Border Security Archives - Page 8 of 11

April 9, 2020November 21, 2021

Have An Actual Entry/Exit Tracking System In Canada

(Global News tells “part” of the story on inadmissibles)

1. Previous Solutions Offered

A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.

2. Important Links

(A) “https://canucklaw.ca/students-and-temporary-workers-how-many-actually-stay/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/full-scale-of-inadmissibles-getting-residency-permits-what-global-news-leaves-out/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/statscan-research-fake-students-using-visas-to-immigrate/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-parliament-discusses-work-permits-that-are-issued-for-illegals/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/canada-pathway-to-permanent-residence-for-illegals-their-families/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/sanctuary-cities-an-end-run-around-having-borders/

(1) https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-to-begin-collecting-exit-passport-data-1.2947418
(2) http://archive.is/feDOA
(3) https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/btb-pdf/ebsiip-asfipi-eng.html
(4) http://archive.is/krWR3
(5) https://globalnews.ca/news/6040749/canada-border-services-agency-arrest-warrants-cancelled/
(6) http://archive.is/4jQA9
(7) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/notices/permanent-residence-construction-workers-gta.html
(8) http://archive.is/e6OYZ
(9) https://canadianlabour.ca/permanentresidence/
(10) http://archive.is/s3pq6
(11) https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2008/05/07/41000_illegal_immigrants_gone_missing.html
(12) http://archive.is/bayYs
(13) https://torontosun.com/2017/03/14/the-high-cost-of-illegal-migrants/wcm/a2cdce17-4808-48df-9569-1247cba8bcf0
(14) http://archive.is/Xk9l4

3. Context For This Article

For a nation to have meaningful borders, it must keep track of who is entering and exiting the country. It must do both, as merely recording the entrances is not enough.

Why is this? Because the nation will have no idea how many people actually remain in the country. A person entering on a tourist visa may leave Canada in a week, or may still be there a decade later.

Unfortunately for Canadians, all of the major parties at the Federal level (and many at the Provincial level) are not at all interested in providing meaningful border security to their people. It isn’t for a lack of knowledge of the subject, but instead it’s not on their agendas.

4. Trudeau: 4+ Years To Implement

In 2016, the Federal Government announced plans to start collecting exit information from people leaving the country. This really is common sense. While we (theoretically) know how many people, who, and when, are ENTERING Canada, until now they Government doesn’t track who is LEAVING. Perhaps we just take it on face that everyone leaves when they should.

And one of the major benefits stated is to help reduce immigration fraud. If a person is “counting time” towards living in Canada, but doesn’t actually live here, then the Immigration Ministry should know about it.

When this does get implemented, then a gaping hole in Canadian border security should be fixed, right? Maybe not.

Canada collects basic biographic information on travellers who enter and leave the country by land to ensure complete travel history information is available, thereby strengthening the management of our border.

Biographic entry information is routinely collected directly from all travellers entering Canada upon presentation to a CBSA officer at a port of entry as part of the primary inspection process. Canada also collects exit information in the land mode. Canada receives biographic entry information from the United States (U.S.) on all travellers who enter the U.S. through a land border crossing, thereby enabling the creation of a Canadian exit record.

Regulatory amendments for the air mode are expected to come into force in Summer 2020. Once fully implemented in the air mode, Canada will collect basic exit information directly from air carriers through passenger manifests. Exit information collected in the air mode will not be shared with the U.S.

The collection of exit information enhances the CBSA’s ability to manage border security by closing the loop on an individual’s travel history. This allows the CBSA to focus efforts and resources towards unknown or higher risk travellers.

This still isn’t fully implemented, and won’t be until at least 2020. That’s right, these changes were announced in 2016, and over three years later, are not fully implemented. Guess the potential fraud and security risks aren’t that great.

Right now, departures by air are not recorded by CBSA. Unless someone is travelling to the United States, (and even then not always) he/she is flying in a plane. Boating isn’t really a practical solution for international travel to and from Canada.

As for people wanted for criminal or other reasons, the CBSA (Canada Border Services Agency) has revealed that it deletes old arrest warrants.

Currently, there are more than 48,000 active arrest warrants in Canada for people wanted on immigration violations. According to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the “vast majority” of these cases involve people wanted for deportation.
But these figures may not tell the whole story.

Global News has learned the CBSA cancels arrest warrants for failed refugee claimants and other people wanted for removal who it cannot find, even in cases where it is not clear whether a person has left Canada.

What’s more, the CBSA does not track how many warrants it cancels in cases where a person’s whereabouts are unknown.
.
Because the CBSA only recently started tracking people when they exit the country by land — and still doesn’t track people who leave by air — there’s no way for the government or CBSA to say for sure how many people have overstayed their welcome.

Back in the early 2000s, when he worked at the agency that would later become the CBSA, Sundberg says he was assigned to a team in Lethbridge, Alta., tasked with “culling” old warrants for people facing deportation whose cases had been in the system for at least five years.

The protocol for cancelling a warrant, Sundberg said, involved calling known associates of the wanted person, doing internet searches and checking criminal and entry records in other countries to see if someone wanted for arrest had left Canada voluntarily.

The Canada Border Services Agency apparently cancels warrants for people wanted for immigration violations, if the warrants are old.

Moreover, there appears to be no tracking of how many warrants get cancelled either. Just a hunch, but it probably looks bad in the CBSA’s eyes if they have a lot of outstanding warrants. Makes them look slow and unproductive. Alternatively, this could be a deliberate attempt to make sure that people in the country illegally and/or committing other crimes won’t be deported.

5. Previous Efforts At Entry/Exit

Phase I Joint Canada-United States Report
.
Executive Summary
.
As part of the Beyond the Border Declaration and Action Plan agreed to by President Obama and Prime Minister Harper in 2011, the United States and Canada are developing a coordinated Entry/Exit Information System at their shared land border. The Entry/Exit Information System will facilitate exchanges of entry information such that an entry into one country is considered an exit from the other. This exchange will help better manage immigration program and border management practices, as it is important for Canada and the United States to determine when individuals both enter and depart our respective countries. For example, an Entry/Exit Information System will help determine whether third country nationals and permanent residents are complying with domestic immigration laws. This project can help move us closer to meeting this need through mutual collaboration and without expensive new infrastructure or unnecessary processing that would slow down trade and travel between the two countries.

The Entry/Exit Information System will be implemented in three phases. During the first phase, which began in September 2012 and concluded in January 2013, the countries exchanged biographic entry data only on third country nationals and permanent residents (but not U.S. or Canadian citizens) who crossed the common land border at four locations. This report covers the activities of Phase I.

In 2011, Canada and the U.S. reached an agreement to start an entry/exit system between the two countries. Not much progress has been made since.

6. Tourists Coming Into Canada Annually

TRV = Temporary Resident Visa
eTA = Electronic Travel Authorization

YEAR	TRV Issued	eTA Issued	Totals	Cumulative
2016	1,347,898	2,605,077	3,952,975	–
2017	1,617,222	4,109,918	5,570,197	–
2018	1,898,324	4,125,909	6,024,233	–

Certainly, the overwhelming majority of these people are simply tourists who will leave. However, without an exit tracking system, we don’t really know how many. That is just the official data for the last few years.

7. “Inadmissibles” Let Into Canada Anyway

(Source: 2019 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration)

Broadly speaking, there are two provisions within IRPA, the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act, that allow people who were previously deemed inadmissible to Canada to be given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. Here are the totals from the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. Note: the first one listed only started in 2010.

YEAR	TRP Issued
2010	17
2011	53
2012	53
2013	280
2014	385
2015	1,063
2016	596
2017	555
2018	669

From 2010 to 2018, a total of 3671 people who were otherwise inadmissible to Canada were allowed in anyway under Rule 25.2(1) of IRPA. This is the category that Global News previously reported on. As for the other one, under Rule 24(1) of IRPA, Global News leaves that out:

Year	Permits	Cumulative
2002	12,630	12,630
2003	12,069	24,699
2004	13,598	38,297
2005	13,970	52,267
2006	13,412	65,679
2007	13,244	78,923
2008	12,821	91,744
2009	15,640	107,384
2010	12,452	107,384
2011	11,526	118,910
2012	13,564	132,474
2013	13,115	145,589
2014	10,624	156,213
2015	10,333	166,546
2016	10,568	177,114
2017	9,221	186,335
2018	7,132	193,467

From 2002 to 2018 (inclusive), a total of 193,467 people previously deemed inadmissible to Canada were given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. This has almost certainly been going on for a lot longer, but is as far back as the reports go. Now let’s consider the reasons these people are initially refused entry.

SEC = Security (espionage, subversion, terrorism)
HRV = Human or International Rights Violations
CRIM = Criminal
S.CRIM = Serious Criminal
NC = Non Compliance
MR = Misrepresentation

YEAR	Total	SEC	HRV	Crim	S.Crim	NC	MR
2002	12,630	?	?	?	?	?	?
2003	12,069	17	25	5,530	869	4,855	39
2004	13,598	12	12	7,096	953	4,981	20
2005	13,970	27	15	7,917	981	4,635	21
2006	13,412	29	20	7,421	982	4,387	18
2007	13,244	25	8	7,539	977	4,109	14
2008	12,821	73	18	7,108	898	4,170	17
2009	15,640	32	23	6,619	880	7,512	10
2010	12,452	86	24	6,451	907	4,423	36
2011	11,526	37	14	6,227	899	3,932	11
2012	13,564	20	15	7,014	888	5,206	18
2013	13,115	17	10	6,816	843	5,135	8
2014	10,624	12	2	5,807	716	3,895	14
2015	10,333	3	3	5,305	578	4,315	28
2016	10,568	8	4	4,509	534	2,788	20
2017	9,221	10	5	5,035	591	3,412	121
2018	7,132	5	3	4,132	559	2,299	131

The original work for this section was done back in December 2019, but the findings as just as valid today.

8. Ghost Students Coming On Visas

(StatsCan research on students, including fake student visas)

(Large numbers of student visa holders are not enrolled)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Scale Of Students/Temp Workers

Year	Stu	TFWP	IMP	Total
2003	61,293	82,151	–	143,444
2004	56,536	90,668	–	147,204
2005	57,476	99,146	–	156,622
2006	61,703	112,658	–	174,361
2007	64,636	165,198	–	229,834
2008	79,509	192,519	–	272,028
2009	85,140	178,478	–	263,618
2010	96,157	182,276	–	278,433
2011	98,383	190,842	–	289,225
2012	104,810	213,573	–	318,383
2013	111,865	221,310	–	333,175
2014	127,698	95,086	197,924	420,078
2015	219,143	73,016	175,967	468,126
2016	265,111	78,402	207,829	551,342
2017	317,328	78,788	224,033	620,149
2018	356,876	84,229	255,034	696,139

Data compiled from the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. True, not everyone will stay illegally, or even stay at all. Still, with these numbers of people entering Canada, wouldn’t it be helpful to have some sort of exit tracking system to see who actually leaves?

Note: there is a small discrepancy between the 2018 and 2019 reports, as the temporary categories are adjusted slightly downwards. Now sure why, but could be a counting error.

10. Visa Overstayers In Canada

It’s a commonly repeated talking point that the overwhelming majority of people in Western nations (particularly Canada and the U.S.) are people who have entered on some sort of visa and overstayed. This means they come legally, and didn’t honour their promise to leave afterwards.

While this claim may be true, it points to an even stronger argument in favour of having a full entry/exit tracking system. Citizens need to know that people who enter (under whatever program) are in fact leaving afterwards.

11. Work Permits For Illegals

Yes, that has seriously discussed in the Federal Parliament: giving people entering the country illegally temporary work permits. The stated rational is that it would help cover the costs. Sure, not letting them into the country in the first place would lower costs, but that’s racist to point out.

(Sept 28, 2017 “Evidence”)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The abovhttps://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CIMM/meeting-71/evidencee is quotes from just one meeting held by the committee. Below are links for the others. Also, read the previous article done on the topic.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/CIMM/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=9661587
(2) http://archive.is/elDlW
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CIMM/meeting-71/evidence
(4) http://archive.is/uxtIR
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CIMM/meeting-72/evidence
(6) http://archive.is/cAsj9
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CIMM/meeting-73/evidence
(8) http://archive.is/H7uM7
(9) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CIMM/meeting-108/evidence
(10) http://archive.is/GBRrl
(11) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CIMM/meeting-112/evidence
(12) http://archive.is/zIFLn
(13) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-611-x/89-611-x2003001-eng.pdf

12. Amnesty For Illegals Started Up

(Program launched in July:, 2019 PR-Path for illegals)

(Canadian Labour Congress)

See this previous piece, for more context on the situation. This is a start up amnesty program for illegals in Canada. It could lead to them (and family members) becoming permanent residents.

Ottawa, July 5, 2019 – Canada has launched a new temporary initiative to create a pathway to permanent residency for up to 500 out-of-status workers in the construction industry in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). These construction workers have come to Canada and made contributions to its economy and currently have limited means to regularize their status.

And if this “temporary” initiative is deemed to be successful, then how much will it be extended by? Guaranteed it is not 500 people.

Over many years, even decades, some workers who have come to Canada with valid temporary resident status, and who have filled labour shortages in the construction industry, have fallen out of status. Previous changes, such as “four in, four out”, have resulted in some workers losing their status. These workers have continued to address significant labour shortages in the construction industry, while also contributing to the economy and their communities. Without valid immigration status, these workers and their families have lived in fear and been left feeling very vulnerable. The presence of out-of-status workers in a significant industry leads to depressed wages for Canadians and makes workers vulnerable to employer exploitation and abuse.

Over many years and decades? So the government admits that people have been overstaying visas or work permits for decades. Why hasn’t this been addressed long ago.

Illegals living in Canada leads to depressed wages? I would actually agree, but up to a point. Yes, the extra labour available does drive down wages. However, that would still be the case even if they were “legalized”. It would still be an abundance of cheap labour.

So how many illegals are there, particularly in major cities? Who knows, it’s not like we actually track who is leaving Canada.

13. Sanctuary Cities/Provinces

(Andrea Horwath ran to be Ontario Premier in June 2018. She offered the entire Province of Ontario to become a “sanctuary” Province)

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath dodged questions Tuesday about how much her campaign promise to declare Ontario a “sanctuary province” for illegal migrants and refugee claimants will cost taxpayers.

Instead, she said providing public services without asking questions about anyone’s legal status in Ontario, or co-operating with federal authorities to determine it, is the humane thing to do.

During the 2018 Provincial election campaign in Ontario, NDP Leader Andrea Horwath campaigned on (among other things), turning Ontario into a sanctuary province. She claimed providing social services to people with no legal right to be in the country was “humane”. Unsurprisingly, she refused to tell the public how much it would cost, fearing a backlash.

To be fair however, Conservative leader Doug Ford supported Toronto becoming a sanctuary city. So did his brother, Rob Ford. Both men claimed to be “populists” yet supported giving illegal aliens (with no right to be in the country), the right to remain in Toronto and receive taxpayer funded services. It also needs to be said that John Tory, the current mayor of Toronto, supports sanctuary cities as well. He used to be the leader of the Conservative Party of Ontario.

Not tracking the names and numbers of people leaving the country is bad enough. When corrupt politicians enact policies such as sanctuary cities/provinces it makes it a whole lot worse, as government officials are aiding and abetting in circumventing good policies.

While “Sanctuary Ontario” is not yet a reality, several sanctuary cities are, such as Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton and Edmonton. Also noteworthy is that “conservative” Ontario Premier Doug Ford supported Sanctuary Toronto when he was on the city council. Current Toronto Mayor John Tory (formerly the Ontario Conservative Leader) also supports sanctuary status for his city.

14. Impact Of Not Tracking Exits

These are some of the things that Canadians need to think about with regards to their borders. This list is not exhaustive.

Temporary resident visas
Electronic travel authorizations
Inadmissibles let in under 24(1) of IRPA
Inadmissibles let in under 25.2(1) of IRPA
Hordes of student and temporary work visas
Visa overstayers
Work permits for illegals
Amnesty for illegals
Sanctuary cities/provinces

With all of these issues to consider, why would any sane government not want to have a strong and accurate entry/exit system at the borders? The only reason I can think of is that it is intentionally designed to fail.

Any serious leader would have crafted new rules right away, and used their executive power immediately to at least stop the bleeding. But much like Donald Trump and his “wall” Canadian Federal politicians are not serious about border security.

March 20, 2020April 12, 2022

TSCE #8(F): Bit Of History, NGOs Trying To Open Canada’s Borders For Decades

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. Why Canadians Should Care

It should worry Canadians greatly when there is a sustained effort to undermine and erode our borders. The overwhelming majority of people don’t know how far back this goes. Although efforts predate these cases, this is where we will start.

On the first attempt, the Canadian Council of Churches went to court to try to get certain new legislation thrown out. This legislation would have made it harder for people to enter Canada from the U.S. and claim asylum. It went to the Supreme Court, but ultimately, it was ruled the group did not have public interest standing.

3. Court History Over The Years

Again, many more attempts have been made in recent decades to erase borders, but this article will only focus on a few of them.

FIRST ATTEMPT: KILL “SAFE COUNTRY” DESIGNATION
(a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3

(b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534

(c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236
1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing

SECOND ATTEMPT: KILL CANADA/US S3CA
(a) 2008 ruling S3CA has no effect
Docket: IMM-7818-05
S3CA Provisions Struck Down

(b) The 2008 ruling is overturned on appeal
Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229
Appeal granted, S3CA restored

THIRD ATTEMPT: TORONTO CASES TO STRIKE S3CA
(a) 2017, Prothonotary Milczynski considers consolidation
IMM-2229-17, IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17
Milczynski Considers Consolidation

(b) 2017, CJ Crampton transfers cases to J. Diner
Crampton Transfers Consolidated Cases

(c) 2017, Justice Diner grants public interest standing
Citation: 2017 FC 1131
Amnesty Int’l, CDN Councils of Churches, Refugees

(d) 2018, Justice Diner grants consolidation of 3 cases
Citation: 2018 FC 396
Cases to be consolidated

(e) 2018, Justice Diner allows more witnesses
Citation: 2018 FC 829
2018.Diner.Calling.More.Witnesses

(f) 2019, Justice McDonald says no more witnesses
Citation: 2019 FC 418
2019.McDonald.No.More.Intervenors

4. 1992: SCC Rules No Standing

1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing
The CanLII link is here.

Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3
.
Rouleau J. dismissed the application. His judgment reflects his concern that there might be no other reasonable, effective or practical manner to bring the constitutional question before the Court. He was particularly disturbed that refugee claimants might be faced with a 72-hour removal order. In his view, such an order would not leave sufficient time for an applicant to attempt either to stay the proceedings or to obtain an injunction restraining the implementation removal order.
.
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534
.
MacGuigan J.A. speaking for a unanimous Court allowed the appeal and set aside all but four aspects of the statement of claim.
.
In his view the real issue was whether or not there was another reasonably effective or practical manner in which the issue could be brought before the Court. He thought there was. He observed that the statute was regulatory in nature and individuals subject to its scheme had, by means of judicial review, already challenged the same provisions impugned by the Council. Thus there was a reasonable and effective alternative manner in which the issue could properly be brought before the Court.
.
He went on to consider in detail the allegations contained in the statement of the claim. He concluded that some were purely hypothetical, had no merit and failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action. He rejected other claims on the grounds that they did not raise a constitutional challenge and others on the basis that they raised issues that had already been resolved by recent decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal.
.
He granted the Council standing on the following matters raised on the statement of claim

Without getting too much into the technical details, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the Canadian Council of Churches, an organization, should be granted public interest standing to strike down all or part of the immigration laws. Ultimately, the ruling was no.

Disposition of the Result
.
In the result I would dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal on the basis that the plaintiff does not satisfy the test for public interest standing. Both the dismissal of the appeal and the allowance of the cross-appeal are to be without costs.
Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed.
.
Solicitors for the appellant: Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto.
.
Solicitor for the respondents: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
.
Solicitors for the interveners The Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped and The Quebec Multi Ethnic Association for the Integration of Handicapped People: Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto.
.
Solicitors for the intervener League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada: David Matas, Winnipeg, and Dale Streiman and Kurz, Brampton.
.
Solicitors for the interveners Women’s Legal Education and Action (LEAF) and Canadian Disability Rights Council (CDRC): Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto and Dulcie McCallum, Victoria.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court thought that a refugee, someone with actual standing (or something at stake) should be the one making the case.

Also worth noting, consider who some of the intervenors are in this case. A lot of people who want to make it easier to get into Canada.

5. 2008: S3CA, Parts Of IRPA Struck Out

S3CA, Parts of IRPA Struck

IT IS ORDERED THAT this application for judicial review is granted and the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” is quashed.

Yes, the Canada/U.S Safe Third Country Agreement was actually declared to have no legal effect. However, this is not the end of it, as we will soon see.

IT IS DECLARED THAT:
.
1. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United
States of America are ultra vires and of no legal force and effect.
2. The Governor-in-Council acted unreasonably in concluding that the United States of
America complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the
Convention Against Torture.
3. The Governor-in-Council failed to ensure the continuing review of the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” as required by
paragraph 102(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
4. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the operation of the Safe Third Country Agreement between
Canada and the United States of America violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are not justified under section 1 thereof.

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS are certified as serious questions of general
importance:
.
1. Are paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and
the United States of America ultra vires and of no legal force and effect?
2. What is the appropriate standard of review in respect of the Governor-in-Council’s
decision to designate the United States of America as a “safe third country” pursuant
to s. 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
3. Does the designation of the United States of America as a “safe third country” alone
or in combination with the ineligibility provision of clause 101(1)(e) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is such violation justified under section 1?

If the United States is not a safe country, then why do tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people try to apply for asylum there every year?

The Safe Third Country Agreement was meant to prevent “asylum shopping” from taking place, but that is exactly what this ruling would have allowed.

6. 2009: Previous Ruling Overturned

The impugned Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement are not ultra vires the IRPA. Subsection 102(1) of the IRPA gives the GIC the power to promulgate regulations governing the treatment of refugee claims which may include provisions designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. This is a broad grant of authority intended to give effect to Parliament’s expressed intent that responsibility for the consideration of refugee claims be shared with countries that are respectful of their Convention obligations and human rights. The factors to be considered before designating a country are expressly set out in subsection 102(2) of the IRPA. The applications Judge’s misapprehended concern that the GIC would have the discretion to designate a country that does not comply with the Conventions led him to transform the statutory objective of designating countries “that comply” into a condition precedent.

The applications Judge adopted a hypothetical approach to the respondent organizations’ Charter challenge, i.e. that a class of refugees would be treated a certain way if they were to present themselves at a Canadian land border port of entry. This approach went against the well-established principle that a Charter challenge cannot be mounted in the abstract. There was no evidence that a refugee would have to bring a challenge from outside Canada. The respondent organizations’ ability to bring the Charter challenge depended on John Doe. As the latter never presented himself at the border and therefore never requested a determination regarding his eligibility, there was no factual basis upon which to assess the alleged Charter breaches. The applications Judge thus erred in entertaining the Charter challenge.

[14] On December 29, 2005, the respondents launched an application for leave and judicial review seeking a declaration that the designation of the U.S. under section 102 of the IRPA was ultra vires, that the GIC erred in concluding that the U.S. complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and further, that the designation breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. For purposes of clarity, it is useful to set out in full the issues set out in the judicial review application filed before the Court:

[130] In short, a declaration of invalidity of the STCA Regulations is not required in order to ensure that they are not applied to claimants for protection at the land border in breach of either Canada’s international obligations not to refoule, or the Charter.
.
D. CONCLUSIONS
.
[131] For these reasons I would allow the appeal

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Lower Court considered a hypothetical scenario, and wrongly applied it to a Charter challenge. Put simply, Charter challenges are supposed to be ground in fact, and not “what if” situations. The ruling was overturned, and the Safe Third Country Agreement was restored.

7. 2017-Present: Toronto Challenge

Chief Justice Paul Crampton transferred 3 related cases to Justice Diner for case management. This is the same CJ Crampton who ruled that private citizens wishing to oppose the destruction of the S3CA don’t have standing.

Justice Diner granted public interest standing to 3 NGOs: Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches.

Justice Diner order the 3 cases to be consolidated and tried together because of the overlapping issues.

Note: also see here, for decisions from the Federal Court in the matter above.

The case is still pending.

8. So Who Are These NGOs?

Amnesty International
ai.01.certificate.of.continuance
ai.02.bylaws
ai.03.changes.in.directors
ai.04.notice.of.financials

B’nai Brith League For Human Rights
bblhr.01.bylaws
bblhr.02.change.registered.office
bblhr.03.amendments
bblhr.04.certificate.of.incorporation
bblhr.05.director.changes

B’nai Brith National Organization
bbno.01.director.changes
bbno.02.certificate.of.incorporation
bbno.03.change.registered.office
bbno.04.notice.of.financials

Bridges, Not Borders
Bridges Not Borders, Mainpage
Bridges Not Borders, About
Bridges Not Borders, Why They Cross
Bridges Not Borders, Media Page
Bridges Not Borders, Pro Asylum Shopping

Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers
carl.01.directors
carl.02.change.of.office
carl.03.bylaws.2015
carl.04.notice.of.return
carl.05.certificate.of.continuance

Canadian Council For Refugees
ccr.01.2019.director.changes
ccr.02.bylaws
ccr.03.bylaws.from.2014
ccr.04.certificate.of.continuance
ccr.05.annual.return

Plattsburgh Cares
Plattsburgh Cares Main Page
Plattsburgh Cares, Humanitarian Support

Solidarity Across Borders
Solidarity Across Borders’ Homepage
SAB Supports Illegal Migrant Caravans
SAB Supports Sanctuary Cities For Illegals
SAB Calls To Open Up The Borders

These are of course not the only NGOs working to open up our borders (and other nations’ borders as well), but it does at least provide some insight.

Also, see the above links in Section #1 for other articles published on these NGOs.

9. Look At The Bigger Picture

Last fall, the story made the news that a challenge would be coming to Toronto to the Safe Third Country Agreement.

However, the Canadian media left out important information. Shocking.

First, it didn’t go into any detail on the groups lobbying for this. It wasn’t just some helpless “asylum claimants”, but an organized effort to help erase Canada’s border with the U.S.

Second, the full extent of the NGO meddling is not mentioned. True, some media DO reference the 2007 case, but not further. It doesn’t provide a complete picture of what is going on. Nor does it mention how these groups are pushing similar initiatives elsewhere. Amnesty International, for example, claims to have 7 million members pushing to bring more migrants (primarily) to the West. The Canadian Council for Refugees, as another example, spends considerable time and effort lobbying our Parliament for more refugee friendly laws.

Third, there seems little concern for the Canadian who would have their safety and sovereignty eroded should this pass. Instead, the focus is always on people coming to Canada and what their needs are.

This is lawfare: using our courts and legal system to open our borders.

March 17, 2020November 30, 2021

TSCE #8(D): Bridges Not Borders, Plattsburgh Cares & Solidarity Across Borders Coordinates Illegal Crossings At Roxham Rd

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. BnB Doesn’t Believe In Borders

Also, the original links for the YouTube videos above are here and here

Earlier in 2017 President Trump signed executive orders that suspended the refugee admission program and allowed for widespread arrest and deportation of undocumented people in the USA. This means that people needing protection can be sent back to their countries of origin where they may face torture, persecution or even loss of life. Yet, this is prohibited under international law.

Trump has also withdrawn Temporary Protected Status from citizens of Haiti, El Salvador and Honduras. This will come into effect in late 2019. The Haitians had fled to the USA following the disastrous earthquake in 2010. Haiti was hit hard again by Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and is still in a very bad state, facing huge problems of homelessness, poverty, illiteracy, violence against women and indentured child labour (see PDF Guardian article below).

For all the above reasons many people no longer feel safe in the USA and want to seek asylum and safety in Canada. But they face a hurdle in the 2002 Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between Canada and the USA which came into effect in 2004.

The STCA means that, if someone crosses into Canada from the USA at an official border crossing and asks for asylum, they will be sent back to the USA, unless they fall under one of four exceptions to the Agreement. However if they cross the border at an irregular crossing such as Roxham Road, the Agreement does not apply. They can then make a claim for refugee status. That is why many people are choosing that route, so as to not risk being sent back to the USA and being unable to make a refugee claim in Canada in the future.

There are two issues here. The first one is: can the USA really be considered to be a safe country for refugees? The Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Council of Churches and Amnesty International don’t think so and have launched a legal challenge to the STCA (see PDF files below including our Briefing document). The second issue is that of irregular crossings. Given the STCA, most asylum seekers are in a ‘catch 22’ situation: it’s not safe for them to stay in the USA and it’s not safe for them to enter officially. The 1951 Refugee Convention, ratified by Canada, says that states shall not penalize asylum seekers if they enter a country irregularly, providing they present themselves without delay to the authorities. Section 133 of the (Canadian) Immigration and Refugee Protection Act also states that people seeking asylum will not be prosecuted for irregular entry into Canada.

People crossing irregularly are not ‘illegal immigrants’ as has been wrongly asserted. Nor are they ‘queue jumpers’, as refugee claims are treated as received. We believe the STCA should be revoked, so that everyone seeking asylum could enter Canada safely and with dignity at an official border crossing. This is especially important during the winter or any period of extreme weather. During the winters of 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, many people suffered hypothermia and frostbite during irregular crossings into Canada and have lost fingers and toes. Tragically, in spring 2017, a woman from Ghana, Mavis Otuteye, died while trying to cross from Minnesota into Manitoba.

Straight from the horse’s mouth. This group believes that everyone should be allowed to enter Canada, and this includes from the United States. The fact that the U.S. gives asylum to tens of thousands of people each year seems to not matter.

4. BnB Encourages Asylum Shopping

URGENT MESSAGE FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS: If you have applied for asylum in the USA (or in the United Kingdom, New Zealand or Australia) you are no longer entitled to the full independent refugee determination process in Canada. Instead you only have access to a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) hearing conducted by a government official. You will be able to have a lawyer or immigration consultant present with you. You need to be aware that the PRRA is a much less thorough process and has a low success rate. However, if you are successful you will be recognized as either a refugee or a protected person in Canada. Please consider this carefully before deciding to enter Canada either via Roxham Road or at an official Port of Entry.

Why would you publish this information, unless it was to help advise so-called “refugees” to circumvent the process by entering the U.S. under false pretenses, and then come illegally to Canada?

5. BnB Coordinates With “Plattsburgh Cares”

We have close connections with members of Plattsburgh Cares, a group that supports refugees who want to cross into Canada. We’re also in contact with Solidarity Across Borders (Montreal), as well as with various groups, committees, and institutions that support refugees locally and in Montreal (including UNHCR).

That admission came from the about page. As for what Plattsburgh Cares claims to provide:

Let us know what support you can offer. Here’s a partial list of what we need:
-Translation. The refugees who come through the area speak a variety of languages. If you are proficient in any second language and would like to help, let us know.
-Transportation. Individuals may need help getting to the grocery store, doctor’s appointments and so forth.
-Legal advice. The refugees need access to qualified individuals with knowledge of immigration law.
-Short-term temporary housing. Some may need access to safe housing for a night or a week or two.
-Long-term temporary housing. Others may need a place for a longer period.
-Clothing. Some may need clothes, especially during the winter months.
-Educational outreach. We will need help getting educational materials into the hands of refugees coming into our region.

None of these items are bad per se. The problem is that this NGO, like many others, has no concern for whether people are in the country illegally. Moreover, they help facilitate illegal border crossings.

6. BnB Worked With Solidarity Across Borders

Our first group activity in September 2017 was a table at the Roxham Road Woolgathering, for which we had made buttons with the theme ‘Refugees Welcome’. We also provided information explaining how the ‘Safe Third Country Agreement’ between Canada and the USA forces refugees to cross irregularly to prevent being sent back to the USA (see the pages WHY and WHO for this info).

Our second activity was to participate in a demonstration at the border crossing at Lacolle which was organized by the Montreal-based group Solidarity Across Borders. This was a response to the presence at the Lacolle border of far right groups opposed to the irregular crossings of asylum seekers. A local artist created the beautiful ‘Bridges not Borders’ wood cut after which we named our group.

This came from the ABOUT section of Bridges Not Borders. Apparently wanting borders makes you a member of the far right. Now, who is “Solidarity Across Borders”?

Let’s just look at one of the demands of Solidarity Across Borders: free services for all illegals. Not joking. Here is the actual text.

We demand that:
.
everyone living here should have access to free health care in clinics, CLSCs and hospitals. Medical facilities should never ask for information on immigration status. Instead, they should work to provide appropriate and respectful care to all users. We want health care to be accessible to all and support efforts to defend the public health care system.
.
everyone living here should be able to attend school free of charge, regardless of their – or their parents – immigration status. We are in favor of universal education for all, from kindergarten to university, and defend accessible education at all levels and for all people.
.
the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) should not have any right to enter and arrest migrants in hospitals, clinics, shelters, schools, or any space providing essential services; ultimately, the CBSA should not be welcome anywhere in our communities.
.
any person living here should have access to social housing, food banks, unemployment benefits and any other social welfare regardless of immigration status.

This is one of the groups that Bridges Not Borders sees no problem in partnering with. Free services and effective amnesty for all illegals. What could possibly go wrong?

7. UNHCR Admits These Claims Are Bogus

CLICK HERE, for UNHCR 2019 data on illegals.
irregular-arrivals-at-the-border-background-information-janjul2019-en

The majority of asylum seekers had valid status in the U.S. at the time of crossing (often a visitor visa) and only transited in the U.S. for a short period with the intention of claiming asylum in Canada, the American visa being reportedly easier to obtain that the Canadian one.

Others had stayed in the U.S. for a number of years, including persons with pending/denied asylum claims and to a lesser extent, persons whose status in the U.S. had expired.

Under the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), individuals in the U.S. cannot make a claim at the Canadian official border post unless they qualify for an exception to the agreement, such as having a close family member in Canada.
.
The STCA does not apply to those who cross the border in-between official border posts, as at the time they claim asylum, there are already in Canada.

8. Completely Undermining Border Security

This is (partly) why borders are so damn hard to enforce. It’s because organizations like: (a) Bridges Not Borders; (b) Plattsburg Cares; and (c) Solidarity Across Borders are doing what they can do undermine it.

Further, efforts are crippled by the UNCHR, who make it clear that they see nothing wrong with illegal crossings, and hamstring local efforts to stop it. Efforts in court are at best mixed, since the “rights” of illegals must be balanced against those of society’s.

Finally, corrupt politicians (both government and controlled opposition), do little to nothing to stop this problem. In short, border security COULD be a very straightforward issue, if the system weren’t rigged to prevent that.

This is disheartening, to say the least.

March 11, 2020October 28, 2022

TSCE #8(C): Canadian Council For Refugees, Lobbying To Open Our Borders

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for CCR lobbying efforts since 1997.
http://archive.is/pHoQN
CLICK HERE, for CCR Communications Reports filed.
http://archive.is/xSrFC

CLICK HERE, for 2018/2019 tax information.
http://archive.is/FanEL

CLICK HERE, for CNN on DNA testing at US/Mex border.
http://archive.is/Ob6BT

CLICK HERE, for CCR supports Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists.
http://archive.is/q1Kih

3. Context For This Article

Canadians should have control over their own laws. They should be drafted by and for Canadians. This should not be a difficult or controversial topic.

However, one organization, the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), is attempting to lobby Canada’s politicians to create more “refugee” friendly laws. This has been going on for over a decade, and seems to have been a long term effort.

Yes, the CCR is one of the groups trying to strike down the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement in the Toronto Federal Court. However, this article will focus more on the political efforts that CCR has undertaken. Indeed, CCR has been busy trying change our laws.

4. CCR Lobbying The Federal Government

Here is an alphabetical list of those who have been lobbied by the Canadian Council for Refugees since 2008.

Gary Anandasangaree, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Sacha Atherly, Policy Advisor | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Matthieu Bélanger, Chief of Staff | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Bill Blair, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Jacques Cloutier, Vice-President | Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)
Claudette Deschênes, Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Dawn Edlund, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Steve Foster, Senior Policy Advisor (specializing in social justice issues) | House of Commons
Ralph Goodale, Minister | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Sadia Groguhé, MP, Deputy Critic Immigration, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism | House of Commons
Alyx Holland, Office of the Minister of Public Safety Canada | Public Safety Canada (PS)
David Hurl, Director of Policy and Parliamentary Affairs | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Ahmed Hussen, Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Jenny Kwan, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Les Linklater, Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
David Manicom, Assistant Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
John McCallum, Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Marta Morgan, Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Kyle Nicholson, Director of Policy | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Kim Pate, Senator | Senate of Canada
Olga Radchenko, Director of Parliamentary Affairs | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Murray Rankin, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Ali Salam, Chief of Staff | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Oline Twiss, Policy and Stakeholders Relations Officer | House of Commons
Richard Wex, Associate Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)

Now, let’s take a look at some specific proposals that CCR is advocating for. Sections 4-10 cover the most important ones. But those are by no means all of them.

5. CCR Challenges Canada/US S3CA

US-Canada safe third country agreement – oppose denial of access to refugee determination in Canada on the basis of the Safe Third Country Agreement

The Canadian Council for Refugees is one of the groups aiding a challenge in Toronto to strike down the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement. If this were to be successful, it would mean that (even at official border ports), so called “refugees” from the US could simply stroll in and be legally entitled to a hearing.

6. CCR Opposes DNA Testing

Interestingly, they also oppose DNA testing. (see the last section for the screenshot). Now why would any responsible organization be doing this? Wouldn’t they want to ensure that children are being reunited with their true, biological relatives?

Washington (CNN)The Department of Homeland Security will start a DNA testing pilot program next week to help identify and prosecute individuals posing as families in an effort to target human smuggling, two department officials confirmed to CNN.

The Rapid DNA testing, as it’s known, involves a cheek swab and can, on average, provide results in about 90 minutes, a senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement official said.

The pilot program will run for two to three days in two border locations.

It’s the latest move by the Trump administration to address the swell of migrants, predominantly families and children from Central American countries, at the border using a wide variety of technology and increased resources to fight illegal immigration.

That was an American article, but it also raises an interesting question here. If there is a risk of child smuggling or child trafficking, why WOULDN’T the Canadian Council for Refugees want to ensure that true families are being reunited? Do they want to aid and abet smuggling and trafficking?

7. CCR Against Custody Req’t For Illegals

Immigration detention policies – advocating for the end to the immigration detention of children and families and for reduction in immigration detention, including through the introduction of fair and effective alternatives to detention.

Why should people in the country illegally, or accused of other crimes while not a citizen be locked up for any reason? Perhaps self deportation would be in everyone’s best interests….

8. CCR Challenges Removing Criminally Inadmissible PR

Removals of permanent residents on the basis of criminal inadmissibility, particularly in the wake of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act made in 2013. CCR’s concern relates to lack of due consideration of humanitarian and compassionate factors in making removals, particularly of long-term residents.

9. CCR Challenges Deportations To Certain Countries

Removals to situations of risk – calling for suspension of removals to countries of generalized risk and policies ensuring individuals at risk have removal deferred.

10. CCR Promotes Amnesty For Illegals

Regularization of persons without status – promoting measures to allow persons in Canada without status to obtain permanent residence, including advocating for regularization of “legacy” claimants, ie. those who made a refugee claim before 15 December 2012.

This is exactly what it sounds like. The Canadian Council for Refugees is lobbying for amnesty-for-illegals, which will create a path to permanent residence, and presumably citizenship at some point.

11. CCR Wants Canadians To Foot The Bill

Availability of legal aid to refugee claimants and other vulnerable migrants, including the role of the federal government in providing adequate funding to provinces to cover the costs of legal aid.

It wouldn’t really be complete without ensuring that Canadians were on the hook paying for these people’s legal costs, now would it?

12. Some Government Funding CCR Gets

City of Montreal
Canadian Heritage
City of Victoria
Government of Quebec
Federal Government (IRCC)

While CCR undoubtedly has some private donors, it is a recipient of Government aid. Or to be more precise, it receives taxpayer aid.

13. Info From Canada Revenue Tax Filings

Receipted donations $94,255.00 (22.94%)
Non-receipted donations $17,110.00 (4.16%)
Gifts from other registered charities $117,291.00 (28.55%)
Government funding $5,000.00 (1.22%)
All other revenue $177,168.00 (43.13%)
Total revenue: $410,824.00

Receipted donations $80,885.00 (9.85%)
Non-receipted donations $221,686.00 (27.01%)
Gifts from other registered charities $208,696.00 (25.42%)
Government funding $38,086.00 (4.64%)
All other revenue $271,506.00 (33.08%)
Total revenue: $820,859.00

Receipted donations $85,242.00 (12.44%)
Non-receipted donations $47,860.00 (6.99%)
Gifts from other registered charities $103,198.00 (15.06%)
Government funding $142,513.00 (20.80%)
All other revenue $306,250.00 (44.70%)
Total revenue: $685,063.00

Receipted donations $93,961.00 (12.99%)
Non-receipted donations $49,488.00 (6.84%)
Gifts from other registered charities $119,054.00 (16.45%)
Government funding $109,905.00 (15.19%)
All other revenue $351,132.00 (48.53%)
Total revenue: $723,540.00

More detailed information

14. Corporate Documents

ccr.01.2019.director.changes
ccr.02.bylaws
ccr.03.bylaws.from.2014
ccr.04.certificate.of.continuance
ccr.05.annual.return

15. CCR’s Previous Attempt On S3CA

In 2007, the CCR (along with Amnesty International, and the Canadian Council of Churches) were successful in getting the Safe 3rd Country Agreement struck down.
2007.safe.3rd.country.struck.down

However, in 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned that ruling, stating that these groups didn’t have standing to bring it themselves.
2009.fca.appeal.overturns.ruling

Now, the trio (Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches) are at it again. They’ve taken up the cases of “refugees” from the US who want this law struck down.

16. CCR Supported Bill C-6 (Citizenship for Terrorists)

CCR calls for further amendments to Citizenship Act to reduce barriers and make all citizens equal
The Canadian Council for Refugees published today its submission on Bill C-6, welcoming the introduction of amendments to the Citizenship Act and calling for further changes to provide equal access to citizenship and fair process.
.
“We need to bring down barriers to citizenship, especially for already disadvantaged groups such as refugees, the elderly, and women,” said Loly Rico, CCR President. “In line with Canada’s international obligations, we encourage the government to craft a new citizenship regime to which all applicants will have equal access without discrimination.”
.
Bill C-6 mostly reverses changes made under the previous Bill C-24, which took effect in 2015. The CCR welcomes the changes that will give refugees and other newcomers earlier access to citizenship, which will lead to better integration.
.
Bill C-6 also rightly re-affirms the equality of all citizens by eliminating provisions allowing for dual citizens to lose their citizenship in cases of “treason” or “terrorism” and requiring applicants for citizen to have an “intent to reside in Canada”.
.
While Bill C-6 contains many good measures to strengthen citizenship, other changes are also needed to remove barriers and end second class citizenship. The CCR is calling on Parliament to amend the bill to:
Create a right to apply for citizenship for youth under 18 who do not have a parent or legal guardian in Canada.
Create a system to exempt people from citizenship fees if they can’t afford them.
Provide better accommodation for applicants with disabilities.
Prevent long wait times by requiring the government to process applications within a reasonable time.
Stop the use of citizenship applications to launch a process to strip status from former refugees (through cessation).
Provide better procedural rights for loss of citizenship based on fraud or misrepresentation.
Restore Canadian citizenship to second generation born abroad to Canadian citizens. In the alternative, at least give citizenship for those who would be otherwise be stateless.

Yes, the CCR supported Trudeau’s Bill C-6, which would have stripped Canadian citizenship away from dual citizens convicted of terrorism or treason. Way tp pick a winning issue.

17. CCR Is A Political Organization

Despite the presumption that charities or NGOs simply act for a god cause that they represent, this is not really the case here. The Canadian Council for Refugees has a political branch to it, which is trying to change Canadian laws. Let’s summarize a few:

Trying to strike down Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
Opposing DNA testing for refugees
Removing immigration detention
Permanent residence for criminal inadmissibles
No deportation to various countries
Amnesty/PR for illegals
Taxpayer funded court services
Citizenship for terrorists

Those are just a few of the things that CCR lobbies for. It is a political organization deliberately lobbying to weaken our borders even more. It’s time to call a spade a spade.

January 24, 2020February 7, 2022

Post Media Controls MSM, Conservative & Alternative Media

(Post Media, which owns most “conservative” media outlets in Canada)

(Atlas Network, which funds 12 (was 13) groups in Canada, 140 in U.S.)

1. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/unifor-denies-crawling-into-bed-with-government
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/full-scale-of-inadmissibles-getting-residency-permits-what-global-news-leaves-out/

2. Important Links

(31) https://www.atlasnetwork.org/assets/uploads/misc/LFFD14_Social_Media_One-Pager.pdf
(32) http://archive.is/C0Yjx/image

(33) https://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/2012/04/28/us-republican-koch-oil-billionaires-help-fund-fraser-institute-why-fraser
(34) http://archive.is/ewj9H
(35) https://www.fraserinstitute.org/profile/tom-flanagan
(36) http://archive.is/pfjM8
(37) https://daniellesmith.ca/bio/
(38) http://archive.is/MBEY8
(39) https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/CanadianStudentReview_Spring2005.pdf
(40) http://archive.is/y1im1
(41) Canadian Student Review Spring 2005
(42) https://www.taxpayer.com/blog/tax-talk–45–alison-redford-s-legacy-w–derek-fildebrandt
(43) http://archive.is/HtiM6
(44) http://www.nationalcitizens.ca/spencer_fernando_joins_ncc_election_2019
(45) http://archive.is/4n5zg

3. Context For This Piece

It doesn’t really need much of an explanation. People should know who is really behind their media and how independent these organizations really are. Yes, it’s a bit hypocritical to run this site anonymously.

Taking Canada as an example: a lot of the “conservative” or right-leaning outfits are owned and controlled by Post Media. Yes, it is a virtual monopoly.

Also worth noting: many of the “right-leaning” think tanks are controlled by one organization, Atlas Network. The same people just resurface under different names. These groups help influence globalist policies such as mass migration and globalized trade.

And in going through the names, one ethnic group seemed to appear an awful lot, much more than its percentage of the population would suggest.

4. Post Media Owns A Lot

Here’s a quick rundown of some of the more mainstream media outlets in Canada. Most of these names should be familiar to people.

Calgary Herald
Calgary Sun
Canada.com
Canoe.com
Celebrating.com
Driving
Edmonton Journal
Growth Op
Healthing.ca
London Free Press
Montreal Gazette
National Post
Ottawa Citizen
Regina-Leader Post
Remembering.ca
Saskatoon StarPhoenix
The Province
Toronto Sun
Vancouver Sun
Windsor Star
Winnipeg Sun

Of course, this doesn’t cover countless smaller publications that this media giant owns. Scary, just how many “voices” are controlled by one source. Now, let’s show the Postmedia “communities”. A much longer list, and many have their websites included.

Alberta Outlets
Airdrie Echo
http://www.airdrieecho.com
Bow Valley Crag & Canyon (Banff)
http://www.banffcragandcanyon.com
Cochrane Times
http://www.cochranetimes.com
The Cold Lake Sun
http://www.coldlakesun.com
Devon Dispatch
https://www.devondispatch.ca
The Drayton Valley Western Review
http://www.draytonvalleywesternreview.com
Edmonton Examiner
http://www.edmontonexaminer.com
The Fairview Post
http://www.fairviewpost.com
Fort McMurray Today
http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com
The Grove Examiner (Spruce Grove)
http://www.sprucegroveexaminer.com
The Hanna Herald
http://www.hannaherald.com
The High River Times
http://www.highrivertimes.com/
La Nouvelle Beaumont News (Beaumont)
http://www.thebeaumontnews.ca/
Leduc Rep
http://www.leducrep.com/
The Leduc-Wetaskiwin County Market
http://www.countymarket.ca/
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer
http://www.mayerthorpefreelancer.com
The Nanton News
http://www.nantonnews.com
The Peace Country Sun (Grande Prairie)
http://www.peacecountrysun.com
Peace River Record-Gazette
http://www.prrecordgazette.com
Pincher Creek Echo
http://www.pinchercreekecho.com
The Record (Fort Saskatchewan)
http://www.fortsaskatchewanrecord.com
The Sherwood Park News
http://www.sherwoodparknews.com
The Stony Plain Reporter
http://stonyplainreporter.com/
The Vulcan Advocate
http://www.vulcanadvocate.com
Wetaskiwin Times
http://www.wetaskiwintimes.com/
The Whitecourt Star
http://www.whitecourtstar.com
Vermilion Standard
http://www.vermilionstandard.com

Saskatchewan Outlets
Bridges (Saskatoon)
http://thestarphoenix.com/category/life/bridges
Melfort Journal
http://www.melfortjournal.com
Nipawin Journal
http://www.nipawinjournal.com
Northeast Sun (Melfort)
http://www.melfortjournal.com
QC (Regina)
http://leaderpost.com/category/life/qc

Manitoba Outlets
The Graphic (Portage la Prairie)
http://www.portagedailygraphic.com
Herald Leader (Portage la Prairie)
http://www.cpheraldleader.com
The Interlake Spectator (Gimli)
http://www.interlakespectator.com
The Morden Times
http://www.mordentimes.com
The Red River Valley Echo (Altona)
http://www.altonaecho.com
The Selkirk Journal
http://www.selkirkjournal.com
The Stonewall Argus & Teulon Times
http://www.stonewallargusteulontimes.com
The Valley Leader (Carman)
http://www.carmanvalleyleader.com
Winkler Times
http://www.winklertimes.com

Ontario Outlets
Brockville & Prescott This Week
Chatham-Kent This Week
http://www.chathamthisweek.com
Clinton News-Record
http://www.clintonnewsrecord.com
Cochrane Times-Post
http://www.cochranetimespost.com
The Complimentary (Cornwall)
Community Press (Belleville)
http://www.communitypress.ca/
The County Weekly News (Picton)
http://www.countyweeklynews.ca/
The Courier Press (Wallaceburg)
http://www.wallaceburgcourierpress.com
The Delhi News-Record
http://www.delhinewsrecord.com
The Elgin County Market (St. Thomas)
http://www.elgincountymarket.com
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance
http://www.lakeshoreadvance.com
Frontenac This Week
Gananoque Reporter
http://www.gananoquereporter.com/
Goderich Signal-Star
http://www.goderichsignalstar.com
Goderich Super Saver
Grey Bruce This Week (Owen Sound)
http://www.greybrucethisweek.ca/
Kenora Miner & News
http://www.kenoradailyminerandnews.com
The Kincardine News
http://www.kincardinenews.com
Kingston This Week
http://www.kingstonthisweek.com/
Kingsville Extra
Kingsville Reporter
Lakeshore News
Lakeshore Shopper (Simcoe-Tillsonburg)
LaSalle Post
The Londoner
http://www.thelondoner.ca
Lucknow Sentinel
http://www.lucknowsentinel.com
The Mid-North Monitor (Espanola)
http://www.midnorthmonitor.com/
Mitchell Advocate
http://www.mitchelladvocate.com
Napanee Guide
http://www.napaneeguide.com/
The Nugget Extra
Northern News (Kirkland Lake)
http://www.northernnews.ca/
Northern News This Week(Kirkland Lake)
Oxford Review (Woodstock)
http://www.oxfordreview.com
Paris Star
http://www.parisstaronline.com
The Post (Hanover)
http://www.thepost.on.ca/
Press (Stirling)
http://www.communitypress.ca/
Sarnia & Lambton County This Week
http://www.sarniathisweek.com
Sault This Week (Sault Ste. Marie)
http://www.saultthisweek.com/
Seaforth Huron Expositor
http://www.seaforthhuronexpositor.com
Shoreline Beacon (Port Elgin)
http://www.shorelinebeacon.com
Shoreline Week
Simcoe Reformer (TMC)
http://www.simcoereformer.ca
The Standard (Elliot Lake)
http://www.elliotlakestandard.ca/
Stratford Marketplace
http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/marketplace
Strathroy Age Dispatch
http://www.strathroyagedispatch.com
Tecumseh Shoreline Week
The Standard Extra
The Tillsonburg News
http://www.tillsonburgnews.com
Tilsbury Times
The Timmins Times
http://www.timminstimes.com
The Trentonian (Trenton)
http://www.trentonian.ca/
Weekender Times-Advance (Exeter)
West Elgin Chronicle
http://www.thechronicle-online.com
Wiarton Echo
http://www.wiartonecho.com
Windsor Star Review

Again, all of this is just what Post Media lists as owning. Not only the major news outlets, but many smaller “community” organizations as well. All of it is owned by one conglomerate. Speaks volumes for the independence and choice that exists in Canada.

5. Post Media Board Of Directors

Paul Godfrey (Executive Chair)
Mr. Godfrey is the Executive Chair of Postmedia. Previously Mr. Godfrey has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Postmedia, President and Chief Executive Officer of National Post Inc., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club, and spent 16 years with Sun Media Corporation, eventually taking the role of President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Godfrey has a proud record of public service including a record four terms (11 years) as the Chairman of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. He served as the Chairman of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation from 2010 until 2013. He is Chairman of the board of RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust. He also serves on the board of Cargojet Inc. and serves as Vice Chairman of Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care.

Peter Sharpe (Lead Director)
Mr. Sharpe retired as President and Chief Executive Officer of Cadillac Fairview Corporation in 2010, having served with the company for over 25 years. Mr. Sharpe is currently a director of Morguard Corporation, First Industrial REIT (US), and Allied Property REIT. Mr. Sharpe is also a past Chairman and current Trustee of the International Council of Shopping Centers.

Andrew MacLeod (Director)
Mr. MacLeod is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Postmedia Network Inc. He joined Postmedia in 2014 as EVP and Chief Commercial Officer and served as President and Chief Operating Officer in 2017. Prior to joining Postmedia, Mr. MacLeod held a number of senior executive positions in the technology sector, including serving as the Senior Vice President & Regional Managing Director of North America at BlackBerry. Mr. MacLeod also currently serves as a Director on the board for Waterfront Toronto and Communitech. Mr. MacLeod is a graduate of Western University (BA).

John Bode (Director)
Mr. Bode is currently Chief Operating Officer at ReaderLink Distribution Services. Previously, Mr. Bode owned and operated a strategic consultancy practice focused on working with companies, primarily legacy print media companies, undertaking major transformation initiatives and transactions. Prior to his consultancy practice, Mr. Bode was Chief Financial Officer at Tribune Publishing.

Janet Ecker (Director)
Janet Ecker recently retired from the role of President and CEO of Toronto Financial Services Alliance, having served in the role for nearly 13 years. Ms. Ecker served as a member of provincial parliament in Ontario from 1995 to 2003 and held the portfolios of Minister of Finance, Minister of Education, Minister of Community and Social Services and Government House Leader. In 2002 she was the first woman to deliver a budget in Ontario.
In November 2016, Ms. Ecker was named a Member of the Order of Canada for being a leader in the financial industry.

Wendy Henkelman (Director)
Ms. Henkelman is a corporate director with extensive experience in all aspects of the finance function including accounting, treasury, taxation, information systems, internal controls and risk management. She has held executive positions in major oil and gas companies including the VP, Treasury and Compliance with Penn West Exploration and Country Tax Manager at Shell Canada Limited. She began her career with KPMG LLP, progressing from the audit function to manager in the income tax group. Ms. Henkelman is a member of the board and is Treasurer for the Cochrane and Area Humane Society and has chaired major pension trusts of public corporations. She is the past President of the Canadian Petroleum Tax Society and is a former member of the Tax Executives Institute and the Canadian Tax Foundation. Ms. Henkelman currently sits on the Board of ATB Financial, where she sits on both the Audit and Human Resources committees.

Mary Junck (Director)
Ms. Junck is Chairman of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated, a leading provider of local news, information and advertising in 49 primarily midsize markets in the United States. Ms. Junck began her career at the Charlotte Observer in 1972 as marketing research manager. She later held senior executive positions at the former Times Mirror Company, as executive vice president of Times Mirror and president of Times Mirror Eastern Newspapers. Ms. Junck is the retired Chairman of the board of directors of The Associated Press, the world’s oldest and largest newsgathering organization and serves on the board of Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois, a private liberal arts college.

Daniel Rotstein (Director)
Mr. Rotstein serves as the Director of Human Resources/Risk Management for the City of Pembroke Pines, Florida and provides human resources, risk management, and administrative consulting services to companies in various industries, including American Media, Inc. Prior to that, Mr. Rotstein was the Executive Vice President, Human Resources and Administration, for American Media, Inc. Mr. Rotstein has over 25 years of experience holding human resources management positions in the manufacturing, financial services and retail services industries and has successfully assisted organizations in all facets of human resources, risk management and administration.

Graham Savage (Director)
Mr. Savage is a corporate director, and from 1997 to 2007 he was Chairman and Founding Partner of Callisto Capital, a private equity firm. Prior to that, Mr. Savage spent 21 years as a senior officer at Rogers Communications Inc. Mr. Savage is currently the Chairman of Sears Canada Inc. and a director of Cott Corporation. Mr. Savage previously served as a director of Canadian Tire Corp., Rogers Communications Inc., Sun Media Corp., Royal Group Technologies Ltd., Hollinger International Inc., among others.

Why address Atlas Network? Because many of its operatives pretend to be objective and non-partisan in what they write and speak about.

While Atlas certainly does not have a monopoly on the paid shills in the media, there seem to be an awful lot of them who are connected. So let’s take a look into it. Note: Not all will be conservative, but a lot of them are. Just shows they’re all globalists.

7. Tom Flanagan: Author, Campaign Manager

In the political realm, he managed Stephen Harper’s campaigns for leadership of the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party of Canada, the 2004 Conservative national campaign, and the 2012 Wildrose Alberta provincial campaign.

When not involved in politics, Flanagan writes articles and books. Very prolific writer.

8. Danielle Smith: NewsTalk 770 Host

Smith interned for the Fraser Institute in 1996/1997. She also hosted Global Sunday and wrote for the Calgary Herald. After a stint in Alberta politics, she hosts an afternoon radio show.

9. Ezra Levant: Current “Rebel Commander”

I started attending Fraser Institute Student Seminars, not just in my own city, but I’d even travel to go to others in nearby cities. I then attended the Student Leaders Colloquium, and then became an FI summer intern, where I wrote a book called Youthquake. I was a Koch Foundation Summer Fellow in Washington, DC, and have attended various Institute for Humane Studies (HIS) and Liberty Fund events over the years. I’m a lawyer by profession; right after articling I worked for several years on Parliament Hill for Preston Manning and later for Stockwell Day. I joined the National Post’s editorial board for two years. After trying my own hand in politics, I wrote a book called Fight Kyoto and practiced law. Last January, with several other Fraser Institute alumni, I founded the Western Standard magazine, which publishes every two weeks in a classical liberal vein.

That’s right. Ezra Levant cut his teethfor the Koch Foundation and the Fraser Institute. He then got involved in conservative politics and media outlets. One such venture was founding the Western Standard.

10. Derek Fildebrant: Western Standard Editor

Fildebrandt used to be head of the Alberta Branch of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation. However, people weren’t happy when he used his training to privately sublet a publicly funded apartment. Now out of politics, he revived Ezra Levant’s old publication, the Western Standard.

Interesting situation: Both Levant and Fildebrandt have ties to Atlas Network and Koch. Levant worked at Fraser Institute, Fildebrandt at the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation. One big happy family.

11. Candice Malcolm: Koch, Fraser Institute

Candice worked for Koch and the Fraser Institute, before getting into journalism. She now runs True North Canada, which “identifies” as a non-profit group. Wonder who funds that.

12. Manny Montenegrino: Think Sharp

Manny works as a lobbyist, but comes on shows such as Rebel Media and promotes himself as a commentator. He is also an advisor for the Conservative Party of Canada.

13. Spencer Fernando: Nat’l Citizens Coalition

Fernando joined the National Citizen’s Coalition, which is the organization Stephen Harper used to run. While at one time an independent writer and journalist, he is reduced to a mouthpiece and shill.

14: Chantel Hebert: Trudeau Foundation

Quebec media figure Chantel Hebert is also a member of the Trudeau Foundation.

Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer with the Toronto Star and a guest columnist for Le Devoir and L’Actualité. She is a weekly participant on the political panel At Issue on the CBC’s The National as well as Radio-Canada’s Les Coulisses du pouvoir.
Ms Hébert began her career in Toronto as a reporter for the regional newsroom of Radio-Canada in 1975 before moving on to Parliament Hill for Radio-Canada radio. She has served as parliamentary bureau chief for Le Devoir and La Presse.
Hébert is a graduate of Glendon College, York University. She is a Senior Fellow of Massey College at the University of Toronto and hold an honorary doctorate from Bishop’s University. She is a recipient of two Asia-Pacific media fellowship (Malaysia and Japan). She is the 2005 recipient of the APEX Public Service Award. In 2006, she received the Hy Solomon award for excellence in journalism and public policy as well as York University’s Pinnacle Achievement Bryden Alumni award. She is the author of a 2007 book titled French Kiss: Stephen Harper’s Blind Date with Quebec.
Hébert is an Officer of the Order of Canada.

15. Alexandre Trudeau: Trudeau Foundation

If making Islamic propaganda films counts as “independent journalism“, then I guess this guy counts. Late brother of current Prime Minister, and son of former Prime Minister.

16. Canadian Media Is Controlled

Obviously, the list of media personalities with globalist ties is not exhaustive. There are more, but this article is getting long already. A few points to take away:

(A) Canada’s media is essentially controlled by 1 organization — Post Media. It owns not only the major outlet, but many smaller ones as well. It’s basically a monopoly.

(B) Even within so-called “conservative” and alt/indy media, there are many with globalist ties (such as with Koch, Atlas Network, or the Trudeau Foundation). As such, nothing they say can be taken at face value without doing research on the reporter.

(C) Looking at the names, a certain ethnic group appears a lot in the media, far more than it should. And no, it’s not white people. Whatever happened to promoting diversity?

January 16, 2020April 12, 2022

TSCE #7(E): Does Allowing Illegal Aliens Into Canada Violate International Agreements?

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant-Smuggling/Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review.pdf
(2) https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/organized-crime/intro/UNTOC.html
(3) http://archive.is/q0XqK
(4) https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ProtocolTraffickingInPersons.aspx
(5) http://archive.is/cjnJt
(6) https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/OPSCCRC.aspx
(7) http://archive.is/onmrr
(8) http://www.ungift.org/
(9) http://archive.is/Fjuv6
(10) https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2000/11/20001115%2011-38%20AM/Ch_XVIII_12_ap.pdf
(11) https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/OPSCCRC.aspx
(12) http://archive.is/onmrr
(13) http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc87/com-chic.htm
(14) http://archive.is/OZQM
(15) https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf
(16) https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/tp/legis-loi.html
(17) http://archive.is/RQVYA
(18) https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/22/children-abducted-illegals-posing-families-us-bord/

3. Context For This Piece

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

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

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

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

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

4. Link Between Illegal Crossings/Trafficking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress/Punish Trafficking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Rights Of Child Not To Be Exploited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Eliminating Worst Child Labour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. How Diligent Is IRB/CBSA?

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

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

*****************************************************************

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

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

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

*****************************************************************

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Larry Maguire:
Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

*****************************************************************

Our political leaders at work….

1. Previous Solutions Offered

2. Important Links

3. Context For This Article

4. Trudeau: 4+ Years To Implement

5. Previous Efforts At Entry/Exit

6. Tourists Coming Into Canada Annually

7. “Inadmissibles” Let Into Canada Anyway

8. Ghost Students Coming On Visas

9. Scale Of Students/Temp Workers

10. Visa Overstayers In Canada

11. Work Permits For Illegals

12. Amnesty For Illegals Started Up

13. Sanctuary Cities/Provinces

14. Impact Of Not Tracking Exits

Share this:

Like this:

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Why Canadians Should Care

3. Court History Over The Years

4. 1992: SCC Rules No Standing

5. 2008: S3CA, Parts Of IRPA Struck Out

6. 2009: Previous Ruling Overturned

7. 2017-Present: Toronto Challenge

8. So Who Are These NGOs?

9. Look At The Bigger Picture

Share this:

Like this:

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. BnB Doesn’t Believe In Borders

4. BnB Encourages Asylum Shopping

5. BnB Coordinates With “Plattsburgh Cares”

6. BnB Worked With Solidarity Across Borders

7. UNHCR Admits These Claims Are Bogus

8. Completely Undermining Border Security

Share this:

Like this:

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. Context For This Article

4. CCR Lobbying The Federal Government

5. CCR Challenges Canada/US S3CA

6. CCR Opposes DNA Testing

7. CCR Against Custody Req’t For Illegals

8. CCR Challenges Removing Criminally Inadmissible PR

9. CCR Challenges Deportations To Certain Countries

10. CCR Promotes Amnesty For Illegals

11. CCR Wants Canadians To Foot The Bill

12. Some Government Funding CCR Gets

13. Info From Canada Revenue Tax Filings

14. Corporate Documents

15. CCR’s Previous Attempt On S3CA

16. CCR Supported Bill C-6 (Citizenship for Terrorists)

17. CCR Is A Political Organization

Share this:

Like this:

1. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption

2. Important Links

3. Context For This Piece

4. Post Media Owns A Lot

5. Post Media Board Of Directors

6. Atlas Network’s Canadian Partners

7. Tom Flanagan: Author, Campaign Manager

8. Danielle Smith: NewsTalk 770 Host

9. Ezra Levant: Current “Rebel Commander”

10. Derek Fildebrant: Western Standard Editor

11. Candice Malcolm: Koch, Fraser Institute

12. Manny Montenegrino: Think Sharp

13. Spencer Fernando: Nat’l Citizens Coalition

14: Chantel Hebert: Trudeau Foundation

15. Alexandre Trudeau: Trudeau Foundation

16. Canadian Media Is Controlled

Share this:

Like this:

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. Context For This Piece

4. Link Between Illegal Crossings/Trafficking

5. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress/Punish Trafficking

6. Rights Of Child Not To Be Exploited