Facts & Figures: The Ugly Truth About Replacement Migration In Canada

(It’s a constantly repeated lie that temporary workers are only temporary. They will return home once their visas expire, and not become permanent residents.)

(It’s also a lie that students will return home. In most cases, they are eligible for the PGWP, and many transition directly to permanent residents.)

(International Mobility Program, essentially an extension of TFWP, but no labour shortages actually are required. Open work permits)

(If immigration grows our economy, then why is so much money being sent out of the country? Shouldn’t that money be spent here?)

(Making Northern towns unrecognizable is the goal.)

(Agriculture workers have pathway to PR)

(Program launched in July: PR-Path for illegals)

(Program launched in July: Domestic violence ==> PR-Path)

(CANZUK, possibly the biggest open borders and globalist free trade deal in history, is official CPC policy.)

1. Important Links

Other Canuck Law Articles
CLICK HERE, for CANZUK: open borders, free trade.
CLICK HERE, for true scope of mass migration in Canada.
CLICK HERE,for CDA immigration rate: 1M/year.
CLICK HERE, for more detail On replacement migration programs.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 2003/04.
CLICK HERE, for domestic violence as perm res path.
CLICK HERE, for International Mobility Program: TFWP 2.0.
CLICK HERE, for remittances and brain drain.
CLICK HERE, for mass migration during high unemployment.
CLICK HERE, for TD Bank article on population boom.
CLICK HERE, for amnesty for illegals program launched.
CLICK HERE, for students: grads/families become PR.
CLICK HERE, for business start up visa — purchase PR status
CLICK HERE, for “ghosts” using student visas to immigrate.

2. Context For This Article

As has been reported many times on this site, immigration is nowhere near what is reported in the media. Specifically, when students and so-called “temporary” workers are factored in, it is double or triple what we are lead to believe.

Why does this matter? For a number of reasons. First, it is misleading to omit that these groups are eligible for permanent resident status. That means, most can and will remain in Canada much, MUCH longer than originally stated. It artificially lowballs the immigration rate. Yes, not everyone stays, but many will, especially if they have built roots here.

Second, most people head to the larger cities, which strain to accommodate more and more people. This results in overburdened social services, congestion, and overcrowding. And contrary to conservatives and libertarians, there is a huge financial cost to these influxes.

Third, large scale mass migration has the effect of drastically changing the culture, the societal makeup, demographics (yes, race) and the voting patterns in elections. For example, importing large numbers of people who want hate speech laws, strong gun control, and socialist rule means that voting starts trending that way. Problem is, that no one ever voted to have their societies so changed.

Fourth, it brings incompatible cultures together, again, with no mandate from the host population. Islamic Hijrah (conquest by immigration) is the most obvious, but not the only one. There’s also Chinese expansion, Sikh nationalists, and replaying of ethnic conflicts, just to name a few.

In short, mass migration completely remakes a nation, and a lot of it in negative ways. Problem is (again), no one voted for it. And repeatedly lying to minimize the scale of it only serves to make things worse.

3. Annual Reports To Parliament

CLICK HERE, for the 2004 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2005 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2006 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2007 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2008 report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2009 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2010 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2011 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2012 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2013 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2014 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2016 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2017 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Report to Parliament.

CLICK HERE, for archived listings.

Note: From the 2004 to 2018 reports (which cover 2003-2017) we can take the “temporary” migration data as well. For this, “temporary” refers to:
(a) Temporary Foreign Worker Program;
(b) International Mobility Program;
(c) Student Visas

Here’s a snapshot of these “temporary” programs from the years 2015 to 2017. Source is the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration.

Year TFW Int Mobility Student
2015 73,016 175,967 218,147
2016 78,402 207,829 265,111
2017 78,788 224,033 317,328

Above are the “temporary” categories listed in the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. Now, let’s take a look at all of it in context. Data is compiled from the 2004 to 2018 Annual Reports (which covers the years of 2003 to 2017)

Report Year Stated Imm Temporary Actual Imm
2004 221,352 143,444 364,796
2005 235,824 147,204 383,028
2006 262,236 156,622 418,858
2007 251,649 174,361 426,010
2008 236,758 229,834 466,592
2009 247,243 272,028 519,271
2010 252,179 263,618 515,797
2011 280,681 278,433 559,114
2012 248,748 289,225 537,973
2013 257,887 318,383 576,270
2014 258,953 333,175 592,128
2015 260,404 420,708 681,112
2016 271,845 468,126 739,971
2017 296,346 551,342 847,688
2018 331,226 620,149 951,375

The public is (wrongly) told that the annual averages were about 250K during the Harper years (2006 to 2015) and creeping up to 300 under Trudeau, and expected to hit about 350K in a few years. Big problem is that these claims deliberately leave out the pathway-to-PR students and “temporary” workers.

While these programs are touted as “temporary” this is extremely misleading, as an awful lot of people from all streams will remain in Canada. Either they will transition to permanent residents, or remain in some other capacity.

4. Surge In Student Visas

(UBC Promoting post-graduate options to students)

(University of Calgary and options for foreign students.

(University of Regina promoting permanent residence)

CLICK HERE, for Provincial Nominee Seminar at UBC.
CLICK HERE, for permanent resident information from UCalgary.
CLICK HERE, for URegina on the Sask Immigrant Nominee Program.

The above are just the first 3 that I checked out. In fact, in seems that ALL colleges and universities are offering guidance for their international students on how to remain in Canada after they graduate.

But why would they do that? The powers that be repeatedly assure us that these students are in the country temporarily, and that they will return home afterwards. It’s almost as if these student visas were a form of backdoor immigration.

Report Year Numbers
2004 61,293
2005 56,536
2006 57,476
2007 61,703
2008 64,636
2009 79,509
2010 85,140
2011 96,157
2012 98,383
2013 104,810
2014 111,865
2015 127,698
2016 219,143
2017 265,111
2018 317,328

In 2003, Canada issued 60,000 student visas (rounded down) and in 2017 issued 315,000 student visas (again, rounded down). This is more than 5 times the amount, in just a 15 year period.

Sources are the 2004 to 2018 Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. They are listed in Section #3. Now, not everyone will stay in Canada after they are done school. But many will, and our Government makes that very easy.

5. Surge In “Temporary” Workers

Note: in 2014 there was a public scandal regarding the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Word got out as to just how wide spread the program was, and just how many people were being “imported” into jobs that Canadians could do, but who had to be paid more.

The “solution”, if you can call it that, was to break up the TFWP into 2 categories: one where a Labour Market Impact Assessment was needed (LIMA), and one that was not (an open work permit).

In this case, the TFWP required the LIMA, whereas the previously existing International Mobility Program was scaled up (no LIMA required). To summarize, rather than fix the underlying problem, the Government decided to split up the program and call it fixed.

Temporary Foreign Worker Program

Report Year Numbers
2004 82,151
2005 90,668
2006 99,146
2007 112,658
2008 165,198
2009 192,519
2010 178,478
2011 182,276
2012 190,842
2013 213,573
2014 221,310
2015 95,086
2016 73,016
2017 78,402
2018 78,788

International Mobility Program

Report Year Numbers
2004 included
2005 included
2006 included
2007 included
2008 included
2009 included
2010 included
2011 included
2012 included
2013 included
2014 included
2015 197,924
2016 175,967
2017 207,829
2018 224,033

Split Up Of TFWP

To offer greater clarity and transparency, the current TFWP is being reorganized and new International Mobility Programs (IMPs) are being created. The TFWP will now refer to those streams under which foreign workers enter Canada at the request of employers following approval through a new Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). The new IMPs will incorporate those streams in which foreign nationals are not subject to an LMIA, and whose primary objective is to advance Canada’s broad economic and cultural national interest, rather than filling particular jobs. These reorganized programs will improve accountability, with Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) being the lead department for the TFWP, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) the lead department for the IMPs. In addition, ESDC will publicly post data on the number of positions for temporary foreign workers approved through the TFWP on a quarterly basis, and will post the names of corporations that receive permission to hire temporary foreign workers through LMIAs.

Source is right here.

For some context, consider that in 2003, about 80,000 temporary workers were admitted into Canada. That contrasts with over 300,000 in 2017 (when TFWP and IMP both factored in). That is nearly 4 times the amount in just 15 years.

CPC Supports Temp-To-PR Pipeline
The Conservative Party of Canada supports both: creating new immigration pilot programs, and transitioning temporary workers into permanent residents. That is listed in Article 139 of their Policy Declaration (found under Governing Documents)

Also worth noting that CANZUK is official CPC policy as well, Article 152 of their Policy Declaration. CANZUK, when fully implemented would allow free trade and free travel between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Effectively, it would erase the borders between those nations. Aside from the obvious problems, other nations like India, Pakistan, and the rest of the Commonwealth could potentially join. Would all of those “temporary” people be PR eligible as well?

To be fair, the People’s Party of Canada, which claims to “open the Overton window” on immigration, never addresses any of the following:
(a) True scale of mass migration;
(b) Temps/Students transitioning to PR;
(c) Importing the 3rd World;
(d) Rapid demographic change;
(e) Changes in voting trends, less conservatism;
(f) CANZUK being implemented

It would be nice if these Annual Reports to Parliament were more detailed in which programs/streams people were transitioning into permanent residents. It would also help for more information on how many people remain in the country but don’t become citizens. Alas, such useful data is lacking.

To address the elephant in the room: not all of the temporary workers do stay in Canada. Similarly, not all students stay in Canada after they graduate. But an awful lot do. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government doesn’t easily provide that information, so it has to be pieced together.

6. Remittances Sent Back Home

The Bank estimates that officially recorded annual remittance flows to low- and middle-income countries reached $529 billion in 2018, an increase of 9.6 percent over the previous record high of $483 billion in 2017. Global remittances, which include flows to high-income countries, reached $689 billion in 2018, up from $633 billion in 2017.

Among countries, the top remittance recipients were India with $79 billion, followed by China ($67 billion), Mexico ($36 billion), the Philippines ($34 billion), and Egypt ($29 billion).

The Brief also reports progress toward the SDG target of reducing the recruitment costs paid by migrant workers, which tend to be high, especially for lower-skilled migrants.

The World Bank estimates that $689 billion was sent in remittances globally in the year 2018. Globalist politicians repeatedly say that immigration brings wealth to the country, but it seems to be a source of draining it.

Worth noting that reducing fees for remittances is a goal long held by the UN. It’s as if they expect and promote mass migration to the West.

7. Importing The 3rd World

The tables below are composed form data gathered in the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament (see Section #3). While this data related to % of people gaining permanent residence, and which countries they originate from, it’s a pretty good indicator of where Canada is importing people from.

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2004 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 16.3
#2 India 11.1
#3 Pakistan 5.6
#4 Philippines 5.4
#5 S. Korea 3.2
#6 U.S. 2.7
#7 Iran 2.6
#8 Romania 2.5
#9 U.K. & Colonies 2.4
#10 Sri Lanka 2.0

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2007 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 13.2
#2 India 12.2
#3 Philippines 7.0
#4 Pakistan 4.9
#5 U.S.A. 4.3
#6 Iran 2.8
#7 U.K. 2.6
#8 S. Korea 2.5
#9 Colombia 2.3
#10 France 2.0

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2010 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 12
#2 Philippines 11
#3 India 10
#4 U.S.A 4
#5 U.K. & Colonies 4
#6 France 3
#7 Pakistan 2
#8 Iran 2
#9 S. Korea 2
#10 Morocco 2

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2013 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 12.8
#2 Philippines 12.7
#3 India 11.2
#4 Pakistan 3.9
#5 U.S.A 3.7
#6 France 3.2
#7 Iran 2.5
#8 U.K. & Colonies 2.5
#9 Haiti 2.2
#10 S. Korea 2.1

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2016 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 Philippines 18.7
#2 India 14.5
#3 China 7.2
#4 Iran 4.3
#5 Pakistan 4.2
#6 Syria 3.6
#7 U.S.A. 3.0
#8 France 2.0
#9 U.K. & Colonies 2.0
#10 Nigeria 2.0

Note: Of the top 10 countries of origin, only 3 are from European, Western nations (France, the U.S., and the U.K. & Colonies). However, ever U.K. & Colonies is suspect, as it contains people from outside the U.K.

Who would have thought that mass migration of the 3rd World would lead to Canada becoming the 3rd World? This connection is obviously so difficult to make.

8. White Genocide In Action

Year Population % of Canada
1871 3,433,315 98.5%
1881 4,146,900 95.9%
1901 5,170,522 96.0%
1911 7,005,583 94.35%
1921 8,568,584 96.0%
1931 10,134,313 97.7%
1941 11,242,868 97.8%
1951 13,582,574 96.83%
1961 17,653,864 96.8%
1966 96.8%
1971 20,763,915 96.3%
1981 22,402,000 93.0%
1986
1986
1996 24,531,635 86.0%
2001 24,678,880 83.3%
2006 25,000,155 80.0%
2011 25,186,890 76.7%
2016 25,111,695 72.9%

Based off the Wikipedia page, it’s sources are: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

To point out the obvious, yes the data table is incomplete. There are a few years missing. However, the overall trend shows an undeniable pattern towards those of European descent declining as a percentage and losing voting power.

Euro Canadians will be a minority in about a decade or so. How well will we be treated then?

9. Truth About Birth Rates

Live Births in Canada: 2013 – 2017
Deaths in Canada: 2013 – 2017

Year Birth Deaths Diff Day
2013 380,323 252,338 127,985 350
2014 384,100 258,821 125,279 343
2015 382,392 264,333 118,059 323
2016 383,102 267,213 115,889 318
2017 379,450 276,689 102,761 281

It’s a commonly repeated myth that the Canadian population is declining. In fact, it is growing by about an average of 300 people per day, and has for several years. That being said, this is not at the same across groups. Couples European descent have an average of about 1.5 children each, far below the replacement rate.

Truth is demographic replacement is already taking place, even without any immigration. And that leads to the next segment: a groups that WANTS to breed, in order to achieve its goal of world domination.

10. Muslims Taking Over The World

(Muslims man bragging that demographic change will lead to Sharia Law replacing Canadian Law at some point)

This man isn’t kidding about Islam becoming the biggest religious group. The goal is world domination, and they are breeding their way to get it. These findings, from Pew Research.

Babies born to Muslims will begin to outnumber Christian births by 2035; people with no religion face a birth dearth.

More babies were born to Christian mothers than to members of any other religion in recent years, reflecting Christianity’s continued status as the world’s largest religious group. But this is unlikely to be the case for much longer: Less than 20 years from now, the number of babies born to Muslims is expected to modestly exceed births to Christians, according to new Pew Research Center demographic estimates.

Muslims are projected to be the world’s fastest-growing major religious group in the decades ahead, as Pew Research Center has explained, and signs of this rapid growth already are visible. In the period between 2010 and 2015, births to Muslims made up an estimated 31% of all babies born around the world – far exceeding the Muslim share of people of all ages in 2015 (24%).

The current age distribution of each religious group is an important determinant of demographic growth. Some groups’ adherents are predominantly young, with their prime childbearing years still ahead, while members of other groups are older and largely past their childbearing years. The median ages of Muslims (24 years) and Hindus (27) are younger than the median age of the world’s overall population (30), while the median age of Christians (30) matches the global median. All the other groups are older than the global median, which is part of the reason why they are expected to fall behind the pace of global population growth.

He’s not wrong at all. Pew Research is predicting exactly that. Muslims will become the biggest religious group in a short time.

Of course, the fact that they murder: Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, gays, blasphemers, apostates, and different sects of Islam “might” have something to do with those changing demographics. They aren’t exactly tolerant.

11. UN Supports Replacement, White Genocide

This topic was covered previously, but time for a trip down memory lane. The United Nations has been holding “population conferences” since the 1950s. Interestingly, the solution is always the same: more migration from the 3rd World. Not higher birth rates. Not a decline may be okay. Not “piss off” as a response. More mass migration.

(UN considers replacement migration — not higher birthrates — to be the solution to declining populations)

(UN Population Division still hard at work)

(The UN Global Migration Group)

(Other important replacement migration meetings)

(Agreed outcomes on population)

UN webpages worth a read
CLICK HERE, for the UN Population Division website.
CLICK HERE, for the UN research into replacement migration
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t views & policies.
CLICK HERE, for participant contact info.
CLICK HERE, for Russian replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for European replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for Korean population decline.
CLICK HERE, for various conferences.
CLICK HERE, for the “About” page.
CLICK HERE, for “resolutions” from the UN Population Division.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Prevention and Punishing Genocide.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact.

UN Global Migration Group

  • Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
  • International Labour Organization (ILO)
  • International Organization for Migration (IOM)
  • Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
  • United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
  • United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
  • United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)
  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
  • United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women)
  • United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
  • United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
  • United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
  • United Nations Regional Commissions
  • United Nations University (UNU)
  • World Bank
  • World Health Organization (WHO)

Not much to add to this abomination, but it is plain and obvious that the replacement agenda is going on at a global level, and has been for decades.

Consider this: the UN was formed at the end of the Second World War in 1945. Less than a decade later, it is already holding population conferences. They continue even now.

12. Multiculturalism Is Genocide

This may seem strange, but consider the following. Forcibly remaking the population without their consent amounts to genocide, as defined by the United Nations. Check out the UN Convention On Prevention and Punishing Genocide.

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article V
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

Article VI
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Article VII
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

13. Where To Go From Here

A moratorium on immigration is the only sensible answer. This “multiculti” experiment is a total failure, and it’s time to put a stop to it. Illegals need to be deported.

Stop Islamic immigration. Permanently. Deport whoever can be legally deported, and ban political Islam. Mosques need to be shutdown wherever possible.

This multicultural push also needs to go. If Canada (or any nation) is to survive, it must be united under one identity.

How did we get to the stage where replacing your population, your culture, language, traditions, and customs is valued as “diversity”? Shouldn’t we preserve what we have?

Put our own people first. Have our own children, more of them, and keep the culture (what’s left of it) intact. Stop sending money away with remittances, stop importing cheap labour, and driving down wages.

It is mind boggling that so-called “conservatives” keep pushing for mass migration from socialist and other left leaning nations. It never seems to dawn on them that importing liberal and socialist voters means that their own base will eventually be replaced. Idiots. But who cares, as long as the cheap labour keeps flowing.

Canada’s Bill C-14, Assisted Suicide

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Gov’t of Canada website on assisted dying.
CLICK HERE, for 2015 Supreme Court ruling.
CLICK HERE, for 1993 ruling prohibiting assisted suicide.
CLICK HERE, for the CDN Charter of Rights & Freedoms.
CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Criminal Code.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-14, assisted suicide.

2. Law Against Assisted Suicide

Suicide
Marginal note:
Counselling or aiding suicide
241 (1) Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years who, whether suicide ensues or not,
(a) counsels a person to die by suicide or abets a person in dying by suicide; or
(b) aids a person to die by suicide.

Now there is more to be considered. See section 6.

3. Canadian Charter, Section 7

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Marginal note:
Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The 2015 decision ruled that the blanket ban violated the Section 7 Charter rights, and that there was no “saving” of it under Section 1.

4. SCC Orders Parliament To Fix Law

XIII. Conclusion
[147] The appeal is allowed. We would issue the following declaration, which is suspended for 12 months:
Section 241 (b) and s. 14 of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringe s. 7 of the Charter and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the prohibition against assisted suicide violated Section 7 of the Charter, which addresses security of the person.

The ruling is very long, and addressed the issue from a number of legal questions. It also addressed whether the Lower Courts should be bound by a 1993 ruling on much the same issues. It’s too lengthy to go through in an article, but is worth a read.

5. Bill C-14, Assisted Dying

SUMMARY
.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create exemptions from the offences of culpable homicide, of aiding suicide and of administering a noxious thing, in order to permit medical practitioners and nurse practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying and to permit pharmacists and other persons to assist in the process;
(b) specify the eligibility criteria and the safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person;
(c) require that medical practitioners and nurse practitioners who receive requests for, and pharmacists who dispense substances in connection with the provision of, medical assist­ance in dying provide information for the purpose of permitting the monitoring of medical assistance in dying, and authorize the Minister of Health to make regulations respecting that information; and
(d) create new offences for failing to comply with the safeguards, for forging or destroying documents related to medical assistance in dying, for failing to provide the required information and for contravening the regulations.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Federal Government was ordered to remedy the situation. Bill C-14 was introduced in 2016 to set out the guidelines for medically assisted death.

6. Medical Assistance Exemption

Eligibility for medical assistance in dying
241.2 (1) A person may receive medical assistance in dying only if they meet all of the following criteria:
(a) they are eligible — or, but for any applicable minimum period of residence or waiting period, would be eligible — for health services funded by a government in Canada;
(b) they are at least 18 years of age and capable of making decisions with respect to their health;
(c) they have a grievous and irremediable medical condition;
(d) they have made a voluntary request for medical assistance in dying that, in particular, was not made as a result of external pressure; and
(e) they give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying after having been informed of the means that are available to relieve their suffering, including palliative care.

Grievous and irremediable medical condition
(2) A person has a grievous and irremediable medical condition only if they meet all of the following criteria:
(a) they have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability;
(b) they are in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability;
(c) that illness, disease or disability or that state of decline causes them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable; and
(d) their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, taking into account all of their medical circumstances, without a prognosis necessarily having been made as to the specific length of time that they have remaining.

To be fair, there are considerable safeguards written into the law to ensure that the person suffering is actually the one making the decision, and that it is voluntary and informed.

7. Where Does It Go From Here?

Currently, the law applies only to adults. But what happens when children decide that they want to make decisions over their own “health care”? Will minors be allowed to get it themselves? This is currently being considered.

The law allows for assisted suicide in the case of serious conditions which cause pain and is irreversible, and to get worse. How much will that get watered down over time? Perhaps this is just a foot-in-the-door technique to be able to end lives over more minor things.

What will happen to medical staff who refuse to participate in this? Will they become subject to sanctions for discrimination, or failing to fulfill a duty?

In fairness to Trudeau (it feels weird defending him), introducing this, or similar legislation, was forced by the 2015 Supreme Court ruling. Some bill had to be introduced at some point, so he doesn’t own this one.

Personally, this is conflicting. People should have control over their own lives, yes, but trending down a slope where lives are valued less and less is very troubling. How we treat and care for people reflects the society we live in, and this is the wrong direction to head in.

Controlled Opposition “Conservatives” Take Act To Supreme Court (Climate Change Scam #13)

(Originally featured in Maclean’s as “The Resistance”)

(Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe. Read between the lines.)

1. Important Links

Court Documents Filed
CLICK HERE, for Ontario’s Supreme Court Factum.
CLICK HERE, for Sask’s Supreme Court Factum.

CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Court of Appeals ruling.
CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court of Appeals ruling.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA, Ontario Factum.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA, BC Factum, GGPPA.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA, NB Factum, GGPPA.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA, United Conservative Assoc.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA, CDN Taxpayers Federation.

Alberta Situation
CLICK HERE, for Jason Kenney Repeals Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Kenney Supports New Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Kenney To Hike New Carbon Tax.

CLICK HERE, for New Brunswick creating its own Carbon tax.

Previous Articles On Scam
CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for Part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai’s explanation of CCS.
CLICK HERE, for Part XII, Joel Wood and Carbon tax “option”.
CLICK HERE, for UN global taxation efforts.

2. Reading Between The Lines

Throughout this interview, and any interview, Scott Moe never tells anyone that Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, and that it is used in photosynthesis. He never tells his interviewers that removing CO2 from the atmosphere will kill off plant-life, and by extension, ourselves. Moe never goes into any of the bogus junk science.

Why does this matter? Because Scott Moe, like Doug Ford in Ontario, Jason Kenney in Alberta, Blaine Higgs in New Brunswick, and Brian Pallister in Manitoba all claim to oppose the Carbon tax, but endorse the climate change scam itself.

Read through the filings throughout this article. These so-called “conservatives” thoroughly and completely endorse the UN IPCC warnings that catastrophe is imminent. They all agree that climate change will cause damage long term. They don’t (really) even oppose a Carbon tax. The issue is over who shall implement a “solution”, the Federal Government of the Provinces.

They cannot effectively oppose an agenda that they support in principle. All of these self-identified “conservative” Premiers are on board with the climate change scam.

3. Supreme Court Of Canada Filings

Let’s start with the pleadings filed by the Ontario Government, currently under the rule of Doug Ford. What does Ontario have to say about this?

The Ontario challenge previously, and this subsequent appeal, are limited to 2 very narrow and technical questions over taxation. There is nothing in either the ONCA challenge, nor this appeal, that suggest the Government takes any issue with the climate change agenda.

In fact, in the Court of Appeal challenge, the Ontario Government fully accepted the UNIPCC claims about climate change, and the need to act urgently on it. So, really, what is the point of doing these challenges in the first place?

Now let’s turn to Saskatchewan, which has joined as an intervenor in this case. Essentially, they are supporting Ontario’s challenge. What do they have to say about all of this.

Similar to Ontario, Saskatchewan does not challenge the climate change agenda in any way, shape or form. Instead, there are 2 extremely limited and technical questions put forward for the court to consider.

This is the state of opposition to Trudeau in Canada. Admit all of the major facts. Instead, argue over minor details, and insist this is a Provincial matter. Very petty.

(from the Ontario submissions)

1. This case is not about whether action needs to be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or the relative effectiveness of particular policy alternatives. It is about (1) whether the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the “Act”) can be supported under the national concern branch of the POGG power; and (2) whether the “charges” imposed by the Act
are valid as regulatory charges or as taxes. The answer to both questions should be no.

(from the Saskatchewan submissions)

2. This appeal does not concern whether global climate change is real and concerning or if the provinces are taking sufficient action to reduce GHG emissions. All parties agree that global climate change is a significant societal problem and all provinces have and continue to take action to reduce GHG emissions. In the Courts below, many submissions, including those of the Attorney General of Canada, focused on the nature of climate change and the importance of carbon pricing as an effective method of reducing GHG emissions. However, the efficacy of carbon pricing is not relevant to the constitutionality of the GGPPA, which must be derived from whether it is within the legislative competence of the federal government.

This entire façade is limited to technical questions over taxation. Nothing about the fake science behind these dire predictions.

And no, this is not limited to the Supreme Court of Canada. These players pulled the exact same stunt in their respective Provincial challenges.

4. Ontario Court Of Appeal Ruling

At the ONCA, the Province lost in a split decision to the Federal Government. The arguments were very similar to what happened in the Saskatchewan case. So what went wrong? Well, admitting that climate change is a threat to the world might not have helped.

Yes, in their own court challenge, Ontario agreed that climate change is a serious problem, and that real action has to be taken to prevent it from getting worse. So from that perspective, the court essentially had a case where the facts were all agreed to.

Don’t worry. It’s about to get much worse. Ontario was joined by several “intervenors” who were essentially there to reinforce their case. And they did just that.

Ontario was joined by New Brunswick. Not only did they endorse Ontario’s view that climate change is real and a threat, they said that this court forum should not be used by anyone who would deny climate change. So much for allowing different perspectives.

British Columbia also joins as an intervenor in the case. BC reiterates that climate change is real, and greenhouse gases are to blame. But instead of rejecting a Carbon tax, it touts its own as a model to emulate.

However, it is not just other Provincial or local Governments that were allowed to enter submissions for this hearing. Other groups were as well. Let’s take a look at a few.

The United Conservative Association entered the case, claiming that they agreed with the Attorney General of Ontario’s submissions. Thing is, the AG submitted that climate change was a threat to everyone and that action had to be taken. In essence, all of the facts were admitted once again. The only opposition was to prevent backlash and a unity crisis over the taxation.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation also joined in the Ontario matter. They argued that given their agenda, not wasting the money of taxpayers was a real concern. While true, they never addressed the elephant in the room: namely that the whole Carbon tax was predicated on lies.

Now, with every one of these parties saying that climate change is real and that human are responsible (or at least ignoring the issue), it should be no surprise how the court ruled. The ONCA said that yes, the Federal Government had the right to levy this tax.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
[6] Climate change was described in the Paris Agreement of 2015 as “an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet”. It added that this “requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries, and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response”.

[7] There is no dispute that global climate change is taking place and that human activities are the primary cause. The combustion of fossil fuels, like coal, natural gas and oil and its derivatives, releases GHGs into the atmosphere. When incoming radiation from the Sun reaches Earth’s surface, it is absorbed and converted into heat. GHGs act like the glass roof of a greenhouse, trapping some of this heat as it radiates back into the atmosphere, causing surface temperatures to increase. Carbon dioxide (“CO2”) is the most prevalent GHG emitted by human activities. This is why pricing for GHG emissions is referred to as carbon pricing, and why GHG emissions are typically referred to on a CO2 equivalent basis. Other common GHGs include methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.

[8] At appropriate levels, GHGs are beneficial. They surround the planet like a blanket, keeping temperatures within limits at which humans, animals, plants and marine life can live in balance. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere was relatively stable for several million years. However, since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century, and more particularly since the 1950s, the level of GHGs in the atmosphere has been increasing at an alarming rate. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are now more than 400 parts per million, a level not reached since the mid-Pliocene epoch, approximately 3-5 million years ago. Concentrations of other GHGs have also increased dramatically.

Quite predictably, Ontario lost their challenge at the Court of Appeals. Pretty hard to win when you admit all of the other side’s “facts” regardless of how absurd they are.

5. Saskatchewan Court Of Appeal

II. OVERVIEW
[4] The factual record presented to the Court confirms that climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions is one of the great existential issues of our time. The pressing importance of limiting such emissions is accepted by all of the participants in these proceedings.

[5] The Act seeks to ensure there is a minimum national price on GHG emissions in order to encourage their mitigation. Part 1 of the Act imposes a charge on GHG-producing fuels and combustible waste. Part 2 puts in place an output-based performance system for large industrial facilities. Such facilities are obliged to pay compensation if their GHG emissions exceed applicable limits. Significantly, the Act operates as no more than a backstop. It applies only in those provinces or areas where the Governor in Council concludes GHG emissions are not priced at an appropriate level.

[6] The sole issue before the Court is whether Parliament has the constitutional authority to enact the Act. The issue is not whether GHG pricing should or should not be adopted or whether the Act is effective or fair. Those are questions to be answered by Parliament and by provincial legislatures, not by courts.

[7] The Constitution Act, 1867 distributes legislative authority between Parliament and the provincial legislatures. Broadly speaking, a statute is valid if its essential character falls within a subject matter allocated to the legislative body that put the statute in place. Neither level of government has exclusive authority over the environment. As a result, Parliament can legislate in relation to issues such as GHGs so long as it stays within the four corners of its prescribed subject matters and the provinces can do the same so long as they stay within their prescribed areas of authority.

Quite inexplicably, Saskatchewan admitted, that climate change was a serious problem, and that real action had to be taken. Basically, they admitted that all of the Federal Government’s claims were true. All that the SKCOA had to do was answer some technical questions about whether this taxation format was legal.

Like Doug Ford, Scott Moe sabotaged his Provincial Reference Question by ceding to the pseudo-science that the UNIPCC puts out. Had he challenged it, it is quite likely that the Carbon taxes would have been gone by now.

6. Capitulation By “The Resistance”

The industry tax is being set at a higher level per tonne than Mr. Kenney promised during the spring election, $30 instead of $20, in a move to ensure that the provincial government’s plan is in compliance with the federal climate law. Due to the size of Alberta’s industrial base, especially the province’s large oil and gas industry, the expected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the plan will contribute significantly to meeting national targets.

Speaking with reporters on Tuesday before he tabled the legislation, Environment Minister Jason Nixon said industries across Alberta were close to unanimous that they wanted the province to set the tax at a level where the federal government would not take over and regulate their emissions.

The minister added that he will consult on future increases to the provincial tax. The federal carbon price for industry is set to increase by $10 annually until it reaches $50-per-tonne in 2022. If Alberta’s tax were to fall below the federal threshold, Ottawa would likely impose a higher tax under a provision in the federal law known as the backstop.

This is a strange version of fighting for your constituents: surrender and gouge them yourselves, so that Ottawa won’t be the one doing the gouging.

7. Elephant In The Room: Junk Science

Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is touted as a “greenhouse gas” which contributes to all kinds of environmental disasters.

”Global warming” is a term not used as much anymore, since “climate change” is more vague, and can be more easily adapted.

However, carbon dioxide occurs naturally, just from breathing.

The human body converts carbohydrates, fatty acids, and proteins into smaller “waste products” such as water and carbon dioxide in order to extract energy from them.

Carbon dioxide is not a “waste product” to be eliminated. It is a necessary resource plants use for photosynthesis

6 CO2 (carbon dioxide) + 6 H20 (water) + sunlight ===> C6H1206 (sugar) + 6 02 (oxygen)

While only plants engage in photosynthesis, both plants and animals respire

C6H1206 (sugar) + 6 02 (oxygen) ===> 6 CO2 (carbon dioxide) + 6 H20 (water) + usable energy

The photosynthesis and respiration cycles are not some big mystery. They have been taught in grade schools for many years.

CdnSpotlight: A Gab Account Worth Checking Out

1. Important Links

Part 1 – Dominic Barton the Architect
CLICK HERE, for link.

Part 2 – Mark Wiseman, CPPIB & BlackRock
CLICK HERE, for link.

Part 3 – Willy Porno’s (Morneau) Advisory Council on Economic Growth
CLICK HERE, for link.

Part 4 – Canada Infrastructure Bank
CLICK HERE, for link.

Part 5 – Century Initiative
CLICK HERE, for link.

Part 6 – Goldy Hyder
CLICK HERE, for link.

2. Context For This Piece

Every patriot should be concerned about the state of affairs in their country, regardless of political leaning. Moreover, serious matters should be brought to the public’s attention.

This GAB account is one I’ve come across with some interesting research. Who’s behind it is not important. What is important is what information that is to be shared.

3. Connecting The Dots

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)

That is just a sample of what the GAB account is posting. Well worth a read. Any help that we can get in understanding globalism here is Canada is always appreciated.

StatsCan Research: Fake Students Using Visas To Immigrate

(StatsCan research on students, including fake student visas)

(Here is the research itself)

(Large numbers of student visa holders are not enrolled)

(No surprise anymore, students transitioning to permanent residents)

(Student visas are path-to-PR in Canada, and PGWP)

(Research on the student-to-PR pipeline)

(317,000 student visas issued in 2017, according to 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(224,000 International Mobility, 79,000 TFW, in 2018 Report)

(CPC policy: new pilot projects, convert temps to PR)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for StatsCan research on ghost students.
CLICK HERE, for 20-27% of students become PR.
CLICK HERE, for 2018 Annual Report to Parl. on Immigration.
CLICK HERE, for U of T research on PR transition (paywall).
CLICK HERE, for Post Graduate Work Program.
CLICK HERE, for working while in school.
CLICK HERE, for a Vancouver Sun article on the subject.

Other Canuck Law Articles
CLICK HERE, for CANZUK: open borders, free trade.
CLICK HERE, for true scope of mass migration in Canada.
CLICK HERE,for CDA immigration rate: 1M/year.
CLICK HERE, for more detail On replacement migration programs.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 2003/04.
CLICK HERE, for domestic violence as perm res path.
CLICK HERE, for International Mobility Program: TFWP 2.0.
CLICK HERE, for remittances and brain drain.
CLICK HERE, for mass migration during high unemployment.
CLICK HERE, for TD Bank article on population boom.
CLICK HERE, for amnesty for illegals program launched.
CLICK HERE, for students: grads/families become PR.
CLICK HERE, for business start up visa — purchase PR status

2. Context For This Piece

As is plain and obvious from the above links, documenting and reporting on the true scale of replacement migration into Canada is a priority. This includes programs which are sold to the public as “temporary”, but which include pathways to permanent residence.

This article explores the concept of “ghost students”, people who come to Canada on student visas, but whom have other ideas and intentions all along.

3. Vancouver Sun Article

The StatsCan study, by Marc Frenette, Yuquian Lu and Winnie Chan, echoes the findings of an internal Immigration Department report that revealed 25 per cent of would-be foreign students in Canada in 2018 were likely not complying with the conditions of their visa or were just not being monitored by school administrators.

The high no-show rate comes as there is a rising trend toward “edu-immigration” to Canada. Many foreign nationals are being encouraged by immigration agents to use Canada’s study permits to gain a relatively easy foothold in the country to find work, through which they can try to obtain permanent resident status.

One of the disquieting findings in the StatsCan report is that 2015’s rate was an improvement over previous years: In 2009, only half of study-permit holders were signed up with a school.
.
When Postmedia asked Statistics Canada why such a large proportion of would-be foreign students appear to be avoiding studying, officials said the authors of the report were not permitted to directly answer Postmedia’s questions.

The study concluded that about one in four study-visa holders in Canada eventually gain permanent resident status. But beyond such data, the authors said, “Little is known about international students in Canada.”
.
Hyman, the immigration lawyer, says there is no doubt many study-permit holders come to Canada essentially to work and not to study.

The Vancouver Sun article gets into many uncomfortable truths, namely a large number of people with student visas are not enrolled in Canadian schools. Either they have left, or never intended to study in the first place.

It also outlines the lack of oversight and enforcement going on within the school systems and the Immigration Ministry. Why allow so many “students”? The schools need the money. They have big obligations.

The Sun article cites this StatsCan paper, which states that 30% of people on student visas are not actually enrolled, while in 2009, almost 50% were not enrolled.

The Sun article (I believe) references this StatsCan publication that estimates that 20-27% of students on visa get their permanent residence status within 10 years. Even if it is only about a quarter of students, which seems very low, that is still a very real path to permanent residence.

4. StatsCan Research On Ghosts

The IMDB contains information on all temporary and permanent residents since 1980. For the purposes of this study, only the information on temporary residents was used. Specifically, the number of valid postsecondary study permit holders was generated to compare it with the actual number of international students enrolled in postsecondary programs based on data from PSIS, which contains program information for all students enrolled in Canadian public postsecondary institutions. Immigration status is listed in PSIS because postsecondary institutions are allowed to charge international students higher tuition fees than Canadian students, and this information is collected annually. Three groups were analyzed separately in this study: Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and student visa or permit holders (international students). The T1FF is a census of all Canadian taxfilers and their spouses and children. It contains detailed income information as well as basic demographics. The information on T4 wages and salaries in the T1FF was of particular interest in this study.

The study found that approximately 69.5% of postsecondary study permit holders actually enrolled in a postsecondary program in 2015—up from 51.8% in 2009. Between 2009 and 2015, the number of international postsecondary students nearly doubled. This resulted in a significant increase in the proportion of postsecondary students who were international students (from 6.6% in 2009 to 11.3% in 2015). International students enrolled in university bachelor’s degree programs accounted for about half of this increase. Although a smaller proportion of international students enrolled in college diploma programs, this was the fastest-growing group—accounting for 19.8% of international students in 2015, compared with 12.0% in 2009. In general, international students were more likely to be enrolled in university graduate programs and in higher-paying fields than Canadian students.

The research concludes, that large numbers of people on student visas are not actually enrolled in a Canadian school. While it is true that some people could have stayed home or gone elsewhere, student visas are cancelled if the person changes their mind. So the obvious question: where are these people, and what are they doing?

One of the reasons why international students were less likely to be employed than Canadian students might be because of the rules governing international students’ right to work. Prior to June 1, 2014, international students had to obtain a permit to work off campus and had to study for a period of at least six months before doing so. As of June 1, 2014, these rules are no longer in place, which may result in higher international student employment rates in the future.

Yes, the rules have been relaxed, and that means more and more students are “students” will be working while in school. Sort of a no brainer.

In the future, linking the Longitudinal Immigration Database (IMDB) data with postsecondary and taxation data could open new opportunities for research on international students. First, the IMDB could be used to disaggregate the results of this study by country of citizenship. Second, the relationship between educational experience and the transition to permanent residency could be explored. Third, international students may transition to a post-graduation work permit after completing their studies—future research could examine whether this type of work permit is associated with superior labour market outcomes and an increased propensity to transition to permanent residency.

These last remarks are from the conclusion. It seems to around the obvious, that student visas are a pathway to permanent residence. There is the Provincial Nominee Program, Atlantic Pilot Project, and other such options Even if not right away, the Post Graduate Work Program is one possibility to get PR at a later date.

5. StatsCan On Transitioning To PR

Introduction
Every year, tens of thousands of international students from all over the world are attracted to Canada to pursue educational opportunities. Since the 1990s, Canada has experienced rapid growth in its numbers of international students. Together with temporary foreign workers and International Experience Canada, international students are one of the three classes of temporary economic residents that are admitted to Canada. According to a strategic plan released in early 2014, the Canadian government hopes to attract 450,000 international students by 2022, which will double the number of international students currently studying in the country.

The large inflow of international students provides Canada with a large pool of well-educated individuals from which to select permanent residents. Among temporary foreign residents who obtained a study permit between 1990 and 2014, more than 270,000 (19%) became permanent residents by 2014. Additional measures to attract highly educated international students and facilitate their transition to eventual immigration were added in the late 2000s, when Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) permitted international students to seek work opportunities and acquire the skilled work experience required to apply for permanent residence.

It is confirmed by StatsCan, what has been said on this site for months. Students are not “temporary” migration, but rather there are intentional pathways to permanent residence built in.

And StatsCan also confirms what is in those Annual Reports to Parliament. There are 3 main “temporary” migration programs. But let’s be honest, they aren’t really temporary.

  • Student Visas
  • International Mobility Program
  • Temporary Foreign Worker Program

6. Stating The Obvious On Student Visas

Why aren’t people on student visas showing up for class? Probably, that in a lot of these cases, being a student was never the goal, or at least not a high priority. In such cases, the goal is remaining in Canada, and being a student just the excuse.

That being said, even those who do attend Canadian schools have legitimate ways to remain in Canada. In fact, our government passes laws and regulations that encourage it. There are immediate ways to become a permanent resident, or one can simply obtain a 3 year visa from the Post Graduate Work Program.

Unfortunately, there is little data available on who actually leaves Canada once a student visa is no longer valid. Until 2016, the Federal Government did not even track who was leaving the country, only those entering.

Canadians are duped into believing that programs are temporary. They are not.

So where are all of these “ghost” students? What are they doing these days? How many of them are still in the country? Good questions, but our government has few answers.

Predatory Publications By Professor Pyne (Part 4: The Followup)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Part I, the paper and backstory.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Pyne interview.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, TRU responds in case.

CLICK HERE, for the Ad Hoc Investigatory Committee report.

2. Context Of Followup

In 2017, Professor Pyne released a research report on so-called “predatory publishing”. In it, he details how academics publish in journals that are not peer reviewed, and who make little if any effort to verify the findings.

Although the report did not drop specific names, it was not well received by Thompson Rivers University. In a sense this was understandable, as it is not a topic that most people wish to address. Professor Pyne claims that this led to the atmosphere at the school changing, and to his eventual suspension.

Regardless of how touchy the topic may be, this was the wrong way to handle it. Truth should never be censored just because it is inconvenient or embarrassing.

This topic was originally covered early this year. However, since then the Committee investigating the case has ruled that Professor Pyne’s rights were violated.

3. From Ad Hoc Investigative Comm Report

Our investigation has found the following:
1. Based on the evidence presented to the Committee, TRU appears to suffer a broad institutional weakness when it comes to understanding academic freedom beyond its narrow application to support faculty members’ freedom to pursue what they expect to be fruitful avenues of research and publish their results.

2. There were significant breaches of Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom with respect to the Administration’s responses to his intramural and extramural communications criticizing the School of Business and Economics, its programs, and its faculty. These breaches arose from the failure to properly consider Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom, which is encoded in the collective agreement governing his employment at TRU, in managing workplace complaints against Dr. Pyne.

3. The collective agreement between the University and its faculty association contains an article on academic freedom that creates a positive obligation on the parties to consider academic freedom in any case involving speech and other communications from faculty members. The failure to consider Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom in human resources processes has had the effect of denying Dr. Pyne access to procedural fairness, and hence the decision to suspend him was not made on a sound basis.

4. There is no evidence that any person at TRU attempted to interfere with Dr. Pyne as he carried out his study into publishing in predatory journals.

5. Dr. Pyne’s privacy was breached by both TRU and TRUFA on multiple occasions.

Point #3, the school was found to be lacking in having a strong understanding of its academic freedom obligations.

About point #4, that is true, though it doesn’t appear that the school knew what was happening as the research was being done. As no live subjects were used, no ethics approval was needed.

Point #5 concerned leaking of personal information which Professor Pyne believes was done deliberately.

There is a differentiation between open access publishing and so-called predatory publishing that is often over-looked. Open access publishing relies on the same processes as traditional publishing, including rigorous peer review, whereas predatory publishing does not and attempts to co-opt the open access model for financial gain. In an increasingly complex arena for publishing research, universities and academics grapple with assessing faculty members’ published research for tenure and promotion, and for various institutional benefits, including salary increases and research awards. Academic librarians have long provided their expertise in identifying scholarly resources and are now assisting researchers in identifying which constitute legitimate open access publishing and which do not. There is a clear need for universities to ensure the integrity of their academic decisions for tenure and promotion, in particular, by having policies that differentiate between legitimate and predatory publishing.

Dr. Pyne’s research on the rewards of publishing in predatory journals has raised questions about the way his own colleagues and institution are managing the complexity of publishing research at a time when there is a growing number of journals with questionable peer review practices. These questions go to the heart of the credibility of TRU, and one would expect them to be taken seriously by the university’s senior administration. Even if one wishes to critique Dr. Pyne’s published results – as would be expected as part of a robust scholarly discourse – it seems irresponsible for the Administration to ignore the issues his work raises for TRU, which include whether the fundamental academic judgments involved in tenure and promotion decisions are being made on a sound basis.

The only evidence the Committee has seen of any discussion of the issue of predatory journals is related to the TRU Senate discussion of a motion put forward by a faculty senator in April 2017 to refer the matter to the Senate Tenure and Promotion Committee, which is chaired by the Provost. The matter seems to be still with this Committee, which appears not to have made any reports to Senate since then.

It is the Committee’s opinion that the apparent failure of TRU’s Administration to consider seriously the issue of publishing in predatory journals and its potential impacts on TRU’s core academic decisions represents a profound failure of academic governance at the university

Again, read the whole report for a more thorough reply.

An interesting point is raised: even if one has issues with the topic being raised, the way it was handled was completely wrong.

Beyond that, the report on predatory publishing raises very valid concerns. Academics should be concerned about the quality of the screening that is done of their research. Predatory publishes may reward professors with money or more status for work that by all rights should have been rejected. Academia can be a vicious place. In fact, shedding light on this could be viewed as investigative journalism.

Finally, retaliation (no matter how subtle) creates a chilling effect for everyone. What topics are now off limits? Who will be next? Is this really where we want to go with free speech?

4. Comments From Professor Pyne

1/ What exactly did the ruling say?
-TRU and TRUFA violated academic freedom
-Committee tries not to attribute motives to people
-TRU lacks strong policies in academic freedom
-TRU violated privacy laws by leaking confidential information
-TRU should pay wages lost during suspension

2/ Can or will TRU appeal?
-TRU refused to participate in the process, so not likely
-There have been claims of defamation, even though people were not named in the paper

3/ What has changed since this case happened?
-I’ve had my office transferred elsewhere
-People were unhappy with some Facebook postings I made
-The issue still isn’t sitting well with people

4/ Do you think it will make a difference at TRU?
-No, it doesn’t seem to have
Committee has been hand picked by the President
-They say that they have not been provided with all the information, but won’t say what they don’t have

5/ What would you say to people concerned about academic freedom?
-It’s an important cause
-There are a lot of hoops to jump through
-Check out the Society for Academic Freedom

S3CA Challenge: Hypocrisy In Federal Gov’t Filings, Toronto V.S. Vancouver

1. Quotes From Toronto Gov’t Filings

2. Previous Posts On 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.

3. Context Of This Article

This case involves the joint application for judicial review. These cases (for which arguments were just heard in Toronto) involves applicants trying to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement.

If you have been following this site at all, you will know that a challenge has been launched in BC to close the “loophole” in the agreement. This loophole, in effects, allows fake refugees to jump the queue by GOING AROUND official border ports.

4. Gov’t Defends S3CA (In Toronto)

The Canadian government on Friday denied that the rights of any refugees are threatened by a U.S.-Canada agreement that compels asylum seekers trying to cross the border into Canada to first apply for sanctuary in the United States.

Under the Safe Third Country Agreement between the two neighbours, asylum seekers at a formal border crossing traveling in either direction are turned back and told to apply for asylum in the country they first arrived in.

Lawyers for unnamed refugees who had been turned away at the Canadian border are challenging the agreement, saying the United States does not qualify as a “safe” country under U.S. President Donald Trump.

However, the Canadian government argued in its submission that its “continued reliance on the regime is lawful and meets its Charter and international law obligations.”

“There’s no rights at stake here,” government lawyer Lucian Gregory told the federal court.

The court challenge comes as Canada seeks to stem the human tide of asylum seekers that has flowed into the country over the past three years. Trump was elected in 2016 after promising in his campaign to crack down on illegal immigration.

That’s right. The Trudeau Government tells a Toronto Court that the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is necessary to protect its borders, and does not discriminate on any human rights grounds.

Also, that same Government is telling a Vancouver Court that the Plaintiff/Moving Party has no right to attempt to close the loophole in the agreement.

In case any real journalists would like to learn more about the cases, these are the names and court files of the people involved.

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

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

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

5. Gov’t: Open Court Needed (Toronto)

An interesting development in the case: The Federal Government opposed efforts by these “refugee claimants” to have their names redacted. In that case, only their initials would have been posted. The Government — in this case — values having an open court system.

6. Gov’t: No Loophole In S3CA (Vancouver)

These quotes are from the Government’s Motion to Strike, filed on May 22, 2019. In short, the lawyer claimed that since I was not a refugee claimant, I had no real interest or stake in the matter. Furthermore, there apparently was no loophole, and this poor wording was written in intentionally.

7. Rule 221: Motions To Strike

Striking Out Pleadings
Marginal note:
Motion to strike
221 (1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that it
(a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be,
(b) is immaterial or redundant,
(c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action,
(e) constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or
(f) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court,

and may order the action be dismissed or judgment entered accordingly.
Marginal note:
Evidence
(2) No evidence shall be heard on a motion for an order under paragraph (1)(a).

From the Federal Court Rules. Now, I am no expert on the matter, but filing contradictory, or at least incoherent or illogical pleadings should be grounds to strike out a defense. We shall see how it goes.

8. Two Courts, Two Priorities

The above is only a snapshot of what is going on, but the point should be clear. The Government is telling the Toronto Court that the Safe Third Country Agreement is necessary to protect our borders, and that not anyone can just walk in.

By contrast, that same Government is telling a Vancouver Court that there is no loophole to worry about, and that private citizens have no right to demand they enforce our laws and borders.

2 cases, 2 completely different responses.

Central Banking, Part 6: Bank Of Canada Answers Questions

(The Bank Of Canada)

(Our debt started to spike in 1974)

(The Bank for International Settlements)

(The Basel Committee)

(30% of Canada’s debt held by foreigners)

(Archived debt information is available)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Part I, To Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the COMER Case.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, US Federal Reserve (End The Fed)
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Debt Reports & Email From Ministry.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, Globalist Approved Talking Points.

CLICK HERE, for the Bank of Canada.
CLICK HERE, for StatsCan data on National debt.
CLICK HERE, for the Bank for International Settlements.
CLICK HERE, for BIS mainpage.
CLICK HERE, for the 60 banks which own BIS.
CLICK HERE, for the Basil Committee.

CLICK HERE, for link to archived debt reports.
CLICK HERE, for archived documents going back to 1995.
CLICK HERE, for reference tables.

(Rocco Galati, Amanda Lang, COMER)

(Will Abrams explaining the money system)

2. Context For Article

This is the response to some email questions to the Bank of Canada, two weeks ago. Attached is the text of the email, minus personal identifiers.

3. Email From Bank Of Canada

Thank you for your email and your interest in the Bank of Canada.

For a copy of the original Bank of Canada Act, we suggest you go to Library and Archives Canada.

In response to your question about government borrowing in Canada, we’d like to offer a few points of clarification:

First, the Government of Canada has essentially funded its spending the same way since long before the Bank of Canada came into existence – namely through taxation and the issuance of marketable debt (e.g. bonds and treasury bills).

This debt was issued for investors to purchase. Financial institutions have always purchased government debt, as investments on their own balance sheets, and to sell on to customers. For a history of government debt markets in Canada, please consult the following document: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/pellerin.pdf.

Moreover, in the 1970s, subsequent to the first oil shock, inflation in Canada and many other advanced economies increased significantly. This led to higher costs for goods and services, and in the case of the federal government, increased spending, resulting in a rapid and sizeable increase in annual deficits. To fund those deficits, government borrowing (issuance of bonds and treasury bills) also increased. So government borrowing sources didn’t change, but the magnitude of borrowing did (see Figure 1 below).

Further, please note that while Section 18 (i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act does allow for the Bank of Canada to lend to the federal and provincial governments, the long-standing policy of the Bank of Canada is not to make direct loans to governments.

The Bank’s Statement of Policy Governing the Acquisition and Management of Financial Assets for the Bank of Canada’s Balance Sheet is available on our website. On page 9 of this policy, under the heading Exceptional Circumstances, Section 7.5 states:

“Loans or advances to the Government: The authority granted under Sections 18(i) and 18(j) of the Bank of Canada Act to make loans or advances to the Government would only be used to make a 1-business-day advance to the Government of Canada. This would only be done as appropriate to prevent the level of government deposits held at the Bank from falling below zero. Any such advances would be publicly disclosed.”

In other words, Bank of Canada direct lending to the federal government could be done in exceptional circumstance and only to address short-term cash requirements. The last loan of such type was in 1961.

There are good reasons for this policy. If the Bank were to finance government programs, the monetary base of the financial system would expand and interest rates would no longer follow a path consistent with keeping aggregate demand and supply in the Canadian economy in balance.

The result would be a significant increase in inflationary pressures throughout the Canadian economy. In effect, such a proposal would inflate the debt away, substituting an inflation tax on Canadian households in place of the debt-servicing obligations of the government. Such outcomes would be incompatible with the goal of monetary policy, which is to maintain an environment of low and stable inflation at 2 per cent.

Regarding your question about the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) may wish to contact them or visit their website. Please note that the BIS has no influence on the decision-making process for Canada’s monetary policy. The Governor of the Bank of Canada serves on the BIS Board of Directors and he is the current Chair of the BIS Audit Committee and former Chair of the Consultative Council for the Americas. Maintaining strategic working relationships with our international colleagues is an important part of the Governor’s role. Regular, open dialogue with our counterparts across the world provides us with invaluable insight into the global economy, helping us deliver on our mandate to promote the economic and financial welfare of Canadians.

We are not in a position to respond to your questions about fiscal policy or the debts of federal or provincial governments. You may wish to consult with your local MP or MLA on those questions.

For further information on the Bank’s roles and responsibilities and relevant economics concepts, please see our backgrounders section of our website.

I hope you will find this information helpful.

Kind regards,

4. Thoughts On The Response

(1) The Bank for International Settlements “allegedly” has no impact on Canadian monetary policy. However the BoC Governor sits on the BIS Board of Directors and is the head of the Audit Committee. Interesting.

(2) The Bank of Canada no longer funds Government spending in order to avoid inflation. Yet, would the spiraling debt cycle (over $1.2T paid, and $700B in debt) cause Government spending to eat away taxpayer dollars? This seems a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

(3) The source of borrowing didn’t change? This is a lie. The Bank of Canada used to lend the money (of course it had control over the money once). Now the money is “borrowed” from private sources.

(4) How does purchasing debt from foreign powers and foreign interests, instead of using the Bank of Canada, help Canadians? Remember, about 30% of the national debt is held by foreigners.

The Indian Act Of Canada

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Indian Act, 1985 version.

2. Quotes From Indian Act

Administration
Marginal note:Superintendent general
3 The Minister of Indigenous Services shall be the superintendent general of Indian affairs.
R.S., 1985, c. I-5, s. 32019, c. 29, s. 357

That’s right, the Minister of Indigenous Services will be charge of this group of people. How bad is that, you may ask. Let’s go through it and pick our some of the more disturbing portions of it.

Lands Taken for Public Purposes
.
Marginal note:Taking of lands by local authorities
.
35 (1) Where by an Act of Parliament or a provincial legislature Her Majesty in right of a province, a municipal or local authority or a corporation is empowered to take or to use lands or any interest therein without the consent of the owner, the power may, with the consent of the Governor in Council and subject to any terms that may be prescribed by the Governor in Council, be exercised in relation to lands in a reserve or any interest therein.
.
Marginal note:Procedure
(2) Unless the Governor in Council otherwise directs, all matters relating to compulsory taking or using of lands in a reserve under subsection (1) are governed by the statute by which the powers are conferred.
.
Marginal note:Grant in lieu of compulsory taking
.
(3) Whenever the Governor in Council has consented to the exercise by a province, a municipal or local authority or a corporation of the powers referred to in subsection (1), the Governor in Council may, in lieu of the province, authority or corporation taking or using the lands without the consent of the owner, authorize a transfer or grant of the lands to the province, authority or corporation, subject to any terms that may be prescribed by the Governor in Council.
.
Marginal note:Payment
.
(4) Any amount that is agreed on or awarded in respect of the compulsory taking or using of land under this section or that is paid for a transfer or grant of land pursuant to this section shall be paid to the Receiver General for the use and benefit of the band or for the use and benefit of any Indian who is entitled to compensation or payment as a result of the exercise of the powers referred to in subsection (1).

So much for honouring treaties. Land can be taken by the Federal, Provincial, or Municipal Governments largely at their discretion.

Notice that the money isn’t even paid to the band itself. Instead, it goes to the Receiver General who will act as a Trustee. Way to control the purse strings.

Surrenders and Designations
.
Marginal note:Sales
.
37 (1) Lands in a reserve shall not be sold nor title to them conveyed until they have been absolutely surrendered to Her Majesty pursuant to subsection 38(1) by the band for whose use and benefit in common the reserve was set apart.
.
Marginal note:Other transactions
.
(2) Except where this Act otherwise provides, lands in a reserve shall not be leased nor an interest in them granted until they have been designated under subsection 38(2) by the band for whose use and benefit in common the reserve was set apart.

Surrender to Her Majesty
38 (1) A band may absolutely surrender to Her Majesty, conditionally or unconditionally, all of the rights and interests of the band and its members in all or part of a reserve.
.
Marginal note:Designation
.
(2) A band may, conditionally or unconditionally, designate, by way of a surrender to Her Majesty that is not absolute, any right or interest of the band and its members in all or part of a reserve, for the purpose of its being leased or a right or interest therein being granted.

What a scam. If you actually own your property or land, you can sell it to almost anyone. But here, it must first and foremost be surrendered to the Crown. Guess it is really their land after all.

Conditions — surrender
.
39 (1) An absolute surrender is void unless
.
(a) it is made to Her Majesty;
(b) it is assented to by a majority of the electors of the band
(i) at a general meeting of the band called by the council of the band,
(ii) at a special meeting of the band called by the Minister for the purpose of considering a proposed absolute surrender, or
(iii) by a referendum as provided in the regulations; and
(c) it is accepted by the Governor in Council.
.
Marginal note:Minister may call meeting or referendum
.
(2) If a majority of the electors of a band did not vote at a meeting or referendum called under subsection (1), the Minister may, if the proposed absolute surrender was assented to by a majority of the electors who did vote, call another meeting by giving 30 days’ notice of that other meeting or another referendum as provided in the regulations.
.
Marginal note:Assent of band
.
(3) If a meeting or referendum is called under subsection (2) and the proposed absolute surrender is assented to at the meeting or referendum by a majority of the electors voting, the surrender is deemed, for the purposes of this section, to have been assented to by a majority of the electors of the band.
.
Marginal note:Secret ballot
.
(4) The Minister may, at the request of the council of the band or whenever he considers it advisable, order that a vote at any meeting under this section shall be by secret ballot.
.
Marginal note:Officials required
.
(5) Every meeting under this section shall be held in the presence of the superintendent or some other officer of the Department designated by the Minister.

Interesting way to run a vote. The Minister must be informed of this, new meetings can be called if they don’t like the outcome, and the Minister can order secret ballots. Surprised the votes are stacked with paid off representatives. Seems like a shady way to run a vote.

Descent of Property
.
Marginal note:Powers of Minister with respect to property of deceased Indians
.
42 (1) Subject to this Act, all jurisdiction and authority in relation to matters and causes testamentary, with respect to deceased Indians, is vested exclusively in the Minister and shall be exercised subject to and in accordance with regulations of the Governor in Council.
.
Marginal note:Regulations
.
(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations providing that a deceased Indian who at the time of his death was in possession of land in a reserve shall, in such circumstances and for such purposes as the regulations prescribe, be deemed to have been at the time of his death lawfully in possession of that land.

Courts may exercise jurisdiction with consent of Minister
.
44 (1) The court that would have jurisdiction if a deceased were not an Indian may, with the consent of the Minister, exercise, in accordance with this Act, the jurisdiction and authority conferred on the Minister by this Act in relation to testamentary matters and causes and any other powers, jurisdiction and authority ordinarily vested in that court.
.
Marginal note:Minister may refer a matter to the court
.
(2) The Minister may direct in any particular case that an application for the grant of probate of the will or letters of administration of a deceased shall be made to the court that would have jurisdiction if the deceased were not an Indian, and the Minister may refer to that court any question arising out of any will or the administration of any estate.

In short, inheritance and wills are to be ruled by the Minister and the Governor in Council. This means that the wishes of the people themselves may very well go unhonoured.

Appeals
Marginal note:Appeal to Federal Court
.
47 A decision of the Minister made in the exercise of the jurisdiction or authority conferred on him by section 42, 43 or 46 may, within two months from the date thereof, be appealed by any person affected thereby to the Federal Court, if the amount in controversy in the appeal exceeds five hundred dollars or if the Minister consents to an appeal.

If you have a problem with how the Minister (or the Ministry) is meddling with your estate or inheritance, you can be expected to take him to Court. With what money? And will the Federal Government oppose any Court action using an army of lawyers?

Mentally Incompetent Indians
.
Marginal note:Powers of Minister generally
.
51 (1) Subject to this section, all jurisdiction and authority in relation to the property of mentally incompetent Indians is vested exclusively in the Minister.
.
Marginal note:Particular powers
.
(2) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the Minister may
(a) appoint persons to administer the estates of mentally incompetent Indians;
(b) order that any property of a mentally incompetent Indian shall be sold, leased, alienated, mortgaged, disposed of or otherwise dealt with for the purpose of
(i) paying his debts or engagements,
(ii) discharging encumbrances on his property,
(iii) paying debts or expenses incurred for his maintenance or otherwise for his benefit, or
(iv) paying or providing for the expenses of future maintenance
; and
(c) make such orders and give such directions as he considers necessary to secure the satisfactory management of the estates of mentally incompetent Indians.

If the Minister thinks that an Indian is mentally incompetent, then that person’s property can be sold or leased to pay for debts or medical care. This will never be abused.

Money of Infant Children
.
Marginal note:Distributions of capital
.
52.1 (1) The council of a band may determine that the payment of not more than three thousand dollars, or such other amount as may be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, in a year of the share of a distribution under paragraph 64(1)(a) that belongs to an infant child who is a member of the band is necessary or proper for the maintenance, advancement or other benefit of the child.
.
Marginal note:Procedure
.
(2) Before making a determination under subsection (1), the council of the band must
(a) post in a conspicuous place on the reserve fourteen days before the determination is made a notice that it proposes to make such a determination; and
(b) give the members of the band a reasonable opportunity to be heard at a general meeting of the band held before the determination is made.
.
Marginal note:Minister’s duty
.
(3) Where the council of the band makes a determination under subsection (1) and notifies the Minister, at the time it gives its consent to the distribution pursuant to paragraph 64(1)(a), that it has made that determination and that, before making it, it complied with subsection (2), the Minister shall make a payment described in subsection (1) for the maintenance, advancement or other benefit of the child to a parent or person who is responsible for the care and custody of the child or, if so requested by the council on giving its consent to that distribution, to the council.

The Minister is responsible for managing other people’s money. How is this self control and autonomy?

Management of Reserves and Surrendered and Designated Lands
.
Marginal note:Transactions re surrendered and designated lands
.
53 (1) The Minister or a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose may, in accordance with this Act and the terms of the absolute surrender or designation, as the case may be,
(a) manage or sell absolutely surrendered lands; or
(b) manage, lease or carry out any other transaction affecting designated lands.

Departmental employees
.
(3) No person who is appointed pursuant to subsection (1) or who is an officer or a servant of Her Majesty employed in the Department may, except with the approval of the Governor in Council, acquire directly or indirectly any interest in absolutely surrendered or designated lands.

So people in the Department can’t benefit personally off of land given up, unless the Minister approves of it. Sure, no conflict of interest here.

Lease at request of occupant
.
(3) The Minister may lease for the benefit of any Indian, on application of that Indian for that purpose, the land of which the Indian is lawfully in possession without the land being designated.

Land can be leased, but only if the Minister agrees, and only under the terms which the Minister agrees to.

Control over lands
.
60 (1) The Governor in Council may at the request of a band grant to the band the right to exercise such control and management over lands in the reserve occupied by that band as the Governor in Council considers desirable.
.
Marginal note:Withdrawal
.
(2) The Governor in Council may at any time withdraw from a band a right conferred on the band under subsection (1).

So the Governor in Council may allow bands to manage their own lands, but can also withdraw that right at any time. So it isn’t really a right, but rather a privilege.

Management of Indian Moneys
.
Marginal note:Indian moneys to be held for use and benefit
.
61 (1) Indian moneys shall be expended only for the benefit of the Indians or bands for whose use and benefit in common the moneys are received or held, and subject to this Act and to the terms of any treaty or surrender, the Governor in Council may determine whether any purpose for which Indian moneys are used or are to be used is for the use and benefit of the band.

Funny, in another context this sort of behaviour would be considered financial abuse: taking power over other people by controlling their finances.

Loans to Indians
.
Marginal note:Loans to Indians
.
70 (1) The Minister of Finance may authorize advances to the Minister out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of such sums of money as the Minister may require to enable him
(a) to make loans to bands, groups of Indians or individual Indians for the purchase of farm implements, machinery, livestock, motor vehicles, fishing equipment, seed grain, fencing materials, materials to be used in native handicrafts, any other equipment, and gasoline and other petroleum products, or for the making of repairs or the payment of wages, or for the clearing and breaking of land within reserves;
(b) to expend or to lend money for the carrying out of cooperative projects on behalf of Indians; or
(c) to provide for any other matter prescribed by the Governor in Council.

Regular Canadians are not subjected to this. Heck, new immigrants in the country are able to get loans and credit far easier than this. This is, again, about financial control.

Farms
.
Marginal note: Minister may operate farms
.
71 (1) The Minister may operate farms on reserves and may employ such persons as he considers necessary to instruct Indians in farming and may purchase and distribute without charge pure seed to Indian farmers.
.
Marginal note:Application of profits
.
(2) The Minister may apply any profits that result from the operation of farms pursuant to subsection (1) on reserves to extend farming operations on the reserves or to make loans to Indians to enable them to engage in farming or other agricultural operations or he may apply those profits in any way that he considers to be desirable to promote the progress and development of the Indians.

Under the Indian Act, even farming is controlled by the Minister. Where is the autonomy that we are told there is? This reeks of Stalinist collectivism from the 1930s.

73 (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) for the protection and preservation of fur-bearing animals, fish and other game on reserves;
(b) for the destruction of noxious weeds and the prevention of the spreading or prevalence of insects, pests or diseases that may destroy or injure vegetation on Indian reserves;
(c) for the control of the speed, operation and parking of vehicles on roads within reserves;
(d) for the taxation, control and destruction of dogs and for the protection of sheep on reserves;
(e) for the operation, supervision and control of pool rooms, dance halls and other places of amusement on reserves;
(f) to prevent, mitigate and control the spread of diseases on reserves, whether or not the diseases are infectious or communicable;
(g) to provide medical treatment and health services for Indians;
(h) to provide compulsory hospitalization and treatment for infectious diseases among Indians;
(i) to provide for the inspection of premises on reserves and the destruction, alteration or renovation thereof;
(j) to prevent overcrowding of premises on reserves used as dwellings;
(k) to provide for sanitary conditions in private premises on reserves as well as in public places on reserves;
(l) for the construction and maintenance of boundary fences; and
(m) for empowering and authorizing the council of a band to borrow money for band projects or housing purposes and providing for the making of loans out of moneys so borrowed to members of the band for housing purposes.

Elsewhere, a lot of these would be considered Municipal or Provincial affairs. It seems the Federal Government has total control over nearly every aspect of people on these reserves.

Elections of Chiefs and Band Councils
Marginal note:
Elected councils
74 (1) Whenever he deems it advisable for the good government of a band, the Minister may declare by order that after a day to be named therein the council of the band, consisting of a chief and councillors, shall be selected by elections to be held in accordance with this Act.
Marginal note:
Composition of council
(2) Unless otherwise ordered by the Minister, the council of a band in respect of which an order has been made under subsection (1) shall consist of one chief, and one councillor for every one hundred members of the band, but the number of councillors shall not be less than two nor more than twelve and no band shall have more than one chief.

So the Minister will not only declare when elections will be, but will in effect determine the size of the Council. Great autonomy here.

Eligibility
75 (1) No person other than an elector who resides in an electoral section may be nominated for the office of councillor to represent that section on the council of the band.
Marginal note:
Nomination
(2) No person may be a candidate for election as chief or councillor of a band unless his nomination is moved and seconded by persons who are themselves eligible to be nominated.

3. Thoughts On The Act

This is shameful. An entire group of people who, rather than enjoying full rights, are essentially wardens of the state who have all their major decisions controlled.

Admittedly, I originally thought the Indian Act was something that had long passed, but that is not the case. And I didn’t know just how pervasive it really was.

This abomination needs to go

Reply Arguments In Appeal Of Dismissal To S3CA Challenge

1. Quotes From Gov’t Defense Of Dismissal

2. Previous Posts On 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.

3, Text Of Plaintiff’s Reply

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

(1) To avoid rehashing the entire written submissions section in the original Motion Record, this will be limited to 5 follow up questions for the Court to consider.

ISSUES

  • Should “due diligence” be required before making rulings?
  • To what degree should court officials be able to decide what cases are important?
  • What role should Prothonotaries have in striking out documents?
  • Should the government be allowed to submit conflicting, or incoherent pleadings?
  • Does Canada owe an obligation (beyond S3CA) to protect its borders?

(2) The above questions are to aid the Court in determining whether the original ruling should be allowed to stand, and the bigger issues at stake here.

Should “due diligence” be required before making rulings?

(3) Part of the appeal is on the grounds that Prothonotary Milczynski made overriding palpable error in the findings that claims of mass illegal crossings were just “opinion” and “unsupported”. The defence suggests that there was no reason to have submitted the evidence affidavit in the motion record.

(4) Where was the opportunity to submit proof of this?
First: Evidence is not supposed to be submitted with the Statement of Claim.
Second: Evidence is not allowed in Rule 221 motions to strike.

(5) So where exactly was the opportunity to prove any of the allegations? Remember, the standard of review for findings of fact is “overriding palpable error”. Unless this can be demonstrated, the default position is to “give deference” to the lower court ruling.

(6) So yes, it was necessary to submit the evidence affidavit with the motion record. This was the first opportunity to have this evidence submitted, and it shows irrefutably that Prothonotary Milczynski was completely wrong about Roxham Road crossings. So yes, it is important to the course of justice.

(7) Fact is, illegals have been crossing the Canada/U.S. border for years, particularly at Roxham Road in Quebec. This is public information, and has been in the media fairly regularly. There is a “loophole” in the agreement, in that simply going around border ports allows entry into Canada.

(8) Prothonotary Milczynski seems not to have been at all aware of this, despite the media attention. Instead, the allegations in the Statement of Claim were labelled as “opinions” and “bald face assertions”. Even a minimal amount of research (even a Google search) would have immediately found a wealth of media, photographic and video evidence corroborating every assertion made in the Statement of Claim.

(9) The affidavit contained only a tiny piece of the evidence available to prove the Plaintiff’s claims. No one, with any seriousness, can deny the hordes of illegals crossing into Canada. Again, the loophole (not any intended outcome), was that it doesn’t apply BETWEEN official border ports.

(10) In my view, this falls far short of what should be considered acceptable by a Court official. If a Prothonotary or Judge is going to call a Plaintiff’s statements “opinion”, then some due diligence should be done. Prothonotary Milczynski committed overriding palpable error in those findings, and the affidavit should outweigh the default position to “give deference”.

(11) While it is true that Court Officers have a heavy workload, there must be some due diligence performed before declaring a Statement of Claim to be “opinion”. The information included in the SoC has been public knowledge for about 3 years now, and could have been easily verified. This falls far short of what should be acceptable from a Prothonotary.

To what degree should court officials be able to decide what case are important

(12) Admittedly there is a level of discretion for the Prothonotary or Judgeinvolved. There has to be some leeway to decide what cases are important.

(13) That being said, the discretion was improperly used. From the Vancouversex workers case the Defendant referred to earlier.

[1] This appeal is concerned with the law of public interest standing in constitutional cases. The law of standing answers the question of who is entitled to bring a case to court for a decision. Of course it would be intolerable if everyone had standing to sue for everything, no matter how limited a personal stake they had in the matter. Limitations on standing are necessary in order to ensure that courts do not become hopelessly overburdened with marginal or redundant cases, to screen out the mere “busybody” litigant, to ensure that courts have the benefit of contending points of view of those most directly affected and to ensure that courts play their proper role within our democratic system of government: Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 1986 CanLII 6 (SCC), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607, at p. 631.The traditional approach was to limit standing to persons whose private rights were at stake or who were specially affected by the issue. In public law cases, however, Canadian courts have relaxed these limitations on standing and have taken a flexible, discretionary approach to public interest standing, guided by the purposes which underlie the traditional limitations.

[2] In exercising their discretion with respect to standing, the courts weigh three factors in light of these underlying purposes and of the particular circumstances. The courts consider whether the case raises a serious justiciable issue, whether the party bringing the action has a real stake or a genuine interest in its outcome and whether, having regard to a number of factors, the proposed suit is a reasonable and effective means to bring the case to court: Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 CanLII 116 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236, at p. 253. The courts exercise this discretion to grant or refuse standing in a “liberal and generous manner” (p. 253).

(14) First, this case is not about some minor or trivial thing. Rather, it is about trying to close the Canadian border to illegals trying to enter Canada. The Government of Canada “should” be taking this seriously. In fact, providing a secure border is arguably the most important function a government should serve.

(15) It is asinine to suggest that a citizen does not have a legitimate interest in having secure borders, and asinine that society as a whole is not impacted by mass illegal entries. Protecting its borders and sovereignty is arguably the most important function a government has. Without borders to mark and enforce its territory, the nation dies.

(16) It is not enough to simply have signs saying “Welcome to Canada” or some such thing. Borders must be enforced by people, and they must have laws — laws with teeth — enforcing them.

(17) Second, on a personal level, it does impact the Plaintiff. She has to pay more in taxes, it cheapens her citizenship if anyone can simply enter Canada if they go AROUND the border crossings, and social service access is limited as more resources are used on illegals who have no right to be in the country. On a public level, the same issues apply. Tax dollars are spent when they shouldn’t be.

(18) Third, as for being a reasonable means of bringing the court hearing the case, what’s the alternative? If the Government won’t act in ways that are most conducive to the safety and well being of its people, then what options are there other than the court?

(19) Although there is clearly discretion in whether or not to grant standing to hear such cases, it was inappropriately used here, especially when the Federal Court has the jurisdiction to hear it. (This is not a trivial or minor case). See the Federal Courts Act

Jurisdiction of Federal Court
Marginal note:
Relief against the Crown 17 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament, the Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction in all cases in which relief is claimed against the Crown.

Extraprovincial jurisdiction
25 The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy.

What role should Prothonotaries have in striking out documents?

(20) The Defendant makes a straw-man argument alleging I claim that Prothonotaries have no jurisdiction to hear motions to strike. That is weasly, and a misrepresentation.

(21) What was actually said (and cited by many cases) is that: (a) Amendments should be allowed prior to striking; (b) striking should be reserved to only when pleading is bad beyond argument; (c) Claims should not be struck out just because they are novel; (d) Prothonotaries should not strike on matters that are not fully settled before the courts. From the COMER case (Commission on Monetary and Economic Reform), submitted with motion record.

[30] The Plaintiffs remind the Court of the general principles to be applied on a motion to strike. The facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle Inc., above; Hunt, above; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Trendsetter Developments Ltd v Ottawa Financial Corp. (1989), 32 OAC 327 (CA) [Trendsetter]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault]. A claim should be struck “only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument” (Nelles, above, at 627), or where it is “‘plain and obvious’ or ‘beyond doubt’” that the claim will not succeed (Dumont, above, at 280; Trendsetter, above). It is inappropriate to strike a claim simply because it raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law” (Hunt, above, at 990-91), or because it is a novel claim: Nash, above; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); AdamsSmith v Christian Horizons (1997), 14 CPC (4th) 78 (Ont Gen Div); Miller (Litigation Guardian of) v Wiwchairyk (1997), 1997 CanLII 12256 (ON SC), 34 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Indeed, in the law of torts in particular, this may make it critical that the claim proceed so that the law can evolve in response to modern needs (Hunt, above, at 991-92). Matters not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be decided on a motion to strike: R.D. Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). The Plaintiffs say that, in order to succeed, the Defendants must produce a “decided case directly on point from the same jurisdiction demonstrating that the very same issue has been squarely dealt with and rejected”: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 1994 CanLII 7290 (ON SC), 19 OR (3d) 463 (Gen Div). Furthermore, the Court should be generous with respect to the drafting of the pleadings, permitting amendments before striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA); Toronto-Dominion Bank v Deloite Hoskins & Sells (1991), 1991 CanLII 7366 (ON SC), 5 OR (3d) 417 (Gen Div). Finally, the Claim has to be taken as pleaded by the Plaintiffs, not as reconfigured by the Defendants: Arsenault, above.

[31] The Plaintiffs say that the Prothonotary correctly stated the test on a motion to strike, but wholly misapplied it by determining substantive matters that should have been left for the trial judge, striking the Claim despite acknowledging that it was a “novel” and “complex” one, and making an erroneous ruling on the application of the Charter.

(22) As possible amendments, if certain statements were vague, or needed rewriting, that would certainly be possible to do. The option should have been given previously.

(23) With all of these principles in mind, striking with leave to amend (rewrite, clarify or otherwise fix) the Statement of Claim would have been the proper course rather than striking without leave. Here are a few proposed amendments if needed

  • Rewriting, redrafting the Statement of Claim, with more precise detail as seen fit.
  • Rewriting, redrafting the SoC, to make the legal arguments more clear
  • Modifying remedies sought, and just focusing on the law itself, not the fake refugees already here.

(24) If specific facts alleged should have clearer or more specific, that was — and still is — something that the Court can direct. Throwing the case out completely should not have been the first reaction.

Should the government be allowed to submit conflicting, or incoherent pleadings?

(25) The Defendant/Respondent has not disclosed that they have been fighting a case with a similar issue in Toronto since 2017. 3 “refugee claimants” are appealing the denial of their entry into Canada from the “warzone” that is the United States.

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

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

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

(26) The mental gymnastics are stunning. The Canadian Government tells the TORONTO Court that the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is necessary to protect Canadian borders from abuse. That same Government tells the VANCOUVER Court that an obvious loophole should not be closed, since the challenger is not a refugee claimant.

(27) That’s right. In Toronto, the Federal Government is telling the Court (and just had a 5 day hearing) that the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is vital. But in Vancouver, the Feds try to strike out a Claim attempting to close the loophole, which allows people to enter, just as long as they go around the actual border ports.

(28) In Toronto, border security is a critically important issue. In Vancouver, the case to secure the border from mass illegal entry is considered “busybody” work.

(29) Although the two cases are separate, and have separate parties, there is a palpable level of cognitive dissonance required in order for the Federal Government to argue both positions. As such, it should be considered arguing in bad faith, or being deliberately obfuscating.

Motion to strike
 221 (1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that it:
(a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be
(b) is immaterial or redundant
(c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious
(d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action,
(e) constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or
(f) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court
,

(30) Considering that the Toronto cases were started in 2017 — before this one — the defense in this case (the motion to strike) should actually not have been allowed to proceed. If not for contradictory pleadings, then for arguing in bad faith. 221(1)(e)

(31) In addition to the mental gymnastics of the 2 cases, the original motion to strike (filed by Aman Owais) was an abuse of the process of the court 221(1)(f)

(32) On top of that, take a look at the agreement itself. In the “understanding” portion of the Agreement, the following is written out.

EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;

DESIRING to uphold asylum as an indispensable instrument of the international protection of refugees, and resolved to strengthen the integrity of that institution and the public support on which it depends;

(33) In the original Motion to Strike, previous counsel Aman Owais argued that there was no loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, and that it was INTENDED to apply only to official border points (not the vast areas around them). This is utter nonsense and the Court should reject such arguments.

(34) The Agreement openly states that both Canada and the United States offer generous systems of refugee protection. It is therefore incoherent babble that people should be able to “asylum shop” simply by-passing official ports. This would reward people for breaking the law. The Government’s absurd claims like this are an abuse of the Court process in violation of Rule 221(1)(f), and the Motion should have been denied for that reason alone.

Does Canada owe an obligation (beyond S3CA) to protect its borders?

(35) Section 39, 40 of Immigration & Refugee Protection Act

39. A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any other person who is dependent on them, and have not satisfied an officer that adequate arrangements for care and support, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made

40(1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresentations or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this act.

(36) Section 39 and 40 of the Act are not for the protection of foreigners coming into Canada. Rather, they are to protect Canadians from people who are unwilling to support themselves, or who lie in order to get into Canada.

(37) The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in their 2011 publication “Smuggling of Migrants”

(38) A Global Review and Annotated Bibliography of Recent Publications”, noted the connection between illegal entry (which they call “irregular migration”) and the smuggling of people.

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. The legal definition of smuggling of migrants finds wide acceptance among the academiccommunity, which usually refers to articles 3 and 6 of the Smuggling of migrants Protocol.

Contrary to the concept of smuggling, the notion of irregular migration does not have a universally accepted definition; however, most academics and experts refer to the definition provided by IOM, which highlights that the most common forms of irregular migration are illegal entry, overstaying and unauthorized work. 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

(39) By refusing to properly protect and enforce the Canada/U.S. border, is Canada not taking the risk of aiding and abetting in the possible human smuggling across international borders?

(40) Objective 10 of the UN Global Migration Compact (which this government signed) requires Canada to act in ways to prevent smuggling and trafficking ofpersons

OBJECTIVE 10: Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
.
To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions:
.
a) Promote, ratification, accession and implementation of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC)
.
b) Promote the implementation of the Global Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons and take into consideration relevant recommendations of the UNODC Toolkit to Combat Trafficking in Persons and other relevant UNODC documents when developing and implementing national and regional policies and measures relating to trafficking in persons

(41) Also, read article 11 of the UN Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking In Persons, particularly woman and children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. Canada ratified it in 2003, and is still a party to it.

(42) To state the obvious, how exactly does allowing fake refugees to come in BETWEEN official border ports?

(43) These are the 5 questions being asked in this reply

  • Should “due diligence” be required before making rulings?
  • To what degree should court officials be able to decide what cases are important?
  • What role should Prothonotaries have in striking out documents?
  • Should the government be allowed to submit conflicting, or incoherent pleadings?
  • Does Canada owe an obligation (beyond S3CA) to protect its borders?

(44) If the Court thinks it proper, I am willing to make necessary changes to fix whatever problems may exist in the original Statement of Claim. Here are a few ideas to consider:
(a) Rewriting, redrafting the Statement of Claim, with more precise detail as seen fit.
(b) Rewriting, redrafting the Statement of Claim, to make the legal arguments more clear
(c) Modifying remedies sought, and just focusing on the law itself, not the fake refugees
already here.

4. Authorities Cited

[1] Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement
[2] UN Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking In Persons, particularly woman and children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime
[3] Federal Courts Act
[4] UN Global Migration Compact
[5] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
[6] UN Office Of Drugs and Crime (UN Site down)
https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant
Smuggling/Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review.pdf

5. Order Sought

The Plaintiff, Moving Party requests:
(a) The decision of Prothonotary Milczynski be overturned and
 The Claim be allowed to proceed, or
 Necessary amendments be allowed to be made
(b) Costs for the appeal (revoking the earlier waiver)