also served as a law clerk to Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin at the Supreme Court of Canada – ring a bell? During the Justice Committee hearings with Jody Wilson-Raybould about the SNC-Lavalin Scandal, Buttsputin & Clerk of the Privy Council had insisted Jody talk with her for “advice”.

    But the BlackRock ties don’t stop there.

    BlackRock Canada CEO is Marcia Moffat since 2015– who just happens to be Mark Wiseman’s wife – based in Toronto. Mark returns home to Toronto on weekends from New York. She was formerly with RBC under Janice Fukakusa (see pic)

    Wiseman is also the Chairman of FCLTGlobal (formerly Focusing Capital on the Long Term), an organization that encourages longer-term approaches in business and investing, which was set up by BlackRock, CPPIB, Dow, McKinsey & Company and Tata in 2016.

    Mark is also a member of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, which advises Finance Minister MORNEAU on economic policies to achieve long-term, sustainable growth. Mark serves on the boards of several non-profit organizations, including Sinai Health Services in Toronto, the Capital Markets Institute and the Dean’s Advisory Board at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

    At CPPIB, Wiseman made a name for himself by opening offices and pursuing investments abroad, particularly in South America and South Asia.

    CPP investment chief Mark Wiseman to make surprise exit after nearly four years at helm.

    While the one source characterized his departure as amicable, another source familiar with CPPIB’s inner workings said there was friction on leadership issues.

    “…some questioned whether it was only the CPP’s interests that were being promoted” His years as CEO at CPPIB have been marked by a stream of deals, ranging from a lucrative early investment in Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba.

    In 2015 – Why the head of Canada’s biggest pension fund is bullish on energy.

    Mark Wiseman says CPPIB is looking at a range of investments from buying equity and partnering on acquisitions to outright takeovers
    Mark Wiseman, who runs Canada’s biggest pension fund, offered the Davos crowd last week a two-pronged argument on why he’s bullish on energy assets after the recent plunge in oil prices.

    Wiseman said that simple supply and demand perspective all but guarantees oil prices will be higher 10 years down the road, offering investment opportunities now for the $234 billion fund. “I’ll take that bet” on oil’s rebound, he said in an interview Tuesday at Bloomberg’s Toronto office.

    “We see a lot of value in the Western Canadian basin,” he said, noting that oil sands projects are on his radar.
    “WE LIKE COMPANIES THAT HAVE GOOD UNDERLYING ASSETS AND BAD BALANCE SHEETS. That’s the perfect scenario for us.”
    –> premonition?

    He encouraged the Canadian federal and provincial governments to look to jurisdictions like Australia, where state governments are given incentives to invest in infrastructure and court outside funding.

    In the meantime, Canada Pension is looking to places like China, India and Brazil.

    3. Willy Porneau’s Advisory Council

    Let’s take a look at how quickly the Liberals put Deep State into play.

    Willy Porno (Morneau) and his new Dream Team – the Advisory Council on Economic Growth.

    Less than 2 months after the 2015 federal election, Willy Porno announces the new Advisory Council in his speech to the Toronto Region Board of Trade.

    This was obviously planned long before the election.

    CPAC December 14, 2015 – Bill Morneau – Keynote Speech
    Finance Minister Bill Morneau addresses the Toronto Region Board of Trade, discussing the government’s strategy for supporting the middle class and long-term economic growth in Canada, including a plan to create an advisory council for economic growth. Following his speech, Morneau responds to questions from the board.

    You should see this, and also see this.

    A month later, the Crime Minister is at the World Economic Forum in Davos, with Dominic Barton:
    “I would bet that almost all of you have Canadians in leadership positions in your companies—you may not know it because we don’t often shout it from the rooftops, some clichés about Canadians are true. In fact, at least half of you have hired Dominic Barton at one point or another.”

    While in Davos, PMJT met with many high rollers – Microsoft CEO Natya Nadella, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg,

    and billionaire George Soros, whose interests include combating climate change.

    Then on Feb.22, 2016 Willy Porno announced Barton as Chair of the Council:
    This article references the earlier ties Barton had to Wiseman by creating Focusing Capital on the Long Term (FCLT) Global in 2013 – board of directors include Larry Fink CEO BlackRock NYC – Wiseman’s future boss in 3 short years.
    McKinsey executive to head new federal economic council.

    4. Canada Infrastructure Bank

    Canada’s Deep State Part 4 – Canada Infrastructure Bank
    The Canada infrastructure Bank (CIB) has been steeped in controversy since it was first proposed.

    The Liberal’s 2015 election promise was to provide low-cost financing to municipalities for infrastructure projects, as a vehicle for Ottawa to use its strong credit rating and lending authority to help municipalities reduce their cost of borrowing.

    The Liberal plans evolved considerably since the party first promised an infrastructure bank during that election campaign – there was no mention of attracting private capital. The role of the proposed Canadian Infrastructure Development Bank was to attract financing from institutional investors to fund projects over the next 10 years as a Crown corporation.

    Dominic Barton and Michael Sabia sketched out the infrastructure bank idea at the Public Policy Forum summit in Oct. 2016, a more ambitious plan in which the bank would gather and prioritize large projects that could earn revenue, such as electrical networks, and that attract billions in added international investment.

    Sounds an awful lot like McKinsey’s “for-profit public-sector work” and advising governments.

    The proposal to entice global pension funds into major Canadian investments goes far beyond anything promised to date by the federal Liberals, but Finance Minister Bill Morneau – who worked directly with the panel over the past several months – signalled a strong openness to the recommendations announced Thursday.

    However, the panel’s 14 members include leaders of some of those institutional investors, including Mark Wiseman, senior managing director of BlackRock Inc., and Michael Sabia, CEO of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec pension fund.

    Examples of potential projects listed… include toll highways and bridges, high-speed rail, port and airport expansions, city infrastructure, national broadband infrastructure, power transmission and natural resource infrastructure.

    PM hopes to attract billions in private capital for infrastructure
    Trudeau takes his foreign-investment agenda to investors, two weeks after announcing an infrastructure bank.

    He will be accompanied by nine members of cabinet, including Finance Minister Bill Morneau, Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi, Transport Minister Marc Garneau, and Health Minister Jane Philpott. Trudeau and four of the ministers also are set to make their pitch to about a dozen Canadian investors — insurance companies and big pension funds like the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board — in the morning before meeting with the international investors in the afternoon.

    Attracting billions in private-sector capital for “transformative” infrastructure projects is key to the Liberal government’s long-term strategy to boost Canada’s sluggish economic growth.

    5. Century Initiative

    Canada’s Deep State – Part 5 Century Initiative

    When I first started digging about Canada’s new ambassador to China Dominic Barton, he popped up in a group called Century Initiative – a “non-profit” Canadian “registered charity”

    Century Initiative’s 6 Founding Members – Dom, his buddy Mark & some new players
    Dominic Barton, new Ambassador to China, prev. Global Managing Partner McKinsey & Co
    Mark D. Wiseman, BlackRock NYC, former CEO Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
    Goldy Hyder, Business Council of Canada president and CEO
    – Future post to come on Hyder
    Willa Black, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs – Cisco Canada
    Tom Milroy, Managing Director, Generation Capital Limited
    Andrew Pickersgill, also McKinsey & Co

    Registered in Jan.2016, a few short months after the 2015 election, a month after Willy Porno announces the Canada Infrastructure Bank at the Toronto Region Board of Trade and while Dom & PMJT are schmoozing at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

    Now what would 6 capitalists be doing with a charity? Is this Barton’s belief that “corporations should be vehicles for social responsibility, not profits, and they should act for the welfare of all stakeholders, not just shareholders”?

    This charitable status is a huge concern – if I’m not mistaken, there is no reporting or accountability of charities – no records of donors. A perfect vehicle for money-laundering & off-shore investments, likely thru the CIB, and tax write-offs for donors – the prefect storm for the elite 1%. I also believe the recent changes to charities in Bill C-86 was an “indirect” benefit to them.

    Seems odd that Dom would set up a charity because in the past decade, McKinsey made a major push into FOR-PROFIT PUBLIC-SECTOR WORK, advising governments around the world.

    Possible links to 21st Century Initiative by the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) & Obama??? Anons???

    From Jan. to Sept. 2016, there doesn’t appear to be much about Century Initiative in the news. Of course Dom & Wiseman are busy with the Canada Investment Bank. But their buddies at Century Initiative were busy busy setting up, writing reports & hiring Shari Austin as CEO, previously VP of Corporate Citizenship and Executive Director of the RBC Foundation – not sure of her connection with Gordon Nixon, Janice Fukakusa or Wiseman’s wife Marcia Moffat at RBC but you can bet there is one.

    In Oct. 2016, press releases & new articles start exploding on the scene

    Hidden behind the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s “mandate” is Century Initiative, a “registered charity”
    Finance Minister’s key advisers want 100M Canadians by 2100

    Barton sees a dovetail between some of the ideas behind the Century Initiative and the growth council (Advisory Council), but he says they are separate.

    In fact, behind the closed doors of the growth council meetings, Barton said the Century Initiative’s 100-million goal didn’t come up.

    He did acknowledge that he and Wiseman were among the biggest proponents behind the immigration-boosting idea that the group presented to Morneau.

    “Probably because Mark and I have been in (Century Initiative) we’re obviously more naturally bullish towards it,” said Barton, who also noted that there was a lot of debate on the scope of the immigration proposal.

    6. Go Follow CdnSpotlight

    The above is only a small sample of what has been posted on the Gab account by CdnSpotlight. Lots of dirt, and much of it very unpleasant. However, Canadians concerned about their country should take a look into this.

    The rot and corruption runs deep throughout the Canadian political systems. Unfortunately, most people just don’t want to know about it.