Some Of The Larger “Anti-Racism” Grants The Feds Pump Out At Taxpayer Expense

Racism divides communities, breeds fear and fuels animosity. Addressing racism and discrimination is a longstanding commitment of Canadians who see our country’s diversity as a source of strength. Canada is strong, not in spite of our differences, but because of them. Unfortunately, Canada is not immune to racism and discrimination — challenges remain when it comes to fully embracing diversity, openness and cooperation.

It is vital that Canada stands up to discrimination perpetrated against any individual or group of people on the basis of their religion and/or ethnicity and this is why the Government of Canada has committed to engage the public on a new federal anti-racism strategy. We are exploring racism as it relates to employment and income supports, social participation (for example, access to arts, sport and leisure) and justice.

Building a Foundation for Change: Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy 2019–2022 is a $45 million investment that will take immediate steps in combatting racism and discrimination based on what was heard during the engagement process and supported by research. The Strategy will complement existing government efforts and programs aimed at eliminating inequities by focusing on three guiding principles: Demonstrating Federal Leadership, Empowering Communities, and Building Awareness & Changing Attitudes.

The premise of this would be laughable, if it weren’t meant to be taken seriously. Canada is strong, not in spite of our difference, but because of them? How is having nothing in common with your neighbours a source of strength? What exactly binds communities together if not their commonalities?

If diversity really is our strength, then why does this continuous racism exist? Doesn’t everyone celebrate that being divided makes us united?

More than just words, the Federal Government (or rather, taxpayers), have been spending huge sums of money for this delusion for years. Below is just a sample of the money spend on this.

Note: some of the grants predate that program, but are worth sharing anyway. If nothing else, this stupidity needs to be exposed.

519 Church Street Community Centre Nov. 9, 2020 $300,000
Aboriginal Legal Services Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 $290,000
Aboriginal Peoples Alliance Of Northern Ontario Sep. 1, 2021 $512,600
ACCT Foundation Apr. 15, 2020 $309,000
Action Dignity Society Sep. 1, 2021 $245,675
Action For Healthy Communities Society Of Alberta Sep. 1, 2021 $233,430
Actions Interculturelles De Developpement Et D’Education Sep. 1, 2020 $200,000
Algoma University Sep. 1, 2021 $262,500
Association Of Ontario Midwives Sep. 1, 2021 $224,936
Bilal Community And Family Centre Apr. 1, 2020 $212,000
Black Legal Action Centre Feb. 1, 2020 $336,577
Black Students’ Mental Health Project Sep. 1, 2021 $226,798
Bureau De La Communaute Haitienne De Montreal Sep. 1, 2021 $400,000
Canadian Anti-Hate Network Jun. 1, 2020 $268,400
Canadian Council Of Muslim Women Oct. 1, 2020 $316,700
Canadian Freestyle Ski Association Apr. 1, 2021 $1,010,295
Canadian Sport Institute Ontario Apr. 1, 2021 $1,247,877
Canadian Sport Institute Pacific Society Apr. 1, 2021 $1,721,743
Catholic Centre For Immigrants (Ottawa) Apr. 1, 2020 $380,578
CEE Centre For Young Black Professionals May 1, 2020 $279,500
Centre D’Amitie Autochtone De Val D’Or Inc. Oct. 1, 2021 $416,400
Centre Des Femmes Afghanes Sep. 1, 2021 $203,702
Centre for Race and Culture Apr. 1, 2010 $497,663
Centre Multiculturel de Ressources de LaSalle Oct. 18, 2021 $425,000
Children’s Peace Theatre Sep. 1, 2021 $250,000
Chinese Canadian National Council Sep. 1, 2021 $240,000
Coaching Association Of Canada Apr. 1, 2021 $308,000
Coalition Of Muslim Women of KW Jul. 1, 2020 $285,000
Council For The Advancement Of African Canadians In Alberta Sep. 1, 2021 $221,500
Corporation Wapikoni Mobile Sep. 1, 2021 $587,313
Culturelink Settlement And Community Services Oct. 1, 2021 $227,636
Durhamn Regional Unemployed Help Sep. 1, 2021 $225,801
Edmonton Centre For Race And Culture Sep. 1, 2021 $222,020
Equipe R.D.P. Sep. 1, 2021 $340,000
Equitas – Centre International d’Education Aux Driots Humains Sep. 1, 2020 $490,000
Family Services of Peel Feb. 15, 2021 $324,200
Federation Des Chambres De Commerce Du Quebec Sep. 1, 2020 $200,000
Federation of Black Canadians Sep. 1, 2020 $263,300
Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak Oct. 1, 2021 $659,201
First Light St. John’s Friendship Centre Inc. Jun. 1, 2021 $362,900
First Light St. John’s Friendship Centre Inc. Sep. 1, 2021 $253,940
Georgian bay Native Friendship Centre Inc. Sep. 21, 2021 $416,000
Grand Council Treaty #3 Sep. 1, 2021 $346,700
Institut National Du Sport Du Quebec Apr. 1, 2021 $1,522,301
Institut De Recherce Et D’Eucation Sur Les Relations Racials Aug. 3, 2020 $225,000
Integration Jeunesse Du Quebec Sep. 1, 2020 $281,742
Jane/Finch Community And Family Centre Aug. 1, 2021 $216,879
Jewish Family Services of Ottawa Aug. 10, 2009 $632,273
Jewish Family Services of Ottawa Dec. 23, 2009 $693,415
Jewish Family Services of Ottawa-Carleton May 13, 2010 $1,263,495
John Howard Society of Ontario Oct. 1, 2021 $433,225
Justice For Girls Outreach Program Aug. 4, 2020 $206,970
Legal Aid Ontario Sep. 1, 2020 $285,000
Lift Community Services Of Qathet Sep. 1, 2020 $222,000
Maison D’Haiti Sep. 1, 2021 $279,810
Makeway Charitable Society Sep. 1, 2021 $228,833
Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc. Aug. 1, 2021 $500,000
Matawa First Nations Management Sep. 7, 2021 $355,208
Metro Toronto Chinese & East Asian Legal Clinic Apr. 1, 2020 $301,904
Metro Toronto Chinese & East Asian Legal Clinic Sep. 1, 2021 $286,910
Midaynta Community Services Oct. 1, 2021 $275,000
MOSAIC – Multilingual Orientation Service Association For Immigrant Communities Sep. 1, 2021 $213,250
Muslim Association Of Canada Sep. 1, 2021 $349,210
National Anti-Racism Council of Canada Mar. 28, 2008 $211,205
National Anti-Racism Council of Canada Aug. 28, 2008 $430,213
Nigerian Canadians For Cultural, Educational And Economic Progress Oct. 1, 2021 $219,420
Nishnawbe-Aski Legal Services Corp. Apr. 1, 2020 $376,788
Northern Alberta Alliance on Race Relations Sep. 1, 2009 $497,161
Northern Nishnwabe Education Council Sep. 1, 2021 $250,000
North Shore Multicultural Society Aug. 1, 2021 $247,653
Northwestern Ontario Women’s Centre May 3, 2019 $250,000
Nova Scotia Department Of Justice Oct. 1, 2020 $200,000
Nunatsiavut Government Sep. 1, 2021 $352,660
Ontario Federation Of Indigenous Friendship Centres Apr. 1, 2020 $284,050
Parry Sound Friendship Centre Sep. 1, 2021 $225,000
Q’Wemtsin Health Society Jul. 1, 2021 $333,865
Reach Edmonton Council Oct. 1, 2020 $255,000
Regent Park Community Health Centre Sep. 1, 2021 $275,823
Regional Connections Inc. Sep. 1, 2021 $254,704
Return The Love Community Support Sep. 1, 2021 $200,000
Riel Institute For Education And Learning Aug. 30, 2021 $236,095
Riverdale Immigrant Women’s Centre Sep. 8, 2021 $288,387
Ryerson University Sep. 1, 2020 $250,000
Sentencing And Parole Project Nov. 1, 2021 $300,000
Service D’Orientation Et D’Integration Des Immigrants Au Travail De Quebec Sep. 1, 2020 $280,000
Social Planning Council Of Winnipeg Apr. 1, 2020 $266,100
Sommet Socio-Economique Pour Le Developpement Des Jeunes Des Communautres Noires Mar. 1, 2020 $251,090
Table De Concertation Des Organismes Au Service Des Personnes Refugiees Et Immigrantes Inc. Sep. 1, 2021 $375,000
Taibu Community Health Centre Apr. 1, 2020 $460,238
Town Of Strathmore Apr. 1, 2020 $260,000
Tsuut’ina Nation Police Service May 1, 2020 $215,000
Umoja Community Mosaic Sep. 1, 2021 $288,800
United Jewish Appeal Of Greater Toronto Sep. 1, 2021 $340,000
Urban Alliance On Race Relations Jul. 21, 2021 $235,800
Urban Rez Solutions Social Enterprise Aug. 1, 2019 $430,000
Vieux Theatre De St.-Fabien (LE) Apr. 1, 2021 $1,900,140
Women’s Health In Women’s Hands Sep. 1, 2020 $340,000
YMCA Of Windsor-Essex County Jan. 29, 2008 $203,002
ZMQ Global Sep. 1, 2021 $287,840

It must be stated that the connection between many of these grants and “fighting racism” is far from clear. For a lot of these, it looks like just a way to funnel money in a manner that couldn’t otherwise be done. Do we really have to pay for people to go skiing, just to prove we’re not racists? The actual search results in 600 hits, so it’s not practical to cover them all. These are just the bigger ones listed.

An interesting observation: considering all that white privilege that exists in the West, it seems that whites are about the only group that hasn’t qualified for it’s own specific funding.

15(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Of course, equality under Section 15 of the Charter doesn’t seem to mean much. The second part of it specifically allows discrimination as long as it’s done to help “disadvantaged groups”. Thank you very much, Pierre Trudeau.

Ever wonder why some problems continue to get worse? Trudeau Jr. has substantially increased the funding of his predecessor, Stephen Harper.


Recent Expenses, Source Countries Of People Entering Canada Illegally

Even though the mainstream press has largely stopped covering the issue, people are still coming into Canada illegally, and we are still covering their expenses.

While our Government and media routinely distract with fear-porn about a non-existent virus, the important issue of border security seems to have disappeared. Admittedly, it has been neglected here on this site as well.

In any event, let’s look at some recent information about the costs associated with this virtue signaling. Keep in mind, this is not a complicated issue. Governments could put a stop to this problem overnight if they wanted to. The only reasonable conclusion is that they want to “appear” to be helpless, while ensuring this continues.

Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development Apr. 25, 2018 – Mar. 31, 2019 $900,000
ARK Group DMCC Mar. 16, 2020 – May 31, 2021 $999,894
CCFC – Christian Children’s Fund of Canada Mar. 21, 2017 – Dec. 31, 2021 $12,671,151
City of Hamilton (Government) Aug. 2, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $220,000
City of Ottawa (Government) Apr. 5, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $7,000,000
City of Toronto (Government) Jul. 31, 2018 – Mar. 31, 2019 $26,000,000
City of Toronto (Government) May 10, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $45,000,000
City of Toronto (Government) Aug. 29, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $17,000,000
City of Toronto (Government) Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $23,000,000
City of Toronto (Government) Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $16,000,000
City of Ottawa (Government) Jun. 26, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $10,100,000
City Of Victoria (Government) May 15, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $6,000,000
International Organization for Migration 2013-2014 Project $3,087,839
International Organization for Migration Dec. 7, 2015 – Dec. 31, 2018 $10,000,000
International Organization for Migration April 2018 to April 2019 $22,000
International Organization for Migration Feb. 1, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2023 $15,000,000
International Organization for Migration Mar. 15, 2019 – Mar. 15, 2020 $19,500
International Organization for Migration Mar. 26, 2019 – Mar. 26, 2020 $50,000
International Organization for Migration Jun. 24, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2023 $2,219,042
International Organization for Migration Mar. 12, 2020 – Sep. 30, 2023 $1,199,636
Nakache, Delphine (University of Ottawa) Mar. 15, 2018 $213,936
Province of Manitoba (Government) Jul. 31, 2018 – Mar. 31, 2019 $3,000,000
Province of Manitoba (Government) Aug. 21, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $5,000,000
Province of Quebec (Government) Aug. 29, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $250,000,000
Province of Quebec (Government) Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $94,000,000
Province of Quebec (Government) Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $30,000,000
Regional Municipality of Peel (Government) Aug. 21, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $2,200,000
United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees Mar. 29, 2019 – Mar. 29, 2020 $50,000

Some of these grants are worth a look in closer detail. Keep in mind, this is just what’s getting flagged by “irregular”. There is most likely more money coming from other sources.

With the International Organization for Migration, it looks like we are handing out cash to facilitate the illegal movement of people. It doesn’t seem like prevention at all.

To enhance awareness of key communities in Central America of the risks associated with irregular pathways of migration and of the options available for regular migration, including to Canada;
To strengthen capacity of local government agencies and stakeholders in the target countries to develop information campaign strategies to better inform communities on safe and regular migration pathways and risks of irregular migration.

As one example (albeit a small one), Canadian taxpayers sent $50,000 to Costa Rica. The idea was to discourage them from coming illegally, but to inform them of the litany of methods to enter Canada legally.

This grant will support UNODC to strengthen the migration management capacity of Nigeria through technical assistance in the areas of national migration /immigration policies and procedures, deterring irregular migration, and improving data collection and analysis related to human trafficking and migrant smuggling.

Another grant sent $1.2 million to Nigeria, to combat human smuggling and trafficking. At least that was the stated goal. However, consider the large numbers of Nigerians simply coming across the border from the United States, it seems more like we just subsidized their travel.

In fact, Nigerians have been the largest group to enter Canada illegally over the last few years.

Total 59,384 22,591 16,152 17,555
Nigeria 16,187 4,120 6,777 4,658
Haiti 9,236 1,861 4,205 2,655
Columbia 3,425 1,269 420 1,599
Pakistan 2,343 918 505 800
Democratic Republic of Congo 2,094 362 292 1,328

Note: This doesn’t count withdrawn and abandoned claims.

All of this since 2017, according to the IRB. People can just stroll through the border (and this happens often) at Roxham Road. A serious country would turn them away, not shell out millions for locals to feed and house them.

The United States is such a dangerous country, we are told. However, they get tens of thousands (or more) of asylum claims every year. Strange that people are so willing to flock to an unsafe place. Unless of course, this is all about shopping around for better benefits and living conditions.

Despite all the talk about the border being closed with the U.S., that isn’t true at all. People are still able to come in and pretend to be refugees. The only real difference is that Roxham Road has been converted into a normal border port, and is processing illegal aliens.

As a sign of where things are heading, consider this recent announcement. Refugee claimants (people waiting for a hearing), who have accumulated enough hours working in health care can apply to stay. This seems to also apply to people who entered the country illegally. There seems to be no standards in who we let into this field.

This applies to both pending and failed (yes failed) asylum applicants. If they have enough hours, they can apply for permanent residence. The hours required is the same as for health care workers on visas: (120 between March and August 2020, and either 750 hours or 30 hour/week for 6 months).

It’s a bit of a meme that we have doctors, scientists and engineers flooding the borders. Apparently, this is what’s actually happening.

At a time when health care workers are being terminated for refusing to take the experimental shots, a replacement work force is coming in. The catch seems to be a lack of concern for bodily autonomy. This problem is likely to just get worse.

More to come on this long neglected topic.


Institute For Strategic Dialogue (ISD): Government Sponsored Group Combatting “Misinformation”

Ever get the impression that Governments are colluding with social media and NGOs in a program of counter-intelligence? Ever think that there may be a coordinated effort to keep the general public oblivious to what’s really going on in the world? Turns out, there may be something to that.

Credit where it’s due: Stormhaven Media previously addressed the ISD, and some of its nefarious connections. Go check that out for more context.

The Canadian Government briefly mentions the work done by ISD in their group: Rapid Response Mechanism Canada (RRM Canada). This was related to foreign interference during and leading up to the 2019 European Union Parliamentary Elections. ISD is specifically listed in footnote #3.

On that page, there was also concern that anti-abortion sentiments were rising as a result of the language used. In short, calling things what they were amounted to resistance to the pro-death agenga. Also, Ottawa seemed to realize that people were getting wise to globalism and to the prospects of a Muslim takeover. Having a narrative shift makes it harder to sell Government policies.

A program run by Public Service Canada involved implementing the agenda of preventing violent extremism into Canadian schools. Parents, did you know about this?

Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD)
This project builds on a long-standing international program, first launched in 2015 through support from Public Safety Canada, designed to give young people the resources to challenge violent extremism in all its forms. Extreme Dialogue is a free resource designed to be delivered by teachers, youth practitioners, external facilitators (including social services and police), or young people themselves, by using films and supporting curriculum materials to learn about the true stories of those affected by violent extremism.
This new investment will support bringing the program to approximately 2,000 students between the ages of 14-20 in eight different francophone high schools and CEGEP/colleges in Quebec, and will deliver new and adapted education material and workshops for students, delivered by teachers and practitioners. Teachers and practitioners will be equipped through training delivered by the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence (CPRLV).
Ultimately, this project aims to build resilience to radicalization leading to violence in youth by providing them with the knowledge, skills and values needed not only to openly discuss, but to also challenge extremism in schools and other settings within their community.

Did parents know that the Federal Government was implementing into their schools the same kind of training that is given to those “peaceful groups” to ensure they don’t commit mass murder? Maybe not letting such people into Canada in the first place would have been a better idea. Perhaps this is done to subconsciously shift the public opinion that this sort of thing should be considered normal. But then, objecting to the forced integration of vastly different groups is probably racist, or something.

Canada also has a Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security, or CCRS, It’s chaired by Amarnath Amarasingam, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue

In 2013, Public Safety Canada gave ISD $24,372.98 in a sole-sourced contract to “counter violent extremism”. However, the details of this contract were extremely sparse, so we are left to guess about what it actually involved.

Last year, Canadian taxpayers forked over nearly $400,000 to this “independent” group. Seems like an unproductive use of money. But then, it’s hardly the only time we’ve financed our own brainwashing. See the links at the bottom for worse examples of this.

It’s a registered tax-exempt organization in the United States, so more information about its finances is available from the Internal Revenue Service.

Of course, it’s hardly just the Canadian Government (or rather, taxpayers) who are financing this organization. Looking through their website, it’s easy to find the full list of donors and partners. And wow, what a list of organizations this is.

The Institute for Strategic Dialogue US (ISD US) is a non-political, not-for-profit corporation registered in the District of Columbia with 501(c)(3) status. It was formed with Articles of Incorporation on 19 August 2009. Whilst the two entities are legally separate, a majority of Board members sit on both boards so that decisions can be taken collectively. You can search for ISD US using tax identification number 27-1282489.

The Institute for Strategic Dialogue gGmbH (ISD Germany) is registered with the companies’ registrar in Berlin, registration AG Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 207 328B. It was formed on 19 February 2019 with a Deed and Articles of Association and began operations in 2020. The Managing Directors are Huberta von Voss and Sarah Kennedy.

The Institute for Strategic Dialogue France (ISD France) is a legal entity under the status of Association de loi 1901, a status granted to not-for-profit organisations across a range of sectors.


  • Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
  • ARENA @ Johns Hopkins University
  • Cardiff University
  • Centre for the Analysis of Social Media (CASM)
  • Combating Terrorism Center at West Point
  • Deakin University
  • Demos
  • Fair Fight Action
  • Geneva Center for Security Sector Governance (DCAF)
  • German Marshall Fund Alliance for Securing Democracy
  • Global Center on Cooperative Security
  • Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF)
  • Global Disinformation Index
  • Hans-Bredow Institute
  • Harvard Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society
  • Institut Montaigne
  • Institute for Economics and Peace
  • McCain Institute
  • MIT Media Cloud
  • Ontario Tech University
  • Sussex University Computer Science Department
  • United Nations Counter Terrorism Executive Directorate (UNCTED)
  • Victoria University
  • West Asia-North Africa (WANA) Institute


  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • British Council
  • Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF)
  • Europäisches Forum Alpbach
  • Gemeinnützige Hertie Stiftung
  • Gen Next Foundation
  • Hirondelle Foundation
  • International Republican Institute (IRI)
  • Mercator Stiftung Germany
  • Mercator Stiftung Switzerland
  • National Democratic Institute
  • Omidyar Group
  • Open Society Foundations
  • Robert Bosch Stiftung
  • United States Institute for Peace

Governments & Multilateral Organisations

  • Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and trade (DFAT)
  • Australian Department for Home Affairs
  • Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST)
  • Council of Europe
  • Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  • Danish Ministry of Immigration and Integration
  • Department of Premier & Cabinet, Victoria, Australia
  • Dutch Ministry for Foreign Affairs
  • Dutch Ministry of the Interior
  • European Commission
  • Finnish Interior Ministry
  • German Federal Agency for Civic Engagement
  • German Federal Foreign Office (Auswaertiges-Amt)
  • German Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV)
  • Global Affairs Canada
  • Global Coalition to Defeat Daesh/ISIS
  • International Organization for Migration (IOM)
  • London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC)
  • Ministry of Justice and Security, The Netherlands
  • New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs (DIA)
  • Norwegian Ministry of Children & Families (MCF)
  • Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  • Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security
  • Public Safety Canada
  • Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB)
  • Swedish Ministry of Integration
  • Swedish Ministry of Justice
  • Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA)
  • UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO)
  • UK Home Office
  • UN Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT)
  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
  • US Department for Homeland Security (DHS)
  • US State Department

Private Sector

  • Audible
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Jigsaw
  • Microsoft
  • YouTube

Now, just because the Institute for Strategic Dialogue is financed by numerous Western Governments, social media companies, think tanks, and NGOs like the Open Society and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, there’s no reason to be concerned. It’s not like there is any ideology that prevents truth and objective analysis from being published.

It’s hardly surprising that the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and the Open Society are claiming that racism and hate are on the rise. When NGOs are pushing open borders policies, it tends to provoke considerable backlash.

ISD lists conditions it imposes for any donations that are offered. While they sound fine on the surface, it needs to be said that it will only take money from groups who are on board with its ideology.

(1) The funder demonstrates respect for and adherence to universal human rights, freedom of speech, democracy and the rule of law, and does not support or condone extremism or terrorism
(2) The funder does not conduct activities or implement policies that promote violence, hatred or prejudice on the basis of gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, age or disability, and does not seek to deflect criticism from their involvement in any of the above by funding ISD
(3) The funding will help to challenge extremism, polarisation and disinformation and will support ISD in its pursuit of its charitable objectives
(4) The funder does not attempt to influence ISD’s objectives, policies or decisions, and the funding does not pose a risk to ISD’s independence, either explicitly or implicitly
(5) The funding does not pose a risk of harm to ISD’s reputation, staff, partners or beneficiaries

If one questions of the replacement agenda is real (getting rid of whites in the West), the climate change narrative, the pandemic fear-porn, or censorship in general, ISD will not take money. Rather than foster any true debate or research, it seems that all this group wants is an echo chamber.

Never forget, the Canadian Government has openly talked about passing laws to combat what they call “pandemic misinformation”. While that may be a hard sell, this may be the next best thing, from their perspective.

Now, let’s see the ISD findings in action. Let’s see some fairly mainstream coverage which references the work ISD does. Surely, it will be fully transparent in all of this.

Irish far-right groups have been exploiting online loopholes and using encrypted and largely unmoderated social media sites and messaging apps to mobilise and spread messages of hate throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.
That’s according to research carried out by the Institute of Strategic Dialogue (ISD), an independent global organisation dedicated to powering solutions to extremism, hate, and disinformation.
The study showed that the number of channels and messages created and sent by Irish users of the encrypted messaging app Telegram has increased rapidly, with just 800 messages sent in 2019 compared with over 60,000 this past January.

As just one example of propaganda, the Irish Examiner refers to the ISD as an “independent” organization. Any due diligence would have found out who really funds this group. Pretty hard to be independent when Governments and interested parties are paying the bills.

It’s entirely possible this omission was due to sloppy writing. However, it appears far more likely that this author simply chose to ignore the truth about the ISD, in an attempt to mislead and deceive readers. Looking at his LinkedIn profile suggests willful omissions, as he has a Masters in journalism. He probably should have stuck with being an English teacher.

Don’t worry, the Government is isn’t involved in gaslighting, brainwashing, or otherwise dumbing down the population in order for them to be more compliant. Politicians don’t really get their hands dirty like this. They just pay other people to do it.

(3) Open data analysis – European Parliamentary Elections_ Comprehensive Report
(6) Members of the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security
(7) ISD Funding Project Descriptions
(9) ISD Disclosure of Contracts Over $10,000
(14) Partnerships and Funders – Institute For Strategic Dialogue
(17) Irish far right groups flocking to encrypted and unmoderated social media sites
(19) Steven Heaney _ LinkedIn



Bill C-21: Firearms Bill Adding “Transborder Criminality” To IRPA

This Bill redefines replica firearms, and brings Red Flag and Yellow Flag Laws onto Canadian gun owners, regardless of how law abiding these people may be. It also makes changes to IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Immigration & Refugee Protection Act
Canada Criminal Code
Text Of Bill C-21

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. Canada Immigration & Refugee Protection Act

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
(2) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is responsible for the administration of this Act as it relates to
(a) examinations at ports of entry;
(b) the enforcement of this Act, including arrest, detention and removal;
(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of this Act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality or violating human or international rights; or
(d) declarations referred to in section 42.1.

36(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence;
(b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;
(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; or
(d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by regulations.

Bill C-21 would add Section 36(2.1) or “transborder criminality” onto this section. Presumably this refers to things like weapons smuggling, but a more precise definition would be appreciation

36(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) and (2):
(a) an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily;
(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;
(c) the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated;
(d) a determination of whether a permanent resident has committed an act described in paragraph (1)(c) must be based on a balance of probabilities; and
(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on an offence
(i) designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act,
(ii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national is found guilty under the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, or
(iii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national received a youth sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

36(3)(b) is changed to include transborder criminality in grounds, if a person has been pardoned, or acquitted finally. Similarly, 36(3)(e) brings transborder criminality into consideration for young offenders. These are just a few quotes from IRPA, the Immigration & Refugee Protection Act.

3. Changes Bill C-21 Would Make To IRPA

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
44 Paragraph 4(2)‍(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of this Act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality, violating human or international rights or transborder criminality; or

45 (1) Paragraphs 36(1)‍(a) to (c) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale pour laquelle un emprisonnement de plus de six mois est infligé;
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

(2) Paragraphs 36(2)‍(a) to (c) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions prévues sous le régime de toute loi fédérale qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits;
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits et qui, commises au Canada, constitueraient des infractions sous le régime de toute loi fédérale;
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation;

(3) Subsection 36(2) of the Act is amended by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (b), by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c) and by repealing paragraph (d).

(4) Section 36 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Transborder criminality
(2.‍1) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of transborder criminality for committing, on entering Canada, a prescribed offence under an Act of Parliament.

(5) The portion of subsection 36(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) to (2.‍1):

(6) Paragraph 36(3)‍(b) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) to (2.‍1) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;

(7) The portion of paragraph 36(3)‍(e) of the English version of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) to (2.‍1) may not be based on an offence

46 Paragraph 37(1)‍(a) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

a) être membre d’une organisation dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’elle se livre ou s’est livrée à des activités faisant partie d’un plan d’activités criminelles organisées par plusieurs personnes agissant de concert en vue de la perpétration d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de la perpétration, hors du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une telle infraction, ou se livrer à des activités faisant partie d’un tel plan;

47 Paragraph 55(3)‍(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) has reasonable grounds to suspect that the permanent resident or the foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality.

48 Paragraph 58(1)‍(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the Minister is taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that they are inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality;

49 Subsection 68(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Termination and cancellation
(4) If the Immigration Appeal Division has stayed a removal order against a permanent resident or a foreign national who was found inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, criminality or transborder criminality, and they are convicted of another offence referred to in subsection 36(1), the stay is cancelled by operation of law and the appeal is terminated.

50 Paragraph 100(2)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il l’estime nécessaire, afin qu’il soit statué sur une accusation pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

51 Paragraphs 101(2)‍(a) and (b) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) une déclaration de culpabilité au Canada pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
b) une déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

52 Paragraph 103(1)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il l’estime nécessaire, afin qu’il soit statué sur une accusation pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

53 Subsection 105(1) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

105 (1) La Section de la protection des réfugiés ou la Section d’appel des réfugiés sursoit à l’étude de l’affaire si la personne est visée par un arrêté introductif d’instance pris au titre de l’article 15 de la Loi sur l’extradition pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement d’une durée maximale égale ou supérieure à dix ans tant qu’il n’a pas été statué en dernier ressort sur la demande d’extradition.

54 Paragraph 112(3)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il est interdit de territoire pour grande criminalité pour déclaration de culpabilité au Canada pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou pour toute déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;

55 (1) Subparagraph 113(e)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) an applicant who is determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality with respect to a conviction in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years for which a term of imprisonment of less than two years — or no term of imprisonment — was imposed, and

(2) Subparagraph 113(e)‍(ii) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(ii) celui qui est interdit de territoire pour grande criminalité pour déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans, sauf s’il a été conclu qu’il est visé à la section F de l’article premier de la Convention sur les réfugiés.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
58 The portion of section 19 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Transborder crime
19 For the purposes of subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act, indictable offences under the following Acts of Parliament are prescribed

It says that certain indictable offences under the following Acts are prescribed, but then it doesn’t list them. Is there an oversight here?

59 Paragraph 229(1)‍(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(d) a deportation order, if they are inadmissible under paragraph 36(2)‍(b) or (c) of the Act on grounds of criminality or under subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act on grounds of transborder criminality;
60 Paragraph 230(3)‍(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(c) is inadmissible under subsection 36(1) of the Act on grounds of serious criminality, under subsection 36(2) of the Act on grounds of criminality or under subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act on grounds of transborder criminality;

This Bill would add “transborder criminality” as a reason to prevent someone from entering Canada, to imprison, or to deport. While this sounds fine, some clarity would be appreciated.

4. IRPA Also Lets Inadmissibles In Legally

Temporary resident permit
24 (1) A foreign national who, in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time.

Public policy considerations
25.2 (1) The Minister may, in examining the circumstances concerning a foreign national who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, grant that person permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the foreign national complies with any conditions imposed by the Minister and the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

As addressed here, here, here and here, there are at least 2 provisions in IRPA that allow people who are otherwise inadmissible to be LEGALLY let it. This happens daily.

5. Confusion Around Sentencing Range

Bill C-21 includes increasing the range of sentences for several gun crimes from a 10 year maximum, to a 14 year maximum. This is one of the truly reasonable sections of the legislation.

Replacement of “10” and “ten” with “14”
14 The Act is amended by replacing “10” and “ten” with “14” in the following provisions:
(a) paragraph 95(2)‍(a);
(b) paragraph 96(2)‍(a);
(c) the portion of subsection 99(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 99(3);
(d) the portion of subsection 100(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 100(3); and
(e) the portion of subsection 103(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 103(2.‍1).

That being said, Bill C-22 (another piece before Parliament), seeks to eliminate the mandatory minimum sentences on many serious gun crimes. Overall, these are very strange, and somewhat conflicting portions.

No Real Science Whatsoever In So-Called “Global Pandemic”

Even as the world crumbles due to a fake pandemic, clowns like B.C. Premier John Horgan, and B.C. Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry think it’s all fun and games. They push degeneracy and filth while stripping residents of their rights.

This piece is designed to lay out, in plain terms, the lack of any real science behind this “pandemic”. Despite what all the experts are saying, it’s pretty baseless. Before getting into the heart of the article, let’s address 3 points:

First: Canada really has no sovereignty in the matter. This is something our politicians know, but seem content with otherwise. As part of our membership with the World Health Organization, we must follow the IHR, or International Health Regulations. The latest is from 3rd Edition, in 2005. WHO’s Constitution (specifically Articles 21(A) and 22) are clear on quarantine measures. On a related note, the 2005 Quarantine Act was based on the IHR. See this transcript from November 4, 2004.

Second: M-132 is a Motion introduced in 2017 by a connected pharmacist for Canada to finance drugs and drug research in Canada — and abroad. That’s correct, this was brought into the House of Commons over 2 years BEFORE this outbreak.

Motion Text
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded health research, with the goals of lowering drugs costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than one year from the time this motion is adopted.

Third: the full scale of the pharmaceutical lobbying is something unknown to most people. Trudeau, O’Toole, Ford, Pallister, Kenney and Horgan are all compromised. They cannot be trusted to act in Canada’s best interest. It cannot be understated how much money there is, not just in vaccines, but in testing kits, and other pandemic related expenses. It doesn’t help that our media and fact-checkers are also co-opted.

Now, let’s get into the lack of real science. These are the topics to be addressed.

#1: Virus has never been isolated
#2: Virus isolation not used for diagnostics
#3: Being infectious is completely subjective
#4: Re-Testing is frequently advised
#5: Models are not evidence of anything
#6: RT-PCR test not designed for infection detection
#7: Error rate in RT-PCR tests is unknown
#8: Antibody tests very unreliable
#9: Deceit in reporting death count
#10: No basis for 2m “social distancing”
#11: No solid evidence masks actually work
#12: No science behind group size limits
#13: No science behind selective business closures
#14: No science behind curfew/house arrest
#15: Borders are kept open during “pandemic”
#16: Limited testing with mRNA “Vaccines”
#17: Changing definition of “herd immunity”
#18: Bonnie Henry’s deception on masks/vaccines
#19: Psychological research into getting people vaccinated

This list is not exhaustive, but should provide some insight into just how meaningless many of these scientific claims are. There’s no foundation for them. Going through them individually:

[1] Virus Has Never Been Isolated

This was addressed in depth by Christine Massey of Fluoride Feel Peel. The short version is that Governments CLAIM they have isolated this virus, and all subsequent actions are based on science. Problem is: every one so far who has been served with a freedom-of-information request has either stalled, or reported back that no records were found.

A little experiment was done here to try to replicate FFP’s work. While most FOIs are still outstanding, some, including the Canadian Institute for Health Research and the National Research Council confirmed they have no records.

[2] Virus Not Isolated For Diagnostics

[March 2020, Page 3]
Viral culture
Virus isolation is not recommended as a routine diagnostic procedure.

[September 2020, Page 8]
Viral isolation
Virus isolation is not recommended as a routine diagnostic procedure. All procedures involving viral isolation in cell culture require trained staff and BSL-3 facilities. A thorough risk assessment should be carried out when culturing specimens from potential SARSCoV-2 patients for other respiratory viruses because SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to grow on a variety of cell lines [183].

[Health Canada, April 2, 2020]
A person with laboratory confirmation of infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 performed at a community, hospital or reference laboratory (NML or a provincial public health laboratory) running a validated assay. This consists of detection of at least one specific gene target by a NAAT assay (e.g. real-time PCR or nucleic acid sequencing).

[BC CDC Guidelines]
Confirmed case
A person with laboratory confirmation of infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 performed at a community, hospital or reference laboratory (NML or a provincial public health laboratory) running a validated assay. This consists of detection of at least one specific gene target by a NAAT assay (e.g. real-time PCR or nucleic acid sequencing).

[Alberta Public Health, Page 3]
Confirmed Case
A person with laboratory confirmation of infection with the virus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes
COVID-19 which consists of:
• Detection of at least one specific gene target by nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) at
a Provincial Public Health Laboratory where NAAT tests have been validated(A)
• Confirmed positive result by National Microbiology Lab (NML) by NAAT.

[Manitoba Guidance]
Confirmed case – A person with a laboratory confirmation of infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 performed at a community, hospital or reference laboratory (NML or a provincial public health laboratory) running a validated assay. This consists of detection of at least one specific gene target by a NAAT assay (e.g. real-time PCR or nucleic acid sequencing).

[Ontario Public Health]
Specimens tested using the in-house laboratory developed assay will be tested using the E gene real-time PCR assay, the more sensitive of the two PCR targets.
-Specimens with a single target detected (regardless of assay used) will be reported as COVID-19 virus detected, which is sufficient for laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection.
-Specimens with no gene target(s) detected in the assay used will be reported as COVID-19 virus not detected.

WHO’s information from March 19, 2020, and September 11 both recommend AGAINST isolating the virus for the purpose of diagnosing a patient. Health Canada, the BC CDC, Alberta Public Health, Manitoba Health, and Ontario Public Health all say that detection of a single gene is sufficient. No virus isolation is needed.

[3] Being Infectious Is Completely Subjective

[March 20, Page 1]
Case definitions for surveillance
Case and contact definitions are based on the current available information and are regularly revised as new information accumulates. Countries may need to adapt case definitions depending on their local epidemiological situation and other factors. All countries are encouraged to publish definitions used online and in regular situation reports, and to document periodic updates to definitions which may affect the interpretation of surveillance data.

In their March 20, 2020 guidance, WHO actually suggested countries come up with their own standards and definitions of what a “case” was.

[4] Re-Testing Is Frequently Advised

[January 17, Page 1]
3. Specimen collection and shipment Rapid collection and testing of appropriate specimens from suspected cases is a priority and should be guided by a laboratory expert. As extensive testing is still needed to confirm the 2019-nCoV and the role of mixed infection has not been verified, multiple tests may need to be performed and sampling sufficient clinical material is recommended. Local guidelines should be followed regarding patient or guardian’s informed consent for specimen collection, testing and potentially future research.

[March 19, Page 2]
One or more negative results do not rule out the possibility of COVID-19 virus infection. A number of factors could lead to a negative result in an infected individual, including:
 poor quality of the specimen, containing little patient material (as a control, consider determining whether there is adequate human DNA in the sample
by including a human target in the PCR testing).
 the specimen was collected late or very early in the infection.
 the specimen was not handled and shipped appropriately.
 technical reasons inherent in the test, e.g. virus mutation or PCR inhibition.

[March 19, Page 3]
If a negative result is obtained from a patient with a high index of suspicion for COVID-19 virus infection, particularly when only upper respiratory tract specimens were collected, additional specimens, including from the lower respiratory tract if possible, should be collected and tested.

[September 11, Page 6]
Careful interpretation of weak positive NAAT results is needed, as some of the assays have shown to produce false signals at high Ct values. When test results turn out to be invalid or questionable, the patient should be resampled and retested. If additional samples from the patient are not available, RNA should be re-extracted from the original samples and retested by highly experienced staff. Results can be confirmed by an alternative NAAT test or via virus sequencing if the viral load is sufficiently high. Laboratories are urged to seek reference laboratory confirmation of any unexpected results

[September 11, Page 7]
Rapid diagnostic tests that detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins (antigens) in respiratory tract specimens are being developed and commercialized. Most of these are lateral flow immunoassays (LFI), which are typically completed within 30 minutes. In contrast to NAATs, there is no amplification of the target that is detected, making antigen tests less sensitive. Additionally, false positive (indicating that a person is infected when they are not) results may occur if the antibodies on the test strip also recognize antigens of viruses other than SARS-CoV-2, such other human coronaviruses.

[January 13, 2021]
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO’s own guidance from January 17, 2020, and March 19, 2020, September 11, 2020, and January 13, 2021, (archived), indicate that people should be retested if there was suspicion. That doesn’t exactly scream out that the test is reliable.

[5] Models Are Predictions, Not Evidence

WHO’s dictates are based on modelling. In June 2020, they thought that 6% to 41% of the global population was infected. In other words, they have no idea.

This needs to be addressed head on: models are not evidence of anything. Instead, they are projections, predictions of what people BELIEVE will happen. It’s entirely possible that the people running them have their own political agendas. But even sincere people are limited by their own data and understanding of what they are doing.

As for these outfits being compromised, consider these 3, all of whom have financial ties to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation:

Whenever a politician or “expert” talks about their modelling predicting something, it is not evidence. It is pseudo-science, being used to push a narrative.

[6] RT-PCR Tests Never Designed For This

[Australia, April 3, Page 1/2]
Can reinfection occur?
There have been reports of apparent re-infection in a small number of cases. However, most of these describe patients having tested positive within 7-14 days after apparent recovery. Immunological studies indicate that patients recovering from COVID-19 mount a strong antibody response. It is likely that positive tests soon after recovery represent persisting excretion of viral RNA, and it should be noted that PCR tests cannot distinguish between “live” virus and noninfective RNA. Australian guidelines currently require patients who have had COVID-19 to test negative on two tests 24 hours apart before being released from isolation.

COVID-19 testing in Australia – information for health professionals
1 October 2020
Tests for COVID-19 aim to detect the causative virus, SARS-CoV-2, or an immune response to SARS-CoV-2. The reliability of COVID-19 tests is uncertain due to the limited evidence base. Available evidence mainly comes from symptomatic patients, and their clinical role in detecting asymptomatic carriers is unclear.
The indications for conducting a COVID-19 test have changed through the course of the pandemic. See the current suspect case definition (link is external) and the testing criteria (link is external) on the Department of Health website.

[Australia, October 8]
Nucleic acid tests
These tests detect the presence of the genetic material, called nucleic acids, of the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus. Such tests are good at detecting the virus early in the infection and can sometimes even detect the virus in a person before they become unwell. There are several types of nucleic acid tests that can be used to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests and isothermal nucleic acid amplification tests (e.g., loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) tests).
PCR tests are generally considered better at detecting the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and are currently the gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19.

The Australian Department of Health released information on April 3 about this virus, but admitted that PCR tests cannot distinguish between “live” and “noninfective” RNA. In other words, it’s pretty useless. Even on October 1, this archived page stated that the limited evidence made the test unreliable.

But what a difference a week makes. In this October 8 posting, PCR tests are now the gold standard. In April, they couldn’t tell between dead and live genetic material. October 1, the reliability was uncertain. Now, it’s the gold standard.

Just consider the creator of the test, Kary Mullis. He has publicly said that RT-PCR was never designed to test for infection, and hence is meaningless, from a scientific perspective.

[7] Error Rate In RT-PCR Tests Unknown

[BC CDC April, 30]
1. How does the test work?
The NAT works by detecting RNA specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 infection, after RNA has been extracted from the specimen and then amplified in the laboratory. NATs are typically performed on nasopharyngeal swabs, but the test can also be done on other sample types such as throat swabs, saliva, sputum, tracheal aspirates, and broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL) specimens.
The NAT has a high analytical sensitivity (i.e., it works well at detecting the virus when the virus is present). The NAT can potentially detect as few as 10-100 copies of viral RNA per mL in a respiratory sample. Note that this is not the same as clinical sensitivity of NAT for detection of COVID-19 infection, which is unknown at this time (see #5 below).

[BC CDC, April 30]
2. What do the test results mean?
 Positive: Viral RNA is detected by NAT and this means that the patient is confirmed to have COVID-19 infection.
A positive NAT does not necessarily mean that a patient is infectious, as viral RNA can be shed in the respiratory tract for weeks but cultivatable (live) virus is typically not detected beyond 8 to 10 days after symptom onset.
 Negative: Viral RNA is not detected in the sample. However, a negative test result does not totally rule out COVID-19 infection as there may be reasons beyond test performance that can result in a lack of RNA detection in patients with COVID-19 infection (false negatives; see below).
 Indeterminate: The NAT result is outside the validated range of the test (i.e., RNA concentration is below the
limit of detection, or a non-specific reaction), or this might occur when the sample collected is of poor quality
(i.e., does not contain a sufficient amount of human cells). Indeterminate results do not rule in or rule out infection.

[BC CDC April 30]
5. What is the clinical sensitivity of the NAT test?
A statistic commonly quoted is that there is a 30% chance of a false negative result for a NAT test in a patient with COVID-19 infection (i.e., a 70% sensitivity). These and other similar estimates are based on a small number studies that compared the correlation between CT scan findings suggestive of COVID-19 infection to NAT on upper respiratory tract specimens. In these studies, 20-30% of people with a positive CT scan result had negative NAT results – and as discussed above a number of factors can contribute to false negative results. CT scan is not a gold standard for diagnosis ofCOVID-19 infection, and CT scan cannot differentiate amongst the many microbiological causes of pneumonia.
Ultimately, for COVID-19 testing, there is currently no gold standard, and the overall clinical sensitivity and specificity of NAT in patients with COVID-19 infection is unknown (i.e., how well NAT results correlate with clinical infection, “true positivity” or “true negativity” rate).

[Alberta Health Services, April 30]
The analytical validity of the lab-developed test used in Alberta is not in question, as confirmatory testing by the Canadian National Microbiology Lab (NML) showed that the Alberta test was 100% accurate, and analytical specificity of PCR testing has been reported to be 100% given the methodology – at least when done during active infection phase.

The videos are of Barbara Yaffe, the Deputy Medical Officer of Ontario, and Jason Kenney, the Premier of Alberta. Yaffe admits that there can be 50% errors with RT-PCR tests, and Kenney seems indifferent that it could be 90%.

What this means is that the BC CDC admits that it has no idea about the reliability of the tests. Positive or negative tests could be wrong

Alberta Health Services claims the test is 100% effective (page 1), but with the HUGE disclaimer that it applies during active infection. That could mean an avalanche of false positives.

[8] Antibody Tests Very Unreliable

[Sask Health Authority, Page 4]
Provides preliminary test results:
Negative: Does NOT rule out COVID-19 infection. Does NOT change any infection control precautions or isolation requirements.
Positive: Should be acted on immediately. Considered a “Presumptive Case” until confirmed by an in-lab PCR test.

Confirmatory Testing must be performed on:
• All Positives
• Unresolved Invalid tests and
• Negatives where patient is suspected of COVID-19infection.
A new NP swab should be collected, placed in viral transport media, and referred to a SHA Laboratory for confirmatory testing.

BC Provincial Health Officer, Bonnie Henry, admits that anitbody tests are of limited use and effect. Henry also admits the “false positivity rate” and the “false negative rate” can be very high. According to the Saskatchewan Health Authority, antigen tests, at least this particular one, provide preliminary results, and nearly always have to be followed up. That doesn’t exactly come across as reliable, not that the PCR test is any better.

[9] Outright Deceit Concerning Death Counts

[WHO, April 16, 2020, Page 3]
This document describes certification and classification (coding) of deaths related to COVID-19. The primary goal is to identify all deaths due to COVID-19.
A simplified section specifically addresses the persons that fill in the medical certificate of cause of death. It should be distributed to certifiers separate from the coding instructions.

[WHO, April 16, 2020, Page 3]
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

[August 7, Page 3]
3. Definition of death due to COVID-19
A COVID-19 death is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID-19 disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery between the illness and death.

[December 16, Page 2]
Probable COVID-19 case:
A. A patient who meets clinical criteria above AND is a contact of a probable or confirmed case, or epidemiologically linked to a cluster of cases which has had at least one confirmed case identified within that cluster.
B. A suspected case (described above) with chest imaging showing findings suggestive of COVID-19 disease*
* Typical chest imaging findings suggestive of COVID-19 include the following (Manna 2020):
• chest radiography: hazy opacities, often rounded in morphology, with peripheral and lower lung distribution
• chest CT: multiple bilateral ground glass opacities, often rounded in morphology, with peripheral and lower lung
• lung ultrasound: thickened pleural lines, B lines (multifocal, discrete, or confluent), consolidative patterns with or without air bronchograms.
C. A person with recent onset of anosmia (loss of smell) or ageusia (loss of taste) in the absence of any other identified cause.
D. Death, not otherwise explained, in an adult with respiratory distress preceding death AND who was a contact of a probable or confirmed case or epidemiologically linked to a cluster which has had at least one confirmed case identified within that cluster.

[December 16, Page 3]
3. Definition of death due to COVID-19
A COVID-19 death is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID-19 disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery between the illness and death.

According to WHO’s April 16, and August 7 2020 guidelines, a person dying of a “clinical compatible illness” is sufficient to label as a “Covid death”. That standard is also repeated in the instructions as recently as December 16, 2020.

It would be nice to just blame this on some dishonest politicians, like Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott, but the problem goes much deeper than that. It’s a coordinated effort to deceive the public into what’s happening.

[10] No Basis For 2 Metre “Social Distancing”

About this so called “social distancing”, where are the lengths determined? 2 metres and 6 feet are not equivalent, but even so, where did that come from? There are many references on WHO’s site to 1 METRE but nothing above that. Is it made up as well?

[11] No Real Evidence Masks Work At All

WHO released their “interim guidance” on April 6, June 5 and December 1, 2020. There was another release August 21 that specifically addressed children and masks.

What’s very telling is they are very wishy-washy in all reports. Many times it’s stated that either there’s no real evidence, or that more study is needed. Even taking a very charitable interpretation, the support for masks (based on science), is lukewarm.

However, based on the claims routinely touted in the media, one would think this is a settled issue, and that there’s no room for debate. Even the BBC knows this is political.

[12] No Science Behind Group Size Limits

Canadians have the right to freely associate, and to peacefully assemble. If Governments are going to infringe on that, there has to be a valid reason. They have yet to demonstrate one.

Beyond that, why is it that groups of 10 are allowed in Ontario, but groups of 50 are fine in B.C.? What is the scientific rational for these cut-offs? As it turns out, there is no real science behind any of it, as Bonnie Henry repeatedly jokes. Apparently as long as it’s “consistent”, being baseless is irrelevant.

The first video came from the Vancouver Sun. See the 1:00 mark. The second is from TCN TV.

[13] No Science Behind Business Closures

Throughout this so-called “pandemic”, rules around business closures have been applied unevenly, and in an arbitrary manner. Shutting down businesses and destroying people’s livelihoods is wrong to begin with, but why all of the double standards? It could be because places like Walmart have been lobbying politicians in Canada. This is about political connections, not science.

Who are Bruce Hartley and William Pristanski? Those are the same lobbyists who got SNC Lavalin their deferred prosecution agreement. Very well connected.

[14] No Science With Curfews/House Arrest

This ties back to the modelling addressed earlier. Ford, Legault, and others have claimed that people need to be home during certain hours, as the computer models say this will cut the number of cases. Okay, what is any of this based on? This is nothing more than martial law cloaked as public health.

[15] Keeping Borders Open During “Pandemic”

[January 2020 IHR guidelines]
The Committee does not recommend any travel or trade restriction based on the current information available.

[May 2020 IHR guidelines]
The WHO Regional Emergency Directors and the Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme (WHE) provided regional and the global situation overview. After ensuing discussion, the Committee unanimously agreed that the outbreak still constitutes a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) and offered advice to the Director-General.

Travel and Trade
Continue working with countries and partners to enable essential travel needed for pandemic response, humanitarian relief, repatriation, and cargo operations.
Develop strategic guidance with partners for the gradual return to normal operations of passenger travel in a coordinated manner that provides appropriate protection when physical distancing is not feasible.

[August IHR guidelines]
(8) Work with partners to revise WHO’s travel health guidance to reinforce evidence-informed measures consistent with the provisions of the IHR (2005) to avoid unnecessary interference with international travel; proactively and regularly share information on travel measures to support State Parties’ decision-making for resuming international travel.

Throughout 2020, the WHO didn’t recommend any travel restrictions, despite this “supposedly” being a deadly outbreak. Their January, May and August releases made that clear. This isn’t to defend Trudeau, but he was just following the orders of his masters. So politicians pretending to be outraged are lying to the cameras.

Not only are there real travel restrictions, immigration has not suffered any cuts. In fact, there are efforts to greatly increase it. CANZUK, (the open borders scheme with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.K.), is apparently still underway.

Illegal crossings (Lacolle at Roxham Road), haven’t stopped either. In fact, it has been converted into a LEGAL pprt of entry.

[16] Limited Testing With mRNA “Vaccines”

Moderna and Pfizer have had their “vaccines” approved by Health Canada. Of course, given what they actually are, it may be more accurate to refer to them as a form of gene replacement therapy.

Nonetheless all political parties seem content with letting this go ahead, in spite of the testing issues listed in their inserts.

[Section 30.1 of Food & Drug Act]
“The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment.”

What Section 30.1 means is that the Health Minister is allowed to sign an Order allowing vaccines to be distributed in Canada, even if they haven’t fully tested it.

[17] Changing Definition Of “Herd Immunity”

What is herd immunity?
Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. This means that even people who haven’t been infected, or in whom an infection hasn’t triggered an immune response, they are protected because people around them who are immune can act as buffers between them and an infected person. The threshold for establishing herd immunity for COVID-19 is not yet clear.

‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.
Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it. Read the Director-General’s 12 October media briefing speech for more detail.
Vaccines train our immune systems to develop antibodies, just as might happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question. Visit our webpage on COVID-19 and vaccines for more detail.
As more people in a community get vaccinated, fewer people remain vulnerable, and there is less possibility for passing the pathogen on from person to person. Lowering the possibility for a pathogen to circulate in the community protects those who cannot be vaccinated due to other serious health conditions from the disease targeted by the vaccine. This is called ‘herd immunity’.

October 22, 2020 definition, the November 5 definition (which edits out previous infection), and what the site says on December 31. A possible explanation is that WHO’s edits were publicly called out, so they reverted back to the original definition.

[18] Bonnie Henry Lies About Masks/Vaccinations

134. Dr. Henry agreed with this observation by Dr. Skowronski and Dr. Patrick who are her colleagues at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control:
I do agree, as we’ve discussed earlier, influenza is mostly transmitted in the community and we don’t have data on the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated healthcare workers and individual transmission events…in healthcare settings.
135. Dr. Henry agreed that no VOM policy would influence influenza in the community. Dr. McGeer denied that she had used or recommended the use of community burden in the assessment of development of such a policy.

160. In direct examination Dr. Henry stated that the pre-symptomatic period was “clearly not the most infectious period but we do know that it happens”.[203] She also agreed in cross-examination that transmission required an element of proximity and a sufficient amount of live replicating virus.
161. At another point, the following series of questions and answers ensued during Dr. Henry’s cross-examination:
Q. With respect to transmission while asymptomatic, and I want to deal with your authorities with respect to that, would you agree with me that there is scant evidence to support that virus shedding of influenza actually leads to effective transmission of the disease before somebody becomes symptomatic?
A. I think we talked about that yesterday, that there is some evidence that people shed prior to being symptomatic, and there is some evidence of transmission, that leading to transmission, but I absolutely agree that that is not the highest time when shedding and transmission can occur.
Q. So were you—I put it to you that there’s scant evidence, and that was Dr. De Serres’ evidence, so—but that there’s very little evidence about that, do you agree?
A. There is—as we talked about yesterday, there is not a lot of evidence around these pieces, I agree.
Q. And clearly transmission risk is greatest when you’re symptomatic, when you’re able to cough or sneeze?
A. Transmission risk is greatest, as we’ve said, when you’re symptomatic, especially in the first day or two of symptom onset

177. Dr. McGeer and Dr. Henry presented the position of the OHA and the Hospital based upon their understanding of the relevant literature. Neither of them asserted that they had particular expertise with respect to masks or had conducted studies testing masks.

184. In her pre-hearing Report Dr. Henry responded to a request that she discuss the evidence that masks protect patients from influenza this way:
There is good evidence that surgical masks reduce the concentration of influenza virus expelled into the ambient air (a 3.4 fold overall reduction in a recent study) when they are worn by someone shedding influenza virus. There is also evidence that surgical masks reduce exposure to influenza in experimental conditions.
Clinical studies have also suggested that masks, in association with hand hygiene, may have some impact on decreasing transmission of influenza infection. These studies are not definitive as they all had limitations. The household studies are limited by the fact that mask wearing did not start until influenza had been diagnosed and the patient/household was enrolled in the study, such that influenza may have been transmitted prior to enrollment. A study in student residences is limited by the fact that participants wore their mask for only approximately 5 hours per day. Two systematic reviews of the cumulative studies conclude that there is evidence to support that wearing of masks or respirators during illness protects others, and a very limited amount of data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected
In summary, there is evidence supporting the use of wearing of masks to reduce transmission of influenza from health care workers to patients. It is not conclusive, and not of the quality of evidence that supports influenza vaccination. Based on current evidence, patient safety would be best ensured by requiring healthcare providers to be vaccinated if they provide care during periods of influenza activity. However, if healthcare workers are unvaccinated, wearing masks almost certainly provides some degree of protection to their patients.

219. Dr. Henry answered the ‘why not mask everyone’ question this way:
It is [influenza vaccination] by far, not perfect and it needs to be improved, but it reduces our risk from a hundred percent where we have no protection to somewhat lower. And there’s nothing that I’ve found that shows there’s an incremental benefit of adding a mask to that reduced risk…..there’s no data that shows me that if we do our best to reduce that incremental risk, the risk of influenza, that adding a mask to that will provide any benefit. But if we don’t have any protection then there might be some benefit when we know our risk is greater.
When we look at individual strains circulating and what’s happening, I think we need it to be consistent with the fact that there was nothing that gave us support that providing a mask to everybody all the time was going to give us any additional benefit over putting in place the other measures that we have for the policy. It’s a tough one. You know, it varies by season.[320]
It is a challenging issue and we’ve wrestled with it. I’m not a huge fan of the masking piece. I think it was felt to be a reasonable alternative where there was a need to do—to feel that we were doing the best we can to try and reduce risk.
I tried to be quite clear in my report that the evidence to support masking is not as great and it is certainly not as good a measure

Bonnie Henry testified as an expert witness in a 2015 case, Ontario Nurses Association v.s. Sault Area Hospital. She testified there was little evidence that the hospital’s “vaccinate or mask” policy worked rearding influenza. At best, she really seemed to be hedging her answers, and avoiding direct conclusions.

Now she says something quite different in 2020.

[19] Psyche Research Into “Vaccine Hesitancy”

It would be remiss to claim there is no science at all, without mentioning the science that “does” take place. Specifically, plenty of psychological and sociological research is done into convincing people that vaccines are safe, and necessary.

To clarify, this research is not about ENSURING that the vaccines people get are safe. Instead, it is research into CONVINCING people that they already are. Big difference.

Part 1: Canada’s vaccine strategy, tax-funded programs
Part 2: The Vaccine Confidence Project
Part 3: More research into “Vaccine Hesitancy”
Part 4: Psychological manipulaton
Part 5: WEF meeting to discuss boosting vaccination levels

The above posts are from the website, and provide a decent introduction into this vast sub-area of research. Take the plunge for yourself

What Does All This Mean For Us?

For starters, it could mean the end of our free speech, if people like this have their way.

It’s difficult to believe that the public actually takes this “pandemic” seriously. However, that is the result when all of the information a person receives is controlled and manipulated.

Of course, we haven’t even gotten into the whole GREAT RESET. That is a plan by overlords to impose a New World Order in the face of this outbreak. Makes one seriously wonder if the whole thing was premeditated.

TSCE #7(G): “Healthcare Worker Refugee” Program Is Backdoor Amnesty For Illegals

Canada will be giving refugee claimants, (even those who entered illegally), a pathway to permanent residence, for essential health care work. This comes in spite of layoffs at hospitals for not having enough work. Remember, “non-essential” care has been cancelled or delayed.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

3. Important Links

Ottawa, PR Pathway For “Refugee Claimants” In Health Care
Hospital Layoffs Because Of No Work
Quebec Specific Program For PR Pathyway
2020 Canada Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
Conditions For Eligibility For Program
Designated Country Of Origin (Struck in 2019)
Employers And Social Insurance Obligations
Seasonal Agricultural Work Program

4. PR-Pathway A Backdoor Amnesty Program

Both failed and pending refugee claimants face uncertainty regarding their future status in Canada. This public policy enables the Government of Canada to recognize their significant contribution and risk to their health during the pandemic by providing them with a more secure future in Canada. In recognition that there may be refugee claimants who contracted COVID-19 and subsequently passed away, spouses and common-law partners of these individuals, who are in Canada, may also be granted permanent residence under this public policy.

As such, I hereby establish that, pursuant to my authority under section 25.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act), there are sufficient public policy considerations that justify the granting of permanent residence to foreign nationals who meet the eligibility criteria and conditions listed below.

Based on the public policy considerations, delegated officers may grant permanent residence to foreign nationals who meet the following conditions:
A) The foreign national:
[1] Is a pending refugee claimant or a failed refugee claimant, who made a refugee claim in Canada prior to March 13, 2020 and continued to reside in Canada when their application for permanent residence was made;

[5] Is not inadmissible other than for any of the following reasons: having failed to comply with conditions related to their temporary stay including having overstayed a visa, visitor record, work permit or student permit or having worked or studied without being authorized to do so under the Act (as long as it was solely as a result of losing their work authorization when a removal order against them became enforceable as specified under Condition A)2 described above); having entered Canada without the required visa or other document required under the Regulations; having entered Canada without a valid passport or travel document. However for the purpose of the granting of the permanent residence pursuant to this public policy, the foreign nationals and their family members are required by subparagraph 72(1)(e)(ii) of the Regulations to provide the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada any of the documents enumerated under subsection 50(1) of the Regulations. If the foreign national and their family members in Canada are unable to obtain any of the documents, enumerated under subsection 50(1) of the Regulations (e.g., valid passport or travel document), as required by subparagraph 72(1)(e)(ii) of the Regulations,an exemption from this requirement can be granted if these foreign nationals can provide any of the documents described in subsection 178(1) of the Regulations where such alternative document complies with the requirement of subsection 178(2) of the Regulations(specific wording of these provisions is provided in Annex B of this public policy).

[6] Is a pending refugee claimant or claimant who has received a final negative decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) and, if they have commenced an application for leave and judicial review of the negative IRB decision in Federal Court, or an appeal in relation to the underlying IRB decision at the Federal Court of Appeal, and who has complied with all other eligibility and admissibility conditions of this public policy, is required, in terms of the final condition of this public policy, to withdraw their refugee claim at the IRB or their appeal of the negative decision by the IRB at the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), Federal Court application or appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal of the underlying decision of the IRB, in order to be granted permanent residence through the public policy. Should the individual decide not to withdraw their refugee claim at the IRB, their appeal at the RAD, their application at the Federal Court or their appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal, those processes will continue to proceed but their application for permanent residence under this public policy will be refused.

What a huge bait-and-switch. While this program is sold as refugee claimants seeking protection, it’s open to people who came for a variety of reasons. In theory, you can come to Canada as a student or TFW, spend your time here, then turn around and claim asylum.

So, who’s eligible under this program for a pathway to permanent residence? Just from the information provided on this one page:

  • Pending refugee claimants
  • Failed refugee claimants
  • People who’ve exhausted all refugee pathways
  • People who’ve entered without a passport
  • People who’ve entered without an appropriate visa
  • People who’ve stayed after their visiting time had expired
  • People working without a visa
  • People working after a visa has expired
  • People studying without a visa
  • People studying after a visa has expired
  • Spouses/Common-law partners of the above
  • No mention of children, but probably

In short, pretty much anyone who is in Canada — illegally — would have some option to remain and get PR status if they were working (or provide evidence of working) in health care. Just apply for asylum.

Of course, this raises the interesting question of why health care facilities are hiring people who have no legal right to work or remain in the country anyway. It would be interesting to see what kind of proof of health care work is used in these cases.

5. People Entering Illegally Are Eligible

The Canadian Government doesn’t care about its people, and hence, has no real interest in enforcing existing border controls. Fake refugees from the U.S. are still allowed to enter, the S3CA, the Safe Third Country Agreement was struck down, and the concept of a safe country no longer exists.

To summarize, people can apply for asylum in Canada from anywhere, and it doesn’t matter if (or how many), intermediate countries they crossed through. Entering illegally from the U.S. is not important.

6. Family Members Are Eligible As Well

Conditions (eligibility requirements) applicable to Family Members
Family members of the principal applicant eligible for immigration to Canada under this public policy will be granted permanent residence, if they are also residing in Canada, are persons who meet the definition of a “family member” in subsection 1(3) of the Regulations as assessed by a delegated officer, and are not inadmissible on other grounds then those from which they are exempted via this public policy under condition 5 and if they are pending refugee claimants or claimants who have received a negative decision from the IRB, they meet condition 6 above.

It would be nice to see how many people (in total), this would cover, but that information doesn’t seem to be available.

7. Employers And Worker SIN Obligations

Ensure that any employees that have a SIN beginning with a “9” are authorized to work in Canada and that their immigration document has not expired.
-SINs beginning with a “9” are issued to temporary workers who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents. These SINs are valid only until the expiry date indicated on the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) document authorizing the person to work in Canada.
Employers must continue to see the employee’s existing immigration document authorizing them to work in Canada (e.g. work permit, study permit) and verify that the immigration document is not expired.

Employers are required not only to see that the prospective employee is legally allowed to work, but to follow up if not a Canadian or Permanent Resident. How exactly are these “refugee claimants” working in a legitimate field without this paperwork, which is obligated under the law?

If employers are willing to cover for this, would they also lie about the kind of work experience a person has been getting?

8. Open Borders For Agriculture Workers

While not directly related to the issue of PR for “refugees”, this is worth an honourable mention. At a time when we have record unemployment in Canada, one would think that a “hire Canadian” policy would be a good idea. Nope. Outsourcing of jobs continues on. Officially, the program is capped, but we’ll have to see if it’s enforced.

9. Theory: Making Amnesty More Tolerable

Just a theory, but perhaps this “health care” approach is about making a mass amnesty easier to pitch to the Canadian public. While being honest about it would cause all kinds of backlash, this can be promoted as an act of necessity.

Do we really need to be importing large numbers of healthcare workers, at a time when job cuts are going on in Canada? Does it really benefit the public to put Canadians at the back of the line? It might, if there was another agenda being pushed.

One has to wonder if these layoffs were done in order to create an artificial shortage, in order to justify this policy.