Education Archives - Page 2 of 12

September 27, 2022September 28, 2022

University Of Calgary Professor Takes Action To Reinstate Mask Mandates

While most lockdown related lawsuits and human rights complaints aim at removing these infringements on human rights, others demand that they be reinstated. Here is another such case.

A Calgary man has filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission over the federal government’s decision to lift mask requirements on airplanes.

The decision, announced Monday, is part of a bundle of changes that come into effect Oct. 1. At that point, travellers will also no longer be required to wear masks on trains, provide proof of vaccination or submit public health information with the ArriveCan app.

“I was frankly dismayed when I heard the news,” said Dr. David Keegan, a family doctor who has a cardiopulmonary condition.

Keegan said that while airplanes do have filtration systems, they don’t completely eliminate the risk of COVID-19 transmission, especially if people are unmasked.

To be clear, nothing prevents, or will prevent this man from wearing a mask when he travels. Instead, his “human rights” complaint is to demand that everyone else be forced to.

He’s also insisting that others play along with his delusions about there being a virus in the first place. Pretty scary that these people are in positions of influence.

Interestingly, the CBC article covering the story, and related reprints, don’t mention that Keegan is a University of Calgary Professor. Did they not want this connection to be made public?

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta only lists a single David Keegan as having a license in that Province. So, it seems unlikely to be a duplicate, or a coincidence. Of course, we don’t want the wrong person to get mocked.

On Keegan’s Twitter profile, it turns out that his pinned tweet is the announcement that he’s filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This guy isn’t trying to hide the fact that he’s attempting to take people’s freedoms away. Amazingly, the idiots replying are cheering him on as some kind of a hero.

Keegan’s LinkedIn profile describes him as “Family Doc and Associate Dean, Faculty Development and Performance (Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary); Academic Family Physician”. He’s much more than just an employee, but an Associate Dean as well. (Archive here).

The University of Calgary has been very active in lobbying the various levels of Government for more money, and it shows. The school is routinely getting many millions in taxpayer handouts.

GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION	AMOUNT	MORE COMING?
Canada Foundation for Innovation	$7,898,000.00	YES
Canada Research Chairs	$8,126,000.00	YES
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)	$50,044,000.00	YES
Foreign	$34,573,000.00	YES
Health Canada (HC)	$707,000.00	YES
Municipal	$3,823,000.00	YES
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)	$30,820,000.00	YES
Other Federal	$43,087,000.00	YES
Other Provinces	$10,102,000.00	YES
Provincial	$692,013,000.00	YES
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)	$12,616,000.00	YES

Have to wonder about that $34.5 million in “foreign” funding.

Interestingly, although the University of Calgary itself isn’t listed as having received the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, or CEWS, the Pentecostal Ministries have. It’s no surprise that UCalgary is structured as a registered charity. In fact, a search flags 3 charities connected to this school. This is just another way to get money from the public.

Revenue Until March 2021
Receipted donations $43,667,964.00 (2.93%)
Non-receipted donations $154,181,263.00 (10.34%)
Gifts from other registered charities $47,805,468.00 (3.21%)
Government funding $794,689,349.00 (53.30%)
All other revenue $450,709,554.00 (30.23%)
Total revenue: $1,491,053,598.00

Expenses Until March 2021
Charitable programs $1,252,850,843.00 (89.28%)
Management and administration $128,575,275.00 (9.16%)
Fundraising $21,825,347.00 (1.56%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,403,251,465.00

Revenue Until March 2020
Receipted donations $70,957,295.00 (4.48%)
Non-receipted donations $184,837,402.00 (11.68%)
Gifts from other registered charities $36,304,564.00 (2.29%)
Government funding $806,786,736.00 (50.98%)
All other revenue $483,768,203.00 (30.57%)
Total revenue: $1,582,654,200.00

Expenses Until March 2020
Charitable programs $1,321,469,784.00 (88.08%)
Management and administration $153,149,342.00 (10.21%)
Fundraising $25,419,521.00 (1.69%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $347,506.00 (0.02%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,500,386,153.00

This “charity” has been taking in approximately $1.5 billion annually as of late. Of course, the public has to subsidize the donations made.

SCHOOL	DATE	AMOUNT
University of Calgary	April 2011	$100,000
University of Calgary	March 2012	$100,000
University of Calgary	October 2017	$320,729

The school has also received some donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in recent years. In fairness though, others have taken much more. See this from 2017.

While the CBC reports this as a “Calgary doctor”, let’s be clear: this is an Associate Dean at the University of Calgary. While he may have his own interests in doing this, can we really separate personal and professional lives?

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/david-keegan-human-rights-complaint-mask-mandate-airplane-1.6598062
(2) https://search.cpsa.ca/PhysicianProfile?e=9fd5d2c3-3bcc-43ad-9b7c-e45ba9e7c429&i=0
(3) https://twitter.com/drDavidKeegan
(4) https://twitter.com/drDavidKeegan/status/1574523390253477888
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-keegan-61707473/
(6) David Keegan _ LinkedIn Profile
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5009&regId=926282&blnk=1
(8) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(9) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=university+of+calgary&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=108102864RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(10) https://gatesfoundation.org
(11) https://ucalgary.ca/news/gates-foundation-interested-one-health-research-approach-ucalgary

September 21, 2022September 21, 2022

Challenge To University Of Lethbridge Vaccine Policy Tossed For “Mootness”

An Alberta Judge has dismissed an Application on the grounds that the issue is “moot”, and there’s no relief that can be realistically granted.

The hearing itself took place on May 5th and 6th, with the ruling just coming out. Of course, these mandates were still in place when the Application itself was originally filed.

The case involves a challenge to the “vaccine passport” system that had been in place, and the denial of a religious exemption. The school argued that since the policy has been rescinded, there’s no issue left to be decided.

Is The Application Moot?
[7] The Respondent argues that there is no longer a tangible or concrete dispute between the parties. The vaccination program which is the subject matter of this application was repealed after being in place approximately four months. Therefore, it is the Respondent’s position that any decision made by this Court as to the impact of the program on the Applicant’s Charter or other rights will have no practical effect on her ability to attend the University.

[8] The leading case regarding the principles of mootness remains Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 342 [Borowski]. The doctrine of mootness is an aspect of the general policy or practice that a court may decline to decide a case which raises merely a hypothetical or abstract question. If, subsequent to the initiation of the action or proceeding, events occur which affect the relationship of the parties so that no present live controversy exists which affects the rights of the parties, the case is said to be moot. The matter will therefore not be heard unless the court exercises its discretion to depart from that general policy: Borowski, at para 15.

[9] To determine whether an application is moot, a two-step analysis must be undertaken: first, to determine whether the required tangible and concrete dispute has disappeared and the issues have become academic; and second, if the answer to the first question is yes, to determine whether the court should exercise its discretion to hear the case: Borowski, at para 16.

[10] With respect to the first stage of the analysis, there must be a consideration of whether there remains a live controversy between the parties. A live controversy, in this context, involves whether there exists, on an objective assessment, a dispute between the parties the resolution of which will actually affect the parties’ rights or interests: The Alberta Teachers’ Association v Buffalo Trail Public Schools Regional Division No 28, 2022 ABCA 13, at para 34.

[11] It may well be, from a practical perspective, that there is no remedy that can be granted by the Court to rectify or ameliorate the impact of the alleged breaches of the Applicant’s rights. The Applicant is not seeking damages or other compensatory relief. Nor can the court provide any relief from future potential harm the vaccination policy may cause Ms. Nassichuk-Dean, as that policy is no longer in place and hasn’t been since March. Again, Ms. Nassichuk-Dean is not seeking injunctive or other relief for any anticipated rights breaches against her.

[12] Rather, the Applicant is seeking declarations that the application of the University’s COVID-19 policy violated her s. 7 Charter rights, and that the rejection of her application for a religious exemption from the policy breached her rights under the Alberta Human Rights Act.

Had the Applicant been asking for money, or some additional form of relief, it’s entirely possible the case would have kept going. But since the only issue was challenging the policy itself, it was determined that there’s no longer any issue to be heard.

Of course, what’s to stop the University of Lethbridge (or any school) from re-implementing such mandates in the future? There’s no assurance they won’t at some point.

On a side note: the University of Lethbridge, like other Canadian schools, is a registered charity. This means that it receives the benefits of many tax breaks ordinary citizens cannot get.

The school receives handouts from all levels of Government, so it’s unlikely that it will do anything to rock the boat. No college or university in Canada did anything to challenge or push back on vaccine or mask mandates. As with everything, follow the money.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2022/2022abkb629/2022abkb629.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2022/2022abkb629/2022abkb629.pdf
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5301&regId=924907
(4) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=lethbridge+university&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=119279248RR0001&dsrdPg=1

September 10, 2022September 10, 2022

O.C.T. Discipline Hearing To Be Held For Ryan Imgrund, Former “Pandemic” Expert

Ryan Imgrund made a name for himself with his endless “Covid-19 death wave” predictions. Despite working as a high school teacher for a career, he was touted by the media as an expert. Now, he’s back in the public spotlight for an entirely different reason.

The Ontario College of Teachers has sent notice of a discipline hearing relating to allegations involving some of his students. (See archive).

According to O.C.T. records, Imgrund was eligible to teach as of June 2003. April 2022, his license was temporarily suspended. It was cancelled completely in June of this year.

The complaint cites psychological or emotional abuse or students, as well as sexual abuse of at least one student. The specifics in the complaint are listed below.

The details (if true) allege a pattern of not respecting professional boundaries between himself and his student over a prolonged period. There are 5 students listed, with personal details redacted to protect their identities.

At this time, no dates for the hearing have yet been set. Nor is it clear how much time any further investigations will take.

This should be obvious, but will be mentioned anyway: at this point, these are only allegations. Nothing has yet been proven.

Imgrund had been covered on this site before, primarily because of his role in facilitating mass panic.

Since March 2020, he listed his work history as “Biostatistician / Corporate Consultant” and doing this as a form of self employment. Apparently, he earned a living “discovering, analyzing and interpreting scientific, mathematical, economic and retail trends”. All of that said, he was most well know for making doomsday predictions around virus infections.

But something else about his biography never made sense. His LinkedIn page states he was working at PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, from 2000 until 2009. (See archive). This doesn’t seem plausible, as he would have been a university junior at that time, and presumably very busy.

It also doesn’t add up since PHAC didn’t come into existence until 2004. It was done by Order in Council, and extensively outlined here. This is far more than simple resume padding.

In any event, Imgrund’s side gig as a television expert seems to have come to an end. He hasn’t appeared since news of the suspension broke earlier this year. We’ll have to see how events unfold.

(1) https://oct.ca/NOHStream.pdf?documentType=NOH&id=1077&lang=E
(2) Imgrund Discipline Hearing Notice
(3) https://oct.ca/members/complaints-and-discipline/disciplinary-hearing-details?RegistrationId=463065
(4) https://apps.oct.ca/FindATeacher/memberdetail?id=463065

(5) https://twitter.com/imgrund
(6) https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-imgrund-aa944b85/
(7) https://archive.ph/OkkFr
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/corporate/mandate/about-agency/history.html
(9) https://www.raptorsrepublic.com/2020/10/06/the-interview-ryan-imgrund-biostatistician-imgrund/
(10) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/statistician-worried-back-to-school-plan-risky-1.5671012
(11) https://www.sickkids.ca/siteassets/about/about-sickkids/sickkids-annual-report-2019-2020.pdf
(12) Sick Kids Hospital Major Donors
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-29-the-financial-ties-between-sick-kids-hospital-and-the-gates-foundation/
(14) https://www.newmarkettoday.ca/coronavirus-covid-19-local-news/how-a-newmarket-biostatistician-is-using-rt-to-track-the-impact-of-reopening-2515509 for them.
(15) https://southlake.ca/foundation/about/your-investment-in-southlake/

September 8, 2022

O.H.R.T./O.C.T. Okay Pushing Gender Ideology On Young Children

A recent ruling from the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has found that pushing gender ideology on children as young as 6 doesn’t amount to a violation of their rights.

It was also mentioned in the ruling that a complaint was filed with the O.C.T., who saw no issues in terms of professional standards of practice.

In some sense, this shouldn’t be a surprise. Considering that “human rights” now involve perpetuating this. Curiously, had the teacher said that there are only boys and girls, the H.R.T. would likely have taken that much more seriously.

Here are the events as described in the decision:

[16] P.B. described that in March 2018, on a Saturday morning at the breakfast table, when the family was having a conversation about family roles, N.B. told her parents that there were no such things as boys and girls. In response to her father’s statement that when she grew up she could be a mother, N.B. apparently said to her parents that she did not want to be a “mommy” when she grew up, and she wanted a dog instead. She apparently also told her parents that she knew that you can go to a doctor to change your body, if you don’t want to have a baby.

[17] In response to her parents’ query about these statements, N.B. told her parents that the statement about boys and girls, as well as about the role of a doctor in changing a person’s body was apparently made in her Grade 1 classroom in January, although N.B. did not mention it to her parents until March 2018.

[18] Also in March 2018, N.B. allegedly told her father on the way home from school one day that her teacher had said at some point that “there was no difference between boys and girls” and further that “boys can be girls and girls can be boys”.

[19] These statements regarding boys and girls, as cited by N.B.’s father J.B., as well as some of N.B.’s follow up comments about gender issues, coupled with her drawing of a gender spectrum on the white board in her bedroom, allegedly concerned P.B. sufficiently that she decided to “look into the matter and take some follow up action”.

Forget the “human rights” element for a moment. This shouldn’t be taught in schools at all, let alone to children who are barely out of kindergarten.

The document goes on a length about consistencies in the witnesses’ memories. However, this is beside the point, as the H.R.T. most likely would have thrown the case out regardless of how certain everyone was on their facts.

(Paragraph 105) The students are exposed to gender-spectrum-drawings, which was supposedly shocking and distressing by iteself.

(Paragraph 112) It was also admitted that complaints had been filed with the O.C.T., or Ontario College of Teachers. However, they were dismissed since none of this amounted to a failure of professional standards.

(Paragraph 133) the H.R.T. seems to play dumb with the claims of “cultural colonization” and a way of “reprogramming a child’s identity”. Apparently, confusing children doesn’t amount to violating their human rights in any way.

(Paragraph 139) There’s apparently a Gender Identity and Gender Expression Guide to Support Our Students. This document is based upon the Code, as well as the Human Rights Commission’s “Policy on preventing discrimination because of gender identity and gender expression”. In other words, the so-called human rights were used as a justification to push gender ideology in the first place.

(Paragraph 143) The Grade 1 teacher admits that there is the motivation of acceptance, in not teaching that there are in fact real differences between boys and girls.

The decision goes on at length about how “gender expression” is now entrenched as a human right. Interestingly, girls and boys who are content with reality are forced to put up with such things. There’s no right to be protected from this ideology.

Throughout the ruling — and likely many others — physical and biological reality is substituted for “identity”, and for “expression”. Genuine truths don’t seem to matter if someone gets offended over this.

Ultimately, the case was thrown out. Pushing gender fluidity on young children wasn’t against the Human Rights Code. Apparently, it doesn’t go against the College of Teachers’ professional standards either.

Incidents like that are why more and more parents are looking at homeschooling.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2022/2022hrto1044/2022hrto1044.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2022/2022hrto1044/2022hrto1044.pdf

June 30, 2022

Gov’t Recommends More Pathways For Hong Kong Residents To Come

The Canadian Government has posted its take on the report by the Immigration Committee in Parliament. This concerns the topic: “Safe Haven in Canada: Special Immigration and Refugee Measures are Urgently Needed for the People of Hong Kong”.

The responses are not encouraging. Overall, Ottawa seems to favour more people coming to Canada, and less accountability overall. While most of the recommendations are specific to Hong Kong, there’s little interest in legitimate security concerns related to China.

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.

2. Recommendations From June 2022 Report

Recommendation 1
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada issue study permits to Hong Kong applicants who have been accepted in a study program at an institution with a COVID-19 readiness plan, regardless of their age.

Recommendation 2
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada undertake to extend the young professionals Working Holiday work permit for Hong Kong residents to two years and to include persons up to 35 years of age.

Recommendation 3
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada extend the criteria for eligibility for the three-year open work permit to include all persons with a minimum of 60 credits or its equivalent of post-secondary education regardless of when this education was completed.

Disagreed with, if only because there are already of pathways available. This is a response that will come up over and over again.

Recommendations 4 and 5
#4 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada adopt an inclusive approach and develop a pathway to permanent residence for former Hong Kong residents based on a broad range of work experience, and requiring minimal language and education levels.
#5 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada quickly develop and implement a pathway to permanent residence for Hong Kong residents who complete their post-secondary studies in Canada, ensuring that this pathway remains available to all Hong Kong residents studying at designated learning institutions.

Recommendations 6 and 7
#6 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada create a temporary public policy to grant refugee status to pro-democracy activists within Hong Kong and within third countries, which will enable their resettlement to Canada.
#7 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada implement a temporary public policy to bring Hong Kong residents at risk to Canada on temporary resident visas regardless of their age.

Recommendation 8
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada partner with designated non-governmental organizations to identify Hong Kong pro-democracy activists in need of safe haven in Canada on a temporary resident visa, to certify Hong Kong refugees, and to facilitate both classes of Hong Kong residents at risk to travel from Hong Kong to third countries and to Canada, and redevelop a refugee stream similar to the former source country program.

Recommendation 9
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada acknowledge the urgency of the situation and that, given the exit ban will take effect on 1 August 2021, the Minister immediately respond with an expansion of humanitarian measures to the current immigration and refugee measures to support the people of Hong Kong.

Recommendation 10
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada issue travel documents to residents of Hong Kong at risk of persecution and exempt them from non-essential pandemic travel restrictions, following all public health guidelines.

Recommendation 11
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada implement a temporary public policy to create an expedited pathway to permanent residence for Hong Kong residents in Canada or abroad before the exit ban comes into effect on 1 August 2021.

Recommendation 12
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada promote its family reunification stream to family members of Hong Kong residents looking to come to Canada and create a temporary public policy to also include extended family members of Canadian citizens and of pro-democracy activists living in Canada.

Recommendation 13
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada develop a temporary public policy to allow former Canadian citizens to return to Canada as permanent residents.

Recommendation 14
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, in partnership with Public Services and Procurement Canada, and, as needed, other departments and agencies, investigate Canada’s Visa Application Centres in China, especially in regard to personal data leaks due to employee coercion, and that it tables its findings with the Committee.

Recommendation 15
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada terminate its contract with VFS Global in China and bring the services back in-house at Canadian diplomatic missions in China.

The Government disagrees with recommendations #14 and #15, which is interesting. There seems to be little urgency to investigate, or replace a private agency (despite concerns) that is processing the visas for Chinese nationals.

Doesn’t seem like there is much interest in protecting Canadian borders or sovereignty.

3. Important Links

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/CIMM/report-1/
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/CIMM/report-1/response-8512-441-10
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/441/CIMM/GovResponse/RP11842881/441_CIMM_Rpt01_GR/DepartmentOfCitizenshipAndImmigration-e.pdf
(4) Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Hong Kong

June 1, 2022June 2, 2022

Source Countries For International Students: 2004-2013

Ever wonder how many international students are in Canada, and where they come from? Well, we have some data available, courtesy of the Federal Government. Let’s take a look at this troubling pattern.

The replacement agenda (a.k.a. the Kalergi Plan) is alive and well. And flooding the country with students from abroad is just one way to help implement it. Colleges and universities get much needed cash, and students get access to life in the West.

One thing to note: it appears that the data from these tables, page 44, refers to the TOTAL number of international students within Canada. This is not the same as the number of visas issued annually.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2004
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
China	39,954	23.7	1
South Korea	26,700	15.8	2
United States	12,807	7.6	3
Japan	8,983	5.3	4
United Kingdom, Colonies	6,685	4.0	5
India	6,680	4.0	6
France	6,677	4.0	7
Taiwan	5,247	3.1	8
Mexico	3,384	2.0	9
Germany	2,294	1.4	10
Iran	2,110	1.4	11
Hong Kong	1,993	1.2	12
Pakistan	1,836	1.1	13
Vietnam	1,751	1.0	14
Bangladesh	1,731	1.0	15
TOTAL — TOP 15	122,147	72.4	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	46,492	27.6	—
GRAND TOTAL	168,639	100	—

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2005
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
China	40,021	23.5	1
South Korea	27,596	16.2	2
United States	13,130	7.7	3
Japan	9,057	5.3	4
India	7,153	4.2	5
France	6,952	4.1	6
United Kingdom, Colonies	5,944	3.5	7
Taiwan	4,928	2.9	8
Mexico	3,601	2.1	9
Iran	2,558	1.5	10
Germany	2,462	1.4	11
Hong Kong	2,397	1.4	12
Pakistan	1,795	1.1	13
Bangladesh	1,718	1.0	14
Vietnam	1,695	1.0	15
TOTAL — TOP 15	131,007	76.9	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	39,461	23.1	—
GRAND TOTAL	170,468	100	—

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2006
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
China	39,993	23.2	1
South Korea	29,551	17.1	2
United States	12,920	7.5	3
Japan	8,310	4.8	4
France	8,125	4.7	5
India	7,464	4.3	6
United Kingdom, Colonies	5,404	3.1	7
Taiwan	4,853	2.8	8
Mexico	3,839	2.2	9
Hong Kong	2,663	1.5	10
Germany	2,588	1.5	11
Iran	2,342	1.4	12
Pakistan	1,839	1.1	13
Morocco	1,723	1.0	14
Bangladesh	1,651	0.9	15
TOTAL — TOP 15	133,265	77.3	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	39,110	22.7	—
GRAND TOTAL	172,375	100	—

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2007
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
China	41,113	22.9	1
South Korea	30,676	17.1	2
United States	12,835	7.2	3
France	9,005	5.0	4
India	7,929	4.4	5
Japan	7,662	4.3	6
United Kingdom, Colonies	5,021	2.8	7
Taiwan	4,683	2.6	8
Mexico	3,861	2.2	9
Germany	2,947	1.6	10
Hong Kong	2,812	1.5	11
Iran	2,390	1.3	12
Brazil	1,959	1.1	13
Morocco	1,930	1.1	14
Nigeria	1,919	1.1	15
TOTAL — TOP 15	136,742	76.3	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	42,413	23.7	—
GRAND TOTAL	179,155	100	—

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2008
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
China	43,101	23.4	1
South Korea	28,976	15.7	2
United States	12,226	6.6	3
France	9,377	5.1	4
India	8,286	4.5	5
Japan	6,592	3.6	6
United Kingdom	4,627	2.5	7
Saudi Arabia	4,463	2.4	8
Taiwan	4,122	2.2	9
Mexico	3,879	2.1	10
Germany	3,141	1.7	11
Hong Kong	2,912	1.6	12
Iran	2,649	1.4	13
Brazil	2,396	1.3	14
Nigeria	2,178	1.2	15
TOTAL — TOP 15	138,925	75.4	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	45,254	24.6	—
GRAND TOTAL	184,179	100	—

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2009
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
China	50,446	24.7	1
South Korea	27,166	13.3	2
United States	12,128	5.9	3
India	11,682	5.7	4
France	10,358	5.1	5
Saudi Arabia	8,413	4.1	6
Japan	6,113	3.0	7
Mexico	4,184	2.1	8
United Kingdom, Colonies	4,151	2.0	9
Taiwan	3,816	1.9	10
Iran	3,507	1.7	11
Germany	3,102	1.5	12
Hong Kong	2,956	1.4	13
Nigeria	2,820	1.4	14
Brazil	2,415	1.2	15
TOTAL — TOP 15	153,257	75.1	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	50,795	24.9	—
GRAND TOTAL	204,052	100	—

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2010
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
China	57,339	25.4	1
South Korea	25,301	11.2	2
India	20,281	9.0	3
Saudi Arabia	12,267	5.4	4
United States	12,156	5.4	5
France	11,365	5.0	6
Japan	5,874	2.6	7
Mexico	4,384	1.9	8
Iran	3,930	1.7	9
Nigeria	3,648	1.6	10
Taiwan	3,639	1.6	11
United Kingdom, Colonies	3,563	1.5	12
Germany	3,142	1.4	13
Hong Kong	2,864	1.3	14
Brazil	2,722	1.2	15
TOTAL — TOP 15	172,475	76.5	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	52,920	23.5	—
GRAND TOTAL	225,395	100	—

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2011
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
China	68,469	27.5	1
India	27,339	11.0	2
South Korea	22,631	9.1	3
Saudi Arabia	14,180	5.7	4
France	12,715	5.1	5
United States	12,191	4.9	6
Japan	6,018	2.4	7
Mexico	4,801	1.9	8
Iran	4,755	1.9	9
Nigeria	4,432	1.8	10
Taiwan	3,370	1.4	11
United Kingdom, Colonies	3,360	1.4	12
Brazil	3,270	1.3	13
Pakistan	3,161	1.3	14
Vietnam	3,110	1.3	15
TOTAL — TOP 15	190,432	76.5	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	58,395	23.5	—
GRAND TOTAL	248,827	100	—

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2012
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
China	81,444	29.5	1
India	32,243	11.7	2
South Korea	20,285	7.4	3
France	14,748	5.3	4
Saudi Arabia	13,930	5.0	5
United States	12,302	4.5	6
Japan	6,486	2.4	7
Nigeria	5,481	2.0	8
Iran	5,229	1.9	9
Brazil	5,126	1.8	10
Mexio	4,977	1.8	11
Pakistan	3,588	1.3	12
Vietnam	3,523	1.3	13
Taiwan	3,358	1.2	14
United Kingdom, Colonies	3,352	1.2	15
TOTAL — TOP 15	208,961	75.6	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	66,922	24.5	—
GRAND TOTAL	275,883	100	—

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2013
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
China	95,731	31.4	1
India	34,887	11.4	2
South Korea	19,123	6.3	3
France	16,486	5.4	4
Saudi Arabia	13,955	4.6	5
United States	12,263	4.0	6
Brazil	7,757	2.5	7
Nigeria	6,903	2.3	8
Japan	6,604	2.2	9
Mexico	5,306	1.7	10
Iran	5,177	1.7	11
Vietnam	4,173	1.4	12
Pakistan	4,045	1.3	13
Taiwan	3,500	1.1	14
United Kingdom, Colonies	3,462	1.1	15
TOTAL — TOP 15	239,372	78.6	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	65,504	21.4	—
GRAND TOTAL	304,876	100	—

Again, this refers to the total number of students in the country, not the amount of visas issued in any given year. Needless to say, those numbers continue to climb as well. Note: page 48 of the same document gives even higher totals for the same years.

For a reference point, consider page 15 of the 2020 Canada Annual Immigration Report to Parliament. It was reported that:

“In 2019, 827,586 international students held valid study permits in Canada. Of these, 402,427 new study permits were issued (a 15% increase from 2018).”

This means that the number of foreign students has nearly tripled from 2013 to 2019/2020. This is a major source of people entering the country.

Keep in mind, there are many, MANY pathways for international students to stay longer, or transition into permanent residents. The probable reason for not being open about this is to minimize the backlash from the already high immigration rates.

A little self promotion: Borderless Canada is still available online. Learn about what’s been going on in this country. Virtually all major issues can be directly tied to immigration and border security, and it’s not racist or bigoted to discuss these hard truths.

(B.0) https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.505817/publication.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/statistics-open-data.html
(B.1) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/cic/MP43-333-1999-eng.pdf
Canada Immigration Facts And Figures 1998
(B.2) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/MP43-333-2000E.pdf
(B.3) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/cic/Ci1-8-10-2013-eng.pdf
Temporary Migration In Canada 2004-2013

Category: Education

University Of Calgary Professor Takes Action To Reinstate Mask Mandates

Like this:

Challenge To University Of Lethbridge Vaccine Policy Tossed For “Mootness”

Like this:

O.C.T. Discipline Hearing To Be Held For Ryan Imgrund, Former “Pandemic” Expert

Like this:

O.H.R.T./O.C.T. Okay Pushing Gender Ideology On Young Children

Like this: