Suicide
Marginal note:
Counselling or aiding suicide
241 (1) Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years who, whether suicide ensues or not,
(a) counsels a person to die by suicide or abets a person in dying by suicide; or (b) aids a person to die by suicide.
Now there is more to be considered. See section 6.
3. Canadian Charter, Section 7
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Marginal note:
Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
The 2015 decision ruled that the blanket ban violated the Section 7 Charter rights, and that there was no “saving” of it under Section 1.
4. SCC Orders Parliament To Fix Law
XIII. Conclusion
[147] The appeal is allowed. We would issue the following declaration, which is suspended for 12 months: Section 241 (b) and s. 14 of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringe s. 7 of the Charter and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the prohibition against assisted suicide violated Section 7 of the Charter, which addresses security of the person.
The ruling is very long, and addressed the issue from a number of legal questions. It also addressed whether the Lower Courts should be bound by a 1993 ruling on much the same issues. It’s too lengthy to go through in an article, but is worth a read.
5. Bill C-14, Assisted Dying
SUMMARY
.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create exemptions from the offences of culpable homicide, of aiding suicide and of administering a noxious thing, in order to permit medical practitioners and nurse practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying and to permit pharmacists and other persons to assist in the process;
(b) specify the eligibility criteria and the safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person;
(c) require that medical practitioners and nurse practitioners who receive requests for, and pharmacists who dispense substances in connection with the provision of, medical assistÂance in dying provide information for the purpose of permitting the monitoring of medical assistance in dying, and authorize the Minister of Health to make regulations respecting that information; and
(d) create new offences for failing to comply with the safeguards, for forging or destroying documents related to medical assistance in dying, for failing to provide the required information and for contravening the regulations.
Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Federal Government was ordered to remedy the situation. Bill C-14 was introduced in 2016 to set out the guidelines for medically assisted death.
6. Medical Assistance Exemption
Eligibility for medical assistance in dying
241.2 (1) A person may receive medical assistance in dying only if they meet all of the following criteria:
(a) they are eligible — or, but for any applicable minimum period of residence or waiting period, would be eligible — for health services funded by a government in Canada;
(b) they are at least 18 years of age and capable of making decisions with respect to their health;
(c) they have a grievous and irremediable medical condition;
(d) they have made a voluntary request for medical assistance in dying that, in particular, was not made as a result of external pressure; and
(e) they give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying after having been informed of the means that are available to relieve their suffering, including palliative care.
Grievous and irremediable medical condition
(2) A person has a grievous and irremediable medical condition only if they meet all of the following criteria:
(a) they have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability;
(b) they are in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability;
(c) that illness, disease or disability or that state of decline causes them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable; and
(d) their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, taking into account all of their medical circumstances, without a prognosis necessarily having been made as to the specific length of time that they have remaining.
To be fair, there are considerable safeguards written into the law to ensure that the person suffering is actually the one making the decision, and that it is voluntary and informed.
7. Where Does It Go From Here?
Currently, the law applies only to adults. But what happens when children decide that they want to make decisions over their own “health care”? Will minors be allowed to get it themselves? This is currently being considered.
The law allows for assisted suicide in the case of serious conditions which cause pain and is irreversible, and to get worse. How much will that get watered down over time? Perhaps this is just a foot-in-the-door technique to be able to end lives over more minor things.
What will happen to medical staff who refuse to participate in this? Will they become subject to sanctions for discrimination, or failing to fulfill a duty?
In fairness to Trudeau (it feels weird defending him), introducing this, or similar legislation, was forced by the 2015 Supreme Court ruling. Some bill had to be introduced at some point, so he doesn’t own this one.
Personally, this is conflicting. People should have control over their own lives, yes, but trending down a slope where lives are valued less and less is very troubling. How we treat and care for people reflects the society we live in, and this is the wrong direction to head in.
(Originally featured in Maclean’s as “The Resistance”)
(Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe. Read between the lines.)
1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam
CLICK HERE, for #1: major lies that the climate frauds tell. CLICK HERE, for #2: review of the Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for #3: Bill C-97, the GHG Pollution Pricing Act. CLICK HERE, for #4: in 3-2 decision, Sask. COA allows carbon tax. CLICK HERE, for #5: controlled opposition to carbon tax.
CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling. CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court of Appeal ruling. CLICK HERE, for Alberta Court of Appeal ruling. CLICK HERE, for Supreme Court of Canada constitutional challenge.
Alberta Situation CLICK HERE, for Jason Kenney Repeals Carbon Tax. CLICK HERE, for Kenney Supports New Carbon Tax. CLICK HERE, for Kenney To Hike New Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for New Brunswick creating its own Carbon tax.
3. Reading Between The Lines
Throughout this interview, and any interview, Scott Moe never tells anyone that Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, and that it is used in photosynthesis. He never tells his interviewers that removing CO2 from the atmosphere will kill off plant-life, and by extension, ourselves. Moe never goes into any of the bogus junk science.
Why does this matter? Because Scott Moe, like Doug Ford in Ontario, Jason Kenney in Alberta, Blaine Higgs in New Brunswick, and Brian Pallister in Manitoba all claim to oppose the Carbon tax, but endorse the climate change scam itself.
Read through the filings throughout this article. These so-called “conservatives” thoroughly and completely endorse the UN IPCC warnings that catastrophe is imminent. They all agree that climate change will cause damage long term. They don’t (really) even oppose a Carbon tax. The issue is over who shall implement a “solution”, the Federal Government of the Provinces.
They cannot effectively oppose an agenda that they support in principle. All of these self-identified “conservative” Premiers are on board with the climate change scam.
4. Supreme Court Of Canada Filings
Let’s start with the pleadings filed by the Ontario Government, currently under the rule of Doug Ford. What does Ontario have to say about this?
The Ontario challenge previously, and this subsequent appeal, are limited to 2 very narrow and technical questions over taxation. There is nothing in either the ONCA challenge, nor this appeal, that suggest the Government takes any issue with the climate change agenda.
In fact, in the Court of Appeal challenge, the Ontario Government fully accepted the UNIPCC claims about climate change, and the need to act urgently on it. So, really, what is the point of doing these challenges in the first place?
Now let’s turn to Saskatchewan, which has joined as an intervenor in this case. Essentially, they are supporting Ontario’s challenge. What do they have to say about all of this.
Similar to Ontario, Saskatchewan does not challenge the climate change agenda in any way, shape or form. Instead, there are 2 extremely limited and technical questions put forward for the court to consider.
This is the state of opposition to Trudeau in Canada. Admit all of the major facts. Instead, argue over minor details, and insist this is a Provincial matter. Very petty.
(from the Ontario submissions)
1. This case is not about whether action needs to be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or the relative effectiveness of particular policy alternatives. It is about (1) whether the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the “Act”) can be supported under the national concern branch of the POGG power; and (2) whether the “charges” imposed by the Act
are valid as regulatory charges or as taxes. The answer to both questions should be no.
(from the Saskatchewan submissions)
2. This appeal does not concern whether global climate change is real and concerning or if the provinces are taking sufficient action to reduce GHG emissions. All parties agree that global climate change is a significant societal problem and all provinces have and continue to take action to reduce GHG emissions. In the Courts below, many submissions, including those of the Attorney General of Canada, focused on the nature of climate change and the importance of carbon pricing as an effective method of reducing GHG emissions. However, the efficacy of carbon pricing is not relevant to the constitutionality of the GGPPA, which must be derived from whether it is within the legislative competence of the federal government.
This entire façade is limited to technical questions over taxation. Nothing about the fake science behind these dire predictions.
And no, this is not limited to the Supreme Court of Canada. These players pulled the exact same stunt in their respective Provincial challenges.
5. Ontario Court Of Appeal Ruling
At the ONCA, the Province lost in a split decision to the Federal Government. The arguments were very similar to what happened in the Saskatchewan case. So what went wrong? Well, admitting that climate change is a threat to the world might not have helped.
Yes, in their own court challenge, Ontario agreed that climate change is a serious problem, and that real action has to be taken to prevent it from getting worse. So from that perspective, the court essentially had a case where the facts were all agreed to.
Don’t worry. It’s about to get much worse. Ontario was joined by several “intervenors” who were essentially there to reinforce their case. And they did just that.
Ontario was joined by New Brunswick. Not only did they endorse Ontario’s view that climate change is real and a threat, they said that this court forum should not be used by anyone who would deny climate change. So much for allowing different perspectives.
British Columbia also joins as an intervenor in the case. BC reiterates that climate change is real, and greenhouse gases are to blame. But instead of rejecting a Carbon tax, it touts its own as a model to emulate.
However, it is not just other Provincial or local Governments that were allowed to enter submissions for this hearing. Other groups were as well. Let’s take a look at a few.
The United Conservative Association entered the case, claiming that they agreed with the Attorney General of Ontario’s submissions. Thing is, the AG submitted that climate change was a threat to everyone and that action had to be taken. In essence, all of the facts were admitted once again. The only opposition was to prevent backlash and a unity crisis over the taxation.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation also joined in the Ontario matter. They argued that given their agenda, not wasting the money of taxpayers was a real concern. While true, they never addressed the elephant in the room: namely that the whole Carbon tax was predicated on lies.
Now, with every one of these parties saying that climate change is real and that human are responsible (or at least ignoring the issue), it should be no surprise how the court ruled. The ONCA said that yes, the Federal Government had the right to levy this tax.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
[6] Climate change was described in the Paris Agreement of 2015 as “an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet”. It added that this “requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries, and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response”.
[7] There is no dispute that global climate change is taking place and that human activities are the primary cause. The combustion of fossil fuels, like coal, natural gas and oil and its derivatives, releases GHGs into the atmosphere. When incoming radiation from the Sun reaches Earth’s surface, it is absorbed and converted into heat. GHGs act like the glass roof of a greenhouse, trapping some of this heat as it radiates back into the atmosphere, causing surface temperatures to increase. Carbon dioxide (“CO2”) is the most prevalent GHG emitted by human activities. This is why pricing for GHG emissions is referred to as carbon pricing, and why GHG emissions are typically referred to on a CO2 equivalent basis. Other common GHGs include methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.
[8] At appropriate levels, GHGs are beneficial. They surround the planet like a blanket, keeping temperatures within limits at which humans, animals, plants and marine life can live in balance. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere was relatively stable for several million years. However, since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century, and more particularly since the 1950s, the level of GHGs in the atmosphere has been increasing at an alarming rate. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are now more than 400 parts per million, a level not reached since the mid-Pliocene epoch, approximately 3-5 million years ago. Concentrations of other GHGs have also increased dramatically.
Quite predictably, Ontario lost their challenge at the Court of Appeals. Pretty hard to win when you admit all of the other side’s “facts” regardless of how absurd they are.
6. Saskatchewan Court Of Appeal
II. OVERVIEW
[4] The factual record presented to the Court confirms that climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions is one of the great existential issues of our time. The pressing importance of limiting such emissions is accepted by all of the participants in these proceedings.
[5] The Act seeks to ensure there is a minimum national price on GHG emissions in order to encourage their mitigation. Part 1 of the Act imposes a charge on GHG-producing fuels and combustible waste. Part 2 puts in place an output-based performance system for large industrial facilities. Such facilities are obliged to pay compensation if their GHG emissions exceed applicable limits. Significantly, the Act operates as no more than a backstop. It applies only in those provinces or areas where the Governor in Council concludes GHG emissions are not priced at an appropriate level.
[6] The sole issue before the Court is whether Parliament has the constitutional authority to enact the Act. The issue is not whether GHG pricing should or should not be adopted or whether the Act is effective or fair. Those are questions to be answered by Parliament and by provincial legislatures, not by courts.
[7] The Constitution Act, 1867 distributes legislative authority between Parliament and the provincial legislatures. Broadly speaking, a statute is valid if its essential character falls within a subject matter allocated to the legislative body that put the statute in place. Neither level of government has exclusive authority over the environment. As a result, Parliament can legislate in relation to issues such as GHGs so long as it stays within the four corners of its prescribed subject matters and the provinces can do the same so long as they stay within their prescribed areas of authority.
Quite inexplicably, Saskatchewan admitted, that climate change was a serious problem, and that real action had to be taken. Basically, they admitted that all of the Federal Government’s claims were true. All that the SKCOA had to do was answer some technical questions about whether this taxation format was legal.
Like Doug Ford, Scott Moe sabotaged his Provincial Reference Question by ceding to the pseudo-science that the UNIPCC puts out. Had he challenged it, it is quite likely that the Carbon taxes would have been gone by now.
7. Capitulation By “The Resistance”
The industry tax is being set at a higher level per tonne than Mr. Kenney promised during the spring election, $30 instead of $20, in a move to ensure that the provincial government’s plan is in compliance with the federal climate law. Due to the size of Alberta’s industrial base, especially the province’s large oil and gas industry, the expected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the plan will contribute significantly to meeting national targets.
Speaking with reporters on Tuesday before he tabled the legislation, Environment Minister Jason Nixon said industries across Alberta were close to unanimous that they wanted the province to set the tax at a level where the federal government would not take over and regulate their emissions.
The minister added that he will consult on future increases to the provincial tax. The federal carbon price for industry is set to increase by $10 annually until it reaches $50-per-tonne in 2022. If Alberta’s tax were to fall below the federal threshold, Ottawa would likely impose a higher tax under a provision in the federal law known as the backstop.
This is a strange version of fighting for your constituents: surrender and gouge them yourselves, so that Ottawa won’t be the one doing the gouging.
8. Federal Conservatives Not Any Better
The CPC policy declaration, Article 28 does explicitly state no Carbon tax. That said, it tacitly endorses the climate change scam by suggesting that Provinces should develop their own plan. In other words, the CPC supports it, but would not impose this one specific measure.
9. Elephant In The Room: Junk Science
Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is touted as a “greenhouse gas” which contributes to all kinds of environmental disasters.
”Global warming” is a term not used as much anymore, since “climate change” is more vague, and can be more easily adapted.
However, carbon dioxide occurs naturally, just from breathing.
The human body converts carbohydrates, fatty acids, and proteins into smaller “waste products” such as water and carbon dioxide in order to extract energy from them.
Carbon dioxide is not a “waste product” to be eliminated. It is a necessary resource plants use for photosynthesis
Every patriot should be concerned about the state of affairs in their country, regardless of political leaning. Moreover, serious matters should be brought to the public’s attention.
This GAB account is one I’ve come across with some interesting research. Who’s behind it is not important. What is important is what information that is to be shared.
3. Connecting The Dots
CANADA’S DEEP STATE Part 2
Now that ambassador Dominic Barton has been identified as the architect, let’s look at some of his buddies and their connections with BlackRock and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB)
Born in Niagara Falls Ontario, Mark Wiseman became a Senior Managing Director at BlackRock NYC in 2016 as Global Head of Active Equities for BlackRock and Chairman of BlackRock Alternative Investors. He also serves as Chairman of the firm’s Global Investment Committee and on its Global Executive Committee.
He was President and CEO of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) 2012-2016 after starting there in 2005 as Senior Vice-President, Private Investments.
Prior to joining CPPIB, Mark was responsible for the private equity fund and co-investment program at the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. He has worked at Harrowston Inc., a publicly traded Canadian merchant bank, and as a lawyer with Sullivan & Cromwell, where he practiced in New York and Paris.
He also served as a law clerk to Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin at the Supreme Court of Canada – ring a bell? During the Justice Committee hearings with Jody Wilson-Raybould about the SNC-Lavalin Scandal, Buttsputin & Clerk of the Privy Council had insisted Jody talk with her for “advice”.
But the BlackRock ties don’t stop there.
BlackRock Canada CEO is Marcia Moffat since 2015– who just happens to be Mark Wiseman’s wife – based in Toronto. Mark returns home to Toronto on weekends from New York. She was formerly with RBC under Janice Fukakusa (see pic)
That is just a sample of what the GAB account is posting. Well worth a read. Any help that we can get in understanding globalism here is Canada is always appreciated.
(StatsCan research on students, including fake student visas)
(Here is the research itself)
(Large numbers of student visa holders are not enrolled)
(No surprise anymore, students transitioning to permanent residents)
(Student visas are path-to-PR in Canada, and PGWP)
(Research on the student-to-PR pipeline)
(317,000 student visas issued in 2017, according to 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)
1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada
Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.
CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention. CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan. CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement). CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974. CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.
Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.
As is plain and obvious from the above links, documenting and reporting on the true scale of replacement migration into Canada is a priority. This includes programs which are sold to the public as “temporary”, but which include pathways to permanent residence.
This article explores the concept of “ghost students”, people who come to Canada on student visas, but whom have other ideas and intentions all along.
4. Vancouver Sun Article
The StatsCan study, by Marc Frenette, Yuquian Lu and Winnie Chan, echoes the findings of an internal Immigration Department report that revealed 25 per cent of would-be foreign students in Canada in 2018 were likely not complying with the conditions of their visa or were just not being monitored by school administrators.
The high no-show rate comes as there is a rising trend toward “edu-immigration” to Canada. Many foreign nationals are being encouraged by immigration agents to use Canada’s study permits to gain a relatively easy foothold in the country to find work, through which they can try to obtain permanent resident status.
One of the disquieting findings in the StatsCan report is that 2015’s rate was an improvement over previous years: In 2009, only half of study-permit holders were signed up with a school.
.
When Postmedia asked Statistics Canada why such a large proportion of would-be foreign students appear to be avoiding studying, officials said the authors of the report were not permitted to directly answer Postmedia’s questions.
The study concluded that about one in four study-visa holders in Canada eventually gain permanent resident status. But beyond such data, the authors said, “Little is known about international students in Canada.”
.
Hyman, the immigration lawyer, says there is no doubt many study-permit holders come to Canada essentially to work and not to study.
The Vancouver Sun article gets into many uncomfortable truths, namely a large number of people with student visas are not enrolled in Canadian schools. Either they have left, or never intended to study in the first place.
It also outlines the lack of oversight and enforcement going on within the school systems and the Immigration Ministry. Why allow so many “students”? The schools need the money. They have big obligations.
The Sun article cites this StatsCan paper, which states that 30% of people on student visas are not actually enrolled, while in 2009, almost 50% were not enrolled.
The Sun article (I believe) references this StatsCan publication that estimates that 20-27% of students on visa get their permanent residence status within 10 years. Even if it is only about a quarter of students, which seems very low, that is still a very real path to permanent residence.
5. StatsCan Research On Ghosts
The IMDB contains information on all temporary and permanent residents since 1980. For the purposes of this study, only the information on temporary residents was used. Specifically, the number of valid postsecondary study permit holders was generated to compare it with the actual number of international students enrolled in postsecondary programs based on data from PSIS, which contains program information for all students enrolled in Canadian public postsecondary institutions. Immigration status is listed in PSIS because postsecondary institutions are allowed to charge international students higher tuition fees than Canadian students, and this information is collected annually. Three groups were analyzed separately in this study: Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and student visa or permit holders (international students). The T1FF is a census of all Canadian taxfilers and their spouses and children. It contains detailed income information as well as basic demographics. The information on T4 wages and salaries in the T1FF was of particular interest in this study.
The study found that approximately 69.5% of postsecondary study permit holders actually enrolled in a postsecondary program in 2015—up from 51.8% in 2009. Between 2009 and 2015, the number of international postsecondary students nearly doubled. This resulted in a significant increase in the proportion of postsecondary students who were international students (from 6.6% in 2009 to 11.3% in 2015). International students enrolled in university bachelor’s degree programs accounted for about half of this increase. Although a smaller proportion of international students enrolled in college diploma programs, this was the fastest-growing group—accounting for 19.8% of international students in 2015, compared with 12.0% in 2009. In general, international students were more likely to be enrolled in university graduate programs and in higher-paying fields than Canadian students.
The research concludes, that large numbers of people on student visas are not actually enrolled in a Canadian school. While it is true that some people could have stayed home or gone elsewhere, student visas are cancelled if the person changes their mind. So the obvious question: where are these people, and what are they doing?
One of the reasons why international students were less likely to be employed than Canadian students might be because of the rules governing international students’ right to work. Prior to June 1, 2014, international students had to obtain a permit to work off campus and had to study for a period of at least six months before doing so. As of June 1, 2014, these rules are no longer in place, which may result in higher international student employment rates in the future.
Yes, the rules have been relaxed, and that means more and more students are “students” will be working while in school. Sort of a no brainer.
In the future, linking the Longitudinal Immigration Database (IMDB) data with postsecondary and taxation data could open new opportunities for research on international students. First, the IMDB could be used to disaggregate the results of this study by country of citizenship. Second, the relationship between educational experience and the transition to permanent residency could be explored. Third, international students may transition to a post-graduation work permit after completing their studies—future research could examine whether this type of work permit is associated with superior labour market outcomes and an increased propensity to transition to permanent residency.
These last remarks are from the conclusion. It seems to around the obvious, that student visas are a pathway to permanent residence. There is the Provincial Nominee Program, Atlantic Pilot Project, and other such options Even if not right away, the Post Graduate Work Program is one possibility to get PR at a later date.
6. StatsCan On Transitioning To PR
Introduction
Every year, tens of thousands of international students from all over the world are attracted to Canada to pursue educational opportunities. Since the 1990s, Canada has experienced rapid growth in its numbers of international students. Together with temporary foreign workers and International Experience Canada, international students are one of the three classes of temporary economic residents that are admitted to Canada. According to a strategic plan released in early 2014, the Canadian government hopes to attract 450,000 international students by 2022, which will double the number of international students currently studying in the country.
The large inflow of international students provides Canada with a large pool of well-educated individuals from which to select permanent residents. Among temporary foreign residents who obtained a study permit between 1990 and 2014, more than 270,000 (19%) became permanent residents by 2014. Additional measures to attract highly educated international students and facilitate their transition to eventual immigration were added in the late 2000s, when Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) permitted international students to seek work opportunities and acquire the skilled work experience required to apply for permanent residence.
It is confirmed by StatsCan, what has been said on this site for months. Students are not “temporary” migration, but rather there are intentional pathways to permanent residence built in.
And StatsCan also confirms what is in those Annual Reports to Parliament. There are 3 main “temporary” migration programs. But let’s be honest, they aren’t really temporary.
Student Visas
International Mobility Program
Temporary Foreign Worker Program
7. Stating The Obvious On Student Visas
Why aren’t people on student visas showing up for class? Probably, that in a lot of these cases, being a student was never the goal, or at least not a high priority. In such cases, the goal is remaining in Canada, and being a student just the excuse.
That being said, even those who do attend Canadian schools have legitimate ways to remain in Canada. In fact, our government passes laws and regulations that encourage it. There are immediate ways to become a permanent resident, or one can simply obtain a 3 year visa from the Post Graduate Work Program.
Unfortunately, there is little data available on who actually leaves Canada once a student visa is no longer valid. Until 2016, the Federal Government did not even track who was leaving the country, only those entering.
Canadians are duped into believing that programs are temporary. They are not.
So where are all of these “ghost” students? What are they doing these days? How many of them are still in the country? Good questions, but our government has few answers.
CLICK HERE, for Part I, the paper and backstory. CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Pyne interview. CLICK HERE, for Part III, TRU responds in case.
CLICK HERE, for the Ad Hoc Investigatory Committee report.
2. Context Of Followup
In 2017, Professor Pyne released a research report on so-called “predatory publishing”. In it, he details how academics publish in journals that are not peer reviewed, and who make little if any effort to verify the findings.
Although the report did not drop specific names, it was not well received by Thompson Rivers University. In a sense this was understandable, as it is not a topic that most people wish to address. Professor Pyne claims that this led to the atmosphere at the school changing, and to his eventual suspension.
Regardless of how touchy the topic may be, this was the wrong way to handle it. Truth should never be censored just because it is inconvenient or embarrassing.
This topic was originally covered early this year. However, since then the Committee investigating the case has ruled that Professor Pyne’s rights were violated.
3. From Ad Hoc Investigative Comm Report
Our investigation has found the following:
1. Based on the evidence presented to the Committee, TRU appears to suffer a broad institutional weakness when it comes to understanding academic freedom beyond its narrow application to support faculty members’ freedom to pursue what they expect to be fruitful avenues of research and publish their results.
2. There were significant breaches of Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom with respect to the Administration’s responses to his intramural and extramural communications criticizing the School of Business and Economics, its programs, and its faculty. These breaches arose from the failure to properly consider Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom, which is encoded in the collective agreement governing his employment at TRU, in managing workplace complaints against Dr. Pyne.
3. The collective agreement between the University and its faculty association contains an article on academic freedom that creates a positive obligation on the parties to consider academic freedom in any case involving speech and other communications from faculty members. The failure to consider Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom in human resources processes has had the effect of denying Dr. Pyne access to procedural fairness, and hence the decision to suspend him was not made on a sound basis.
4. There is no evidence that any person at TRU attempted to interfere with Dr. Pyne as he carried out his study into publishing in predatory journals.
5. Dr. Pyne’s privacy was breached by both TRU and TRUFA on multiple occasions.
Point #3, the school was found to be lacking in having a strong understanding of its academic freedom obligations.
About point #4, that is true, though it doesn’t appear that the school knew what was happening as the research was being done. As no live subjects were used, no ethics approval was needed.
Point #5 concerned leaking of personal information which Professor Pyne believes was done deliberately.
There is a differentiation between open access publishing and so-called predatory publishing that is often over-looked. Open access publishing relies on the same processes as traditional publishing, including rigorous peer review, whereas predatory publishing does not and attempts to co-opt the open access model for financial gain. In an increasingly complex arena for publishing research, universities and academics grapple with assessing faculty members’ published research for tenure and promotion, and for various institutional benefits, including salary increases and research awards. Academic librarians have long provided their expertise in identifying scholarly resources and are now assisting researchers in identifying which constitute legitimate open access publishing and which do not. There is a clear need for universities to ensure the integrity of their academic decisions for tenure and promotion, in particular, by having policies that differentiate between legitimate and predatory publishing.
Dr. Pyne’s research on the rewards of publishing in predatory journals has raised questions about the way his own colleagues and institution are managing the complexity of publishing research at a time when there is a growing number of journals with questionable peer review practices. These questions go to the heart of the credibility of TRU, and one would expect them to be taken seriously by the university’s senior administration. Even if one wishes to critique Dr. Pyne’s published results – as would be expected as part of a robust scholarly discourse – it seems irresponsible for the Administration to ignore the issues his work raises for TRU, which include whether the fundamental academic judgments involved in tenure and promotion decisions are being made on a sound basis.
The only evidence the Committee has seen of any discussion of the issue of predatory journals is related to the TRU Senate discussion of a motion put forward by a faculty senator in April 2017 to refer the matter to the Senate Tenure and Promotion Committee, which is chaired by the Provost. The matter seems to be still with this Committee, which appears not to have made any reports to Senate since then.
It is the Committee’s opinion that the apparent failure of TRU’s Administration to consider seriously the issue of publishing in predatory journals and its potential impacts on TRU’s core academic decisions represents a profound failure of academic governance at the university
An interesting point is raised: even if one has issues with the topic being raised, the way it was handled was completely wrong.
Beyond that, the report on predatory publishing raises very valid concerns. Academics should be concerned about the quality of the screening that is done of their research. Predatory publishes may reward professors with money or more status for work that by all rights should have been rejected. Academia can be a vicious place. In fact, shedding light on this could be viewed as investigative journalism.
Finally, retaliation (no matter how subtle) creates a chilling effect for everyone. What topics are now off limits? Who will be next? Is this really where we want to go with free speech?
4. Comments From Professor Pyne
1/ What exactly did the ruling say?
-TRU and TRUFA violated academic freedom
-Committee tries not to attribute motives to people
-TRU lacks strong policies in academic freedom
-TRU violated privacy laws by leaking confidential information
-TRU should pay wages lost during suspension
2/ Can or will TRU appeal?
-TRU refused to participate in the process, so not likely
-There have been claims of defamation, even though people were not named in the paper
3/ What has changed since this case happened?
-I’ve had my office transferred elsewhere
-People were unhappy with some Facebook postings I made
-The issue still isn’t sitting well with people
4/ Do you think it will make a difference at TRU?
-No, it doesn’t seem to have
Committee has been hand picked by the President
-They say that they have not been provided with all the information, but won’t say what they don’t have
5/ What would you say to people concerned about academic freedom?
-It’s an important cause
-There are a lot of hoops to jump through
-Check out the Society for Academic Freedom
(Jack Layton and Elizabeth May know full well about the international banking cartel. However they act as controlled opposition and remain silent)
This is the response to some email questions to the Bank of Canada, two weeks ago. Attached is the text of the email, minus personal identifiers.
1. Email From Bank Of Canada
Thank you for your email and your interest in the Bank of Canada.
.
For a copy of the original Bank of Canada Act, we suggest you go to Library and Archives Canada.
.
In response to your question about government borrowing in Canada, we’d like to offer a few points of clarification:
.
First, the Government of Canada has essentially funded its spending the same way since long before the Bank of Canada came into existence – namely through taxation and the issuance of marketable debt (e.g. bonds and treasury bills).
This debt was issued for investors to purchase. Financial institutions have always purchased government debt, as investments on their own balance sheets, and to sell on to customers. For a history of government debt markets in Canada, please consult the following document: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/pellerin.pdf.
Moreover, in the 1970s, subsequent to the first oil shock, inflation in Canada and many other advanced economies increased significantly. This led to higher costs for goods and services, and in the case of the federal government, increased spending, resulting in a rapid and sizeable increase in annual deficits. To fund those deficits, government borrowing (issuance of bonds and treasury bills) also increased. So government borrowing sources didn’t change, but the magnitude of borrowing did (see Figure 1 below).
Further, please note that while Section 18 (i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act does allow for the Bank of Canada to lend to the federal and provincial governments, the long-standing policy of the Bank of Canada is not to make direct loans to governments.
The Bank’s Statement of Policy Governing the Acquisition and Management of Financial Assets for the Bank of Canada’s Balance Sheet is available on our website. On page 9 of this policy, under the heading Exceptional Circumstances, Section 7.5 states:
.
“Loans or advances to the Government: The authority granted under Sections 18(i) and 18(j) of the Bank of Canada Act to make loans or advances to the Government would only be used to make a 1-business-day advance to the Government of Canada. This would only be done as appropriate to prevent the level of government deposits held at the Bank from falling below zero. Any such advances would be publicly disclosed.”
In other words, Bank of Canada direct lending to the federal government could be done in exceptional circumstance and only to address short-term cash requirements. The last loan of such type was in 1961.
There are good reasons for this policy. If the Bank were to finance government programs, the monetary base of the financial system would expand and interest rates would no longer follow a path consistent with keeping aggregate demand and supply in the Canadian economy in balance.
The result would be a significant increase in inflationary pressures throughout the Canadian economy. In effect, such a proposal would inflate the debt away, substituting an inflation tax on Canadian households in place of the debt-servicing obligations of the government. Such outcomes would be incompatible with the goal of monetary policy, which is to maintain an environment of low and stable inflation at 2 per cent.
Regarding your question about the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) may wish to contact them or visit their website. Please note that the BIS has no influence on the decision-making process for Canada’s monetary policy. The Governor of the Bank of Canada serves on the BIS Board of Directors and he is the current Chair of the BIS Audit Committee and former Chair of the Consultative Council for the Americas. Maintaining strategic working relationships with our international colleagues is an important part of the Governor’s role. Regular, open dialogue with our counterparts across the world provides us with invaluable insight into the global economy, helping us deliver on our mandate to promote the economic and financial welfare of Canadians.
We are not in a position to respond to your questions about fiscal policy or the debts of federal or provincial governments. You may wish to consult with your local MP or MLA on those questions.
.
For further information on the Bank’s roles and responsibilities and relevant economics concepts, please see our backgrounders section of our website.
.
I hope you will find this information helpful.
.
Kind regards,
2. Thoughts On The Response
(1) The Bank for International Settlements “allegedly” has no impact on Canadian monetary policy. However the BoC Governor sits on the BIS Board of Directors and is the head of the Audit Committee. Interesting.
(2) The Bank of Canada no longer funds Government spending in order to avoid inflation. Yet, would the spiraling debt cycle (over $1.2T paid, and $700B in debt) cause Government spending to eat away taxpayer dollars? This seems a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
(3) The source of borrowing didn’t change? This is a lie. The Bank of Canada used to lend the money (of course it had control over the money once). Now the money is “borrowed” from private sources.
(4) How does purchasing debt from foreign powers and foreign interests, instead of using the Bank of Canada, help Canadians? Remember, about 30% of the national debt is held by foreigners.
