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

Parliament’s Guidelines On Euthanizing The Mentally Ill

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), a.k.a. euthanasia or assisted suicide, had been touted as proponents as having an extremely limited scope. In other words, it would be available to people with terminal illnesses, who were otherwise living in extreme pain.

Bill C-14 was supposed to be limited to terminal cases. In the next session, Bill C-7 increased the eligibility options. Suddenly, even people with serious mental illnesses were able to obtain euthanasia, provided the mental problem wasn’t the sole reason.

And now, we reach the point where people whose SOLE problem is a mental illness can be put down with the help of so-called medical professionals. The people pushing the slippery slope argument have been proven correct once again.

An interim report was released in June 2022, and it’s widely expected that expanding the scope will become law very soon.

MAID PRACTICE STANDARDS

Recommendation 1: Development of MAiD practice standards
The federal, provincial and territorial governments should facilitate the collaboration of physician and nurse regulatory bodies in the development of Standards of Practice for physicians and nurse practitioners for the assessment of MAiD requests in situations that raise questions about incurability, irreversibility, capacity, suicidality, and the impact of structural vulnerabilities. These standards should elaborate upon the subject matter of recommendations 2–13.

INTERPRETING GRIEVOUS AND IRREMEDIABLE MEDICAL CONDITION

Recommendation 2: Establishing incurability
MAiD assessors should establish incurability with reference to treatment attempts made up to that point, outcomes of those treatments, and severity and duration of illness, disease or disability. It is not possible to provide fixed rules for how many treatment attempts, how many kinds of treatments, and over what period of time as this will vary according to the nature and severity of medical conditions the person has and their overall health status. This must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Panel is of the view that the requester and assessors must come to a shared understanding that the person has a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability. As with many chronic conditions, the incurability of a mental disorder cannot be established in the absence of multiple attempts at interventions with therapeutic aims.

Recommendation 3: Establishing irreversibility
MAiD assessors should establish irreversibility with reference to interventions tried that are designed to improve function, including: recognized rehabilitative and supportive measures that have been tried up to that point, outcomes of those interventions, and the duration of decline. It is not possible to provide fixed rules for how many attempts at interventions, how many types of interventions, and over how much time, as this will vary according to a requester’s baseline function as well as life goals. Therefore, this must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Panel is of the view that the requester and assessors must come to a shared understanding that the person is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability.

Recommendation 4: Understanding enduring and Intolerable suffering
MAiD assessors should come to an understanding with the requester that the illness, disease or disability or functional decline causes the requester enduring and intolerable physical or psychological suffering.

VULNERABILITIES

Recommendation 5: Comprehensive capacity assessments
MAiD assessors should undertake thorough and, where appropriate, serial assessments of a requester’s decision-making capacity in accordance with clinical standards and legal criteria. These assessments should be consistent with approaches laid out in standardized capacity evaluation tools.

Recommendation 6: Means available to relieve suffering
To ensure all requesters have access to the fullest possible range of social supports which could potentially contribute to reducing suffering, the Panel recommends that ’community services’ in Track 2 Safeguard 241.2(3.1)(g) should be interpreted as including housing and income supports as means available to relieve suffering and should be offered to MAiD requesters, where appropriate.

Recommendation 7: Interpretation of track 2 safeguard 241.2(3.1)(h) the person has given serious consideration to those means
Serious consideration should be interpreted to mean genuine openness to the means available to relieve suffering and how they could make a difference in the person’s life.

Recommendation 8: Consistency, durability, and well-considered nature of a maid request
Assessors should ensure that the requester’s wish for death is consistent with the person’s values and beliefs, unambiguous and rationally considered during a period of stability, not during a period of crisis.

Recommendation 9: Situations of involuntariness
Persons in situations of involuntariness for periods shorter than six months should be assessed following this period to minimize the potential contribution of the involuntariness on the request for MAiD. For those who are repeatedly or continuously in situations of involuntariness, (e.g., six months or longer, or repeated periods of less than six months), the institutions responsible for the person should ensure that assessments for MAiD are performed by assessors who do not work within or are associated with the institution.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Recommendation 10: Independent assessor with expertise
The requester should be assessed by at least one assessor with expertise in the condition(s). In cases involving MAiD MD-SUMC, the assessor with expertise in the condition should be a psychiatrist independent from the treating team/provider. Assessors with expertise in the person’s condition(s) should review the diagnosis, and ensure the requester is aware of all reasonable options for treatment and has given them serious consideration.

Recommendation 11: Involvement of other healthcare professionals
Assessors should involve medical subspecialists and other healthcare professionals for consultations and additional expertise where necessary.

Recommendation 12: Discussion with treating team and collateral information
• If the requester’s primary healthcare provider is not one of the assessors, assessors should obtain input from that person. When the requester’s clinical care is shared by members of a multidisciplinary healthcare team, assessors should solicit their input as well.
• With a requester’s consent, assessors and providers shall obtain collateral information relevant to eligibility and capacity assessment. This should include reviewing medical records, prior MAiD assessments, and discussions with family members or significant others. Care must be taken to determine that obtaining collateral information will not be harmful to the requester.

Recommendation 13: Challenging interpersonal dynamics
Assessors and providers should be self-reflective and examine their reactions to those they assess. If their reactions compromise their ability to carry out the assessment in accordance with professional norms, they should seek supervision from mentors and colleagues, and/or discontinue involvement in the assessment process. The practitioner should adhere to any local policies concerning withdrawal from a MAiD assessment and onward referral.

IMPLEMENTATION

Recommendation 14: Consultations with first nations, inuit and métis peoples
Consultation between health regulatory bodies in each province and territory with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples must aim to create practice standards with respect to MAiD MD-SUMC, and MAiD more generally, that incorporate Indigenous perspectives and are relevant to their communities.

Recommendation 15: Training of assessors and providers in specialized topics
To support consistent application of the law and to ensure high quality and culturally sensitive care, assessors and providers should participate in training opportunities that address topics of particular salience to MAiD MD-SUMC. These include, but are not limited to: capacity assessment, trauma-informed care and cultural safety.

Recommendation 16: Prospective oversight
Given its concurrent jurisdiction in relation to MAiD, the federal government should play an active role in supporting the development of a model of prospective oversight for all or some Track 2 cases that could be adapted by provinces and territories.

Recommendation 17: Case-based quality assurance and education
The federal government should play an active role in supporting the development of provincial/territorial systems of MAiD case review for educational and quality improvement purposes.

Recommendation 18: Modifications to data collection under the federal maid monitoring system
Data related to specific topics (eligibility, supported decision-making, means available to relieve suffering, refusal of means available, and residence and legal status) should be collected in the MAiD monitoring system in addition to data already collected under the 2018 Regulations. These data can be used to assess whether key areas of concern raised about MAiD MD-SUMC and complex Track 2 cases discussed in this report are being addressed by the clinical practices recommended.

Recommendation 19: Periodic, federally funded research
The federal government should fund both targeted and investigator-initiated periodic research on questions relating to the practice of MAiD (including but not only MAiD MD-SUMC).

If nothing else, Recommendation #8 points out that this should only be an option during a period of stability, and not during a crisis.

Keep in mind, this is only an interim report. There’s nothing to suggest this won’t be expanded on at some later point.

Since its inception, the rates of people receiving assistance in suicide has increased year over year. This will surely raise those numbers even more.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/Work
(2) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/AMAD/report-1/
(3) https://parl.ca/Content/Committee/441/AMAD/Reports/RP11896958/amadrp01/amadrp01-e.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/canadas-bill-c-14-assisted-suicide/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/euthanasia-3-bill-c-7-to-expand-scope-of-assisted-suicide/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/recent-statistics-on-euthanasia-assisted-suicide-in-canada/

Recent Statistics On Euthanasia (Assisted Suicide) In Canada

Some statistics are available for the totals of assisted suicide, a.k.a. euthanasia. Nearly 20,000 people have been put down, according to data from StatsCan. It will be interesting to see if there is a major spike in 2021, given harsher lockdown measures and vaccine passports.

Given the prolonged (and intentional) infliction of mental, emotional and financial harms, how many otherwise normal and healthy people have been driven to the point where this is seriously contemplated as an option?

YEAR CARRIED OUT
2017 2,838
2018 4,478
2019 5,425
2020 7,383

It’s interesting that this is pushed so heavily by liberals, who pretend to be adamantly in favour of protecting the rights of vulnerable people. There’s considerable overlap with supporting abortion, and the LGBTQ agenda. These are all things that have the effect of driving down the population.

In 2020, this increased to 7,383 deaths (2.4% of all deaths in Canada), representing a 36.0% increase in the number of MAID recipients from 2019 to 2020. As for the reasons Canadians are supposedly seeking early death, these are listed:

PERCENTAGE REASON SOUGHT
67.5% Cancer
12.4% Cardiovascular
11.2% Chronic Respiratory

There’s also some data for people who’ve changed their minds. The numbers don’t add up to 100%, as many checked off more than 1 reason.

PERCENTAGE REASONS SOUGHT
66.4% Changed Their Mind
47.8% Palliative Measures Are Sufficient
12.1% Family Members Don’t Support MAiD
1.3% Unknown Reason

In 2020, approximately 2.5% of people who previously applied for euthanasia changed their minds. It’s worth pointing out that withdrawal (of consent) immediately before MAID was 22.0%, or nearly a quarter of those.

It gets worse. New changes are expected to take place in 2023 which will allow mentally ill people to be euthanized (even if that was their only condition).

If a mental illness is the only medical condition leading you to consider MAID, you are not eligible to seek MAID at this time. Under the new changes made to the law, the exclusion will remain in effect until March 17, 2023.

This temporary exclusion provides the Government of Canada and health professional bodies more time to consider how MAID can be provided safely to those whose only medical condition is a mental illness.

To support this work, the government initiated an expert review to provide recommendations on protocols, guidance and safeguards for those with a mental illness seeking MAID.

After March 17, 2023, people with a mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition will have access to MAID if they meet all of the eligibility requirements and the practitioners fulfill the safeguards that are put in place for this group of people.

If you have a mental illness along with other medical conditions, you may be eligible to seek MAID.

Eligibility is always assessed on an individual basis, taking into account all of the relevant circumstances. However, you must meet all the criteria to be eligible for medical assistance in dying.

In other words, it will soon be legal to euthanize people SOLELY for having mental illnesses. People who have them can still receive MAiD today, as long as there is additionally some other condition that qualifies.

Of course, this raises all sorts of other issues, such as exploitation and informed consent. Who will really be making these decisions?

(1) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220110/dq220110d-eng.htm
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying-annual-report-2019.html
(3) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying/annual-report-2020.html
(4) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/220110/dq220110d-eng.pdf?st=okhC30sr
(5) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.html

World Circular Economy Forum, Related Groups

Have you heard about the World Circular Economy Forum? If not, let’s take a look at what’s going on over here. This is a collection of people who devise ways to make the economy function in a waste free world.

At first, this organization seems to present as a large scale recycling scheme, devoted to reducing garbage and pollution. While there is truth in that, it appears the goals are much larger.

The first forum took place in 2017, and the most recent one was hosted in 2021. That said, 2017 is an interesting year, since that’s when the Canadian budget started pumping money into alternative protein sources.

It’s a bit amusing that this group goes out of its way to have a name as close as possible to the World Economic Forum. Did they thing no one would notice? Or that no one would care? Anyhow, let’s see who’s supposedly running this thing.

Partners include:

  • African Circular Economy Alliance
  • Circular Economy Leadership Canada
  • City of Toronto
  • Ellen MacArthur Foundation
  • European Circular Economy Stakeholders Platform
  • European Union
  • Finnish Government
  • International Chamber of Commerce
  • Government of Canada
  • Government of the Netherlands
  • United Nations Environmental Program

Strangely, I don’t recall any public figures campaigning on becoming part of such an organization. Nor does there seem to have been anything in the way of media coverage. But at least we aren’t forced to help finance this “circular economy” fad, are we?

It turns out, that we will be. At least that’s what this 2021 report makes pretty clear. Like other eco initiatives, this will require lots of start-up money.

[Page 3]
The current state of circular finance
.
Despite the lack of harmonized frameworks, taxonomies, and metrics, financial institutions are beginning to move forward with initiatives to advance circular finance solutions in various ways. Globally, some financial institutions have set multi-billion dollar targets for investing in circular deals. Large multilateral development banks are supporting financial institutions in developing structured frameworks to accommodate innovative financial solutions and advisory services. A report authored by Patrick Schröder and Jan Raes and published by Chatham House titled, “Financing an inclusive circular economy: De-risking investments for circular business models and the SDGs,” highlights the importance of public investment and stimulus packages to de-risk and incentivize financial investments in circular models.

In order to get this going, billions of dollars will need to be pumped into it. Note: this doesn’t refer to any accounting, just an idea in broad strokes. The report continues:

[Page 8]
Circular economy opportunities and priorities are increasingly intersecting with broader ESG considerations such as biodiversity, equity, diversity and inclusion, and climate action goals, although the intersections are not yet well understood. Investment in circular business strategies and operations can result in significant positive social, environmental, and economic benefits. Circular businesses are creating more resilient green jobs and skills that will be needed in a low-carbon future. For instance, the Share, Reuse, Repair Initiative’s Just Circular Recovery and Transition project brings together circular innovators and community organizations to advance employment opportunities within marginalized communities. Additionally, circular businesses are prompting consumers to have conversations around lighter living and to make more sustainable choices.

[Page 8]
A study by the Ellen McArthur Foundation shows that 45% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are associated with products and food. Achieving net-zero commitments will require reducing embodied carbon through circular strategies, such as designing for reuse and remanufacturing, product-as-a-service models, and advanced recycling. For instance, the Ellen McArthur foundation estimates that remanufacturing and reusing an engine reduces carbon intensity by 85%

This also ties in with the idea of “alternative” protein sources and eating bugs. After all, if traditional food sources are considered to not be environmentally friendly, they need to be phased out.

It turns out that taxpayer dollars are being used for the “circular economy” initiative, even if they aren’t being directly given to this organization. Here are some of those grants:

And in a turn of events, Canadian taxpayers is also giving large amounts of money directly to the World Economic Forum. In fact, there is a lot they are forced to finance.

RECIPIENT DATE DATE
Accelerating Sustainability Events Management Inc Jul 28, 2021 $175,000.00
Carboncure Technologies Inc Jan 8, 2021 $2,026,500.00
City Of Guelph Mar 13, 2020 $10,000,000.00
Collège D’Enseignement Général Et Professionnel Feb 6, 2020 $2,000,000.00
Conference Board Of Canada Mar 31, 2021 $390,000.00
Council Of The Great Lakes Region Mar 18, 2020 $553,000.00
Distillerie Maison Alfred Inc. Dec 5, 2021 $30,476.00
Gabriola Island Recycling Organization Mar 24, 2022 $98,000.00
Global Centre For Indigenomics Oct 27, 2021 $49,900.00
Keddie, Leanne Mar 15, 2022 $234,045.00
Leading Change For Young Professionals Jul 28, 2021 $299,875.00
Natural Step (Canada) Inc. Feb 21, 2019 $299,875.00
Ontario Genomics Institute Oct 1, 2021 $1,262,661.00
Leadership Coalition, Natural Step Canada Inc Mar 18, 2020 $175,000.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc. Feb 1, 2019 $170,900.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc. Sep 16, 2021 $460,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc. May 31, 2021 $30,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc. May 31, 2021 $50,000.00
Tgm Tours Inc. Jan 25, 2021 $143,000.00
University Of British Columbia Mar 18, 2022 $1,040,000.00
World Economic Forum Dec 23, 2014 $1,000,000.00
World Economic Forum Sep 29, 2015 $6,000,000.00
World Economic Forum Dec 14, 2015 $10,000,000.00
World Economic Forum Dec 3, 2018 $52,925.00
World Economic Forum Apr 25, 2019 $999,580.00
World Economic Forum Jan 17, 2020 $500,000.00
World Economic Forum Mar 16, 2020 $5,933,063.00

The University of British Columbia is a registered charity, so it already receives a favourable tax rate on its income.

This is eye-catching, this grant to the World Economic Forum, Center for 4th Industrial Revolution. Isn’t that the name of one of Klaus Schwab’s books? Isn’t this all supposed to be just a conspiracy theory?

It’s also worth mentioning that both Carboncure Technologies Inc. and the Conference Board Of Canada were receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, over the last few years. This is run by the C.R.A. and is used to help pay employees’ wages.

There is a corresponding group here called Circular Economy Leadership Canada. Its partners include many well known chains. It states on its main page that:

“We’re collectively committing to support the U.N. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 on responsible consumption and production, and to substantially reduce waste, in all of its forms, by 2030.”

In other words, it’s helping to implement parts of Agenda 2030. The organization just needs large amounts of financial assistance (continuously) to make this happen.

Goal #2 in the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda is ending hunger in all its forms. One of the methods pushed is phasing out traditional agriculture with alternative protein sources, such as bugs.

Goal #13 in the UNSDA is preventing climate change. There is actually considerable overlap with #2. By stating that certain agricultural practices cause these changes, it provides a further excuse to further shut down farms.

Goal #12 ties in to both #2 and #13. This calls for creating “sustainable food and consumption patterns”. By saying that current models do not suffice in feeding everyone, while asserting they cause climate change, this goal is able to solve the other two. It’s another instance of causing the problem, getting a reaction, then proposing a solution.

A cynic may wonder just how literally the term “circular economy” is meant to be taken. After all, there are efforts to get people in the West eating bugs. After humans are dead and buried, presumably they’ll be eaten by bugs themselves.

(1) https://www.wcef2021.com/
(2) https://www.wcef2021.com/about/
(3) https://circulareconomyleaders.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WCEF-Financing-the-Circular-Economy-What-We-Heard-Report-20211015-EN1.pdf
(4) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/
(5) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/ic,230-2018-2019-04-0189,current
(6) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(7) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

FOOD SERIES:
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/cricket-production-subsidies-aspire-food-group/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/budget-2017-subsidizing-the-phase-out-of-meat-in-canada/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/holomodor-2-0-coming-or-all-just-a-coincidence/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/nacia-and-insect-consumption-alternative-protein-market/

Canadian Forces To Water Down Dress Code, Appearances For Troops

One would think that this announcement is satire or parody, but it’s not. Under the guise of “being inclusive”, the Canadian military plans to water down its dress code standards. This is so absurd that it hardly requires commentary.

What are some of the changes that will take place?

General
Why are changes to the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions being introduced now?

Discussions have been ongoing for quite some time – the decision to update the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions was not made lightly, and much thought was given to the approach because of the exacting specifications as to the dress and appearance of our military in various scenarios. Many discussions were required, including with the Defence Advisory Groups, Gender Advisors, with current military members as well as the next generation of Canadians who will follow us. The bottom line is, the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions are about fifty years old and so the policy as a whole was overdue for revision. The appearance of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has not kept pace with the Canadian society which it serves.

When will the changes to the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions take effect?

The updated Dress Instructions will take effect in early September 2022. This will allow time for CAF Members and leaders at all levels to review and understand the changes.

Who makes the decisions about the Dress Instructions? Is there some process you follow or is your Dress and Ceremonial Section just doing what it feels is appropriate?

In the matter of military dress and appearance, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) and Chief of Military Personnel (through the Dress and Ceremonial Section of the Directorate of History and Heritage) are advised by:
.
the environmental Commanders of the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force, who are the principal advisers on Navy, Army and Air Force distinctive environmental uniforms (DEU);
the National Defence Clothing and Dress Committee (NDCDC), chaired by Assistant CMP, which provides the focal point for coordinating the views of all environments and organizations, and approves routine changes within established policy (see paragraphs 11. to 14.); and
personnel branch advisers, who submit routine comments through the NDCDC.
In accordance with the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions, Commanders of Commands are delegated the authority to establish rules for the design and wear of their respective operational orders of dress.

Commanders at all levels are charged with ensuring that personnel under their command, whether environmentally or extra-environmentally employed, are dressed in accordance with the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions.

What if a CAF member’s religious beliefs require them to dress in a way that isn’t covered by the new Dress Instructions? Or conversely, what if their appearance does not conform to the regulations outlined in Section 2 – Appearance but it conforms to their cultural beliefs?

One of the goals of the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions update was to make the rules more inclusive and therefore limit the need for accommodations. However, accommodations will always be available to CAF members who have special requirements related to religious or spiritual belief. Members should communicate these requirements with their chain of command, as leaders retain the right to order restrictions based on the need to meet safety and operational requirements.

The following text has been removed: “Behaviour such as chewing gum, slouching, placing hands in pockets, smoking or eating on the street and walking hand in hand, is forbidden.” Does that mean CAF members can now do all those things when in uniform?

Pursuant to QR&O 17.02, the deportment and appearance of all ranks, in uniform or when wearing civilian attire, shall on all occasions reflect credit on the CAF and the individual. It is the responsibility and duty of all CAF members to ensure that, while in uniform, they comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance. Leaders at all levels have a role to play in this regard.

What happens if a CAF member doesn’t follow the updated Dress Instructions?

When a uniform is required to be worn, all CAF members shall wear the applicable uniform described in this manual in accordance with the instructions contained herein. Pursuant to QR&O 17.02, the deportment and appearance of all ranks, in uniform or when wearing civilian attire, shall on all occasions reflect credit on the CAF and the individual. It is the responsibility and duty of all CAF members to ensure that, by their vigilance, actions and example, the policies, regulations and instructions contained herein are adhered to.

Are any more changes expected to the Dress Instructions?

The update is occurring in three phases. The first phase involves a rewrite of critical policy where significant change is necessary (Section 2, Chapter 2); changing exclusive or gendered language to inclusive throughout the policy; and reducing the need for accommodations. Also as part of this phase, the Logistik online clothing catalogue was opened to all members in September 2021, so that clothing choice was no longer restricted by gender. Later phases of the update will revisit the functional authority changes from 2017 (where each Environment has its own specifications); change terminology in catalogues and supply manuals; and make design changes to the clothing itself.
.
Going forward, the intention is to continually review the updated Dress Instructions, in order to provide additional clarity where necessary and to include any elements previously overlooked.

Details
Can the different gender design of the DEU uniforms be intermixed or must CAF members only wear either the “female” pattern or the “male” pattern?

DEUs are no longer gender based. Both catalogues are open to all members and they may be intermixed. CAF members may choose whichever design best fits, as long as it is worn as per the Dress Instructions. Some restrictions may be imposed in certain circumstances such as on parade.

References to gender have been removed but traditionally gendered items like skirts, nylons, and purses are still part of CAF dress. Does this mean that CAF members who identify as men can wear skirts?

Yes, it does. The overall aim of the updated Canadian Forces Dress Instructions is to make the policy more inclusive and less prohibitive, and to allow CAF members increased freedom to make personal choices regarding their appearance, providing that safety and operational effectiveness are always maintained.

Will recruits need to shave their head on basic training?

No, the updated hair policy applies to all CAF members from recruitment to retirement.

Is there a maximum length for hair?

No, there are no restrictions on the length of hair. However, long hair must be tied when extending below the top/ridge of the shoulder or that extends below the service dress collar for ceremonial occasion. It must not prevent the proper wear of headdress and must not impede the visibility of the member’s face. Safety and operational requirements shall be met.

What types of braids are considered acceptable?

Any style braid(s) may be used, as long as it remains in line with safety and operational requirements. Hair must be tied to ensure the headdress can be worn properly and the face is visible. A bun, braids, or ponytail are examples of appropriate ways to tie the hair. Specific exceptions are listed at DAOD 5340-3.

Is unnatural-coloured hair acceptable in ceremonial orders of dress? And must accessories match the colour of hair?

Yes, the colouring of hair is permitted in all orders of dress unless it inhibits an operational duty. For example, bright coloured hair may have a negative operational impact during field operations or training. Leaders are invited to discuss with their members to find a simple, suitable accommodation, such as a scarf to cover the hair. Accessories do not have to match the colour of the member’s hair. However, all accessories shall meet safety and operational requirements and not must not discredit the CAF.

Is there any change on the beard policy?

Yes, the wearing of sideburns, beards, moustaches and goatees, or combination of style, is authorized for all members of the CAF from recruitment to release. There is no maximum or minimum length. Only, they must be kept neatly groomed and symmetrical in style while always complying with safety requirements and operational requirements.

Can CAF members be asked to shave their facial hair?

Yes, Commanders of Commands, Task Force Commanders, Formation Commanders and Commanding Officers retain the right to order restrictions on the wearing of facial hair to meet safety and operational requirements. This instruction does not supersede Federal or National safety codes or regulations.

Since multiple facial hair styles are approved, must a person request a period of transition for each change in facial hair?

No, as long as it is neat and evenly trimmed. For example, a member going from a goatee to a full beard should shave down the goatee so facial hair appears evenly and symmetrically trimmed.

Are tattoos on the face permitted? And what is considered the face?

The face is the front part of the head that extends from the forehead to the chin and from the anterior part of one ear to the other. Tattoos are permitted on the face as long as they conform to the regulations outlined in Section 2 – Appearance. “Tattoos that the member knows, or ought to know, are associated with criminal activities (e.g. criminal gangs), tattoos that promote and/or express, on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination as defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), the following: hatred, violence, discrimination, or harassment: and tattoos that a CAF member knows, or ought to know, promote and/or express: racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, ableism, or sexual explicit material.”

Are hoops and long earrings acceptable in uniform?

Yes, ear piercings, hoops and spacers are authorized but can be no more than 2.5 cm in length from the bottom of the ear. Safety and operational requirements must always be met. Spacers must not extend 2.5 cm in diameter. In all ceremonial orders of dress (No. 1), only one single stud type (one in each ear) is permitted in the lobe not to exceed 1 cm.

What jewelry is acceptable for ceremonial orders of dress?

The following is acceptable:
.
Rings: a maximum of two rings which are not of a costume jewellery nature. Additional rings may only be worn when they indicate professional standing, such as an engineer, or are worn with a wedding band as a single set indicating betrothal or fidelity, e.g., an engagement or an anniversary ring. Rings shall not inhibit the execution of proper arms drill or cause an unsightly bulge in white or black gloves.
Necklaces and bracelets: shall not be visible;
Piercings: the only piercing jewellery authorized are single or single set of stud or single stone earrings (one in each ear) in the earlobe(s) only. Piercings are not permitted on the face. Earrings shall not exceed one centimetre square or diameter. Gauges/spacers shall not exceed 2.5 cm in diameter.
Plain tie-pins or clips or with a Canadian military insignia are permitted.

In operational dress (order of dress 5), is there a limit to the number of ear-piercings that are acceptable?

In general, there are no restrictions unless there is a safety issue or operational effectiveness may be jeopardized.

Following both the jewelry and piercings policy, can two piercings be connected with a chain in one ear?

Yes, as long as both piercings and chain are within 2.5 cm in diameter or length, and safety or operational effectiveness is not compromised. However, only one single stud (max 1 cm) or spacer(max 2.5 cm) per ear is authorized in ceremonial orders of dress (order of dress No. 1).

If a CAF member recently had their upper ear pierced and cannot remove this earring for 2 months, what should they do when asked to wear a ceremonial order of dress?

Members should communicate with their chain of command to find a solution.

Can CAF members with eye lash extensions be ordered to have them removed?

Yes, if they affect operational duties, as in the case of wearing night-vision goggles (NVGs).

Are CAF members permitted to have long fingernails in uniform?

Yes, long fingernails are permitted so long as they do not impede the member’s ability to perform their duties. An example of this is being unable to do weapons drills due to long fingernails. Safety and operational requirements must always be met.

Are CAF members required to wear gloves at all times while wearing a toque?

No, gloves do not need to be worn when the toque is worn or vice versa. The toque is authorized as alternative winter headdress and can be worn with all orders of dress.

Are sunglasses permitted for wear on a ceremonial parade? Are transition (photochromic) lenses, mirrored lenses and clip-ons permitted?

Yes, sunglasses are permitted for wear in all orders of dress, including ceremonial (No. 1) dress. Eyeglasses and sunglasses are permitted for wear in all orders of dress, including transition lenses, mirrored lenses, and clip-on lenses.

Are backpacks required to be slung over both shoulders?

A backpack can be worn slung over both shoulders, or over the left shoulder; this leaves the right arm free to salute.

Worth pointing out: the Canadian Forces will still boot members for not taking an experimental injection (for a non-existent virus). Guess they had to draw the line somewhere.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/services/defence/caf/military-identity-system/dress-manual/changes-canadian-forces-dress-instructions.html#toc1
(2) https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/revised-caf-dress-code-allows-for-face-tattoos-long-hair-and-beards-1.5975684
(3) https://twitter.com/CanadianForces/status/1544306513975574535

Replacement Migration In Canada: 1966 To 1979 Data

Here’s some data going back to the 1960s. These years feature quite differently than more recent reports. The United States and United Kingdom were consistently at the top of the source countries list. That has since been replaced by China, India and the Philippines. White genocide (a.k.a “replacement”) is a very real thing.

According to the United Nations, enacting policies designed to bring about the destruction of an ethnic, racial, or religious group (in all or in part), is considered genocide. Consequently, forced multiculturalism and population replacement should be viewed through that lens.

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. Source Countries From 1966 To 1979

Let’s look at the “official” numbers from 1966 to 1979. The U.S. and U.K. are still featured prominently, something that will change in the coming years.

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1966
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 63,291 32.5 1
Italy 31,625 16.2 2
United States 17,514 9.0 3
Germany 9,263 4.8 4
Portugal 7,930 4.0 5
France 7,872 4.0 6
Greece 7,174 3.7 7
China 4,094 2.1 8
West Indies 3,935 2.0 9
Netherlands 3,794 1.9 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 156,492 80.4
TOTAL — OTHERS 38,251 19.6
GRAND TOTAL 194,743 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1967
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 62,420 28.0 1
Italy 30,055 13.4 2
United States 19,038 8.6 3
Germany 11,779 5.3 4
Greece 10,650 4.6 5
France 10,122 4.5 6
Portugal 9,500 4.2 7
West Indies 8,403 3.8 8
China 6,409 2.9 9
Australia 4,967 2.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 173,343 77.8
TOTAL — OTHERS 49,533 22.2
GRAND TOTAL 222,876 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1968
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 37,889 20.6 1
United States 20,422 11.1 2
Italy 19,774 10.8 3
Germany 8,966 4.8 4
China 8,382 4.6 5
France 8,184 4.4 6
Austria 8,125 4.4 7
Greece 7,739 4.2 8
Portugal 7,738 4.2 9
West Indies 7,563 4.1 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 104,782 57.0
TOTAL — OTHERS 79,192 43.0
GRAND TOTAL 183,974 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1969
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 31,977 19.8 1
United States 22,785 14.1 2
West Indies 13,093 8.1 3
Italy 10,383 6.4 4
China 8,272 5.1 5
Portugal 7,182 4.4 6
Greece 6,937 4.3 7
Germany 5,880 3.6 8
France 5,549 3.4 9
India 5,395 3.3 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 117,453 72.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 44,078 27.3
GRAND TOTAL 161,531 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1970
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 26,497 18.7 1
United States 24,424 16.5 2
West Indies 12,456 8.4 3
Italy 8,533 5.8 4
Portugal 7,902 5.4 5
Greece 6,327 4.3 6
Yugoslavia 5,672 3.8 7
India 5,670 3.8 8
China 5,377 3.6 9
France 4,410 2.9 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 101,596 68.8
TOTAL — OTHERS 46,118 31.2
GRAND TOTAL 147,714 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1971
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 24,366 20.0 1
United Kingdom 15,451 12.8 2
Portugal 9,157 7.5 3
Italy 5,790 4.8 4
India 5,313 4.4 5
China 5,009 4.1 6
Greece 4,769 3.9 7
Philippines 4,180 3.4 8
Yugoslavia 2,997 2.4 9
France 2,966 2.4 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 79,998 66.6
TOTAL — OTHERS 41,902 34.4
GRAND TOTAL 121,900 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1972
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 22,618 18.5 1
United Kingdom 18,197 14.9 2
Portugal 8,737 7.2 3
Hong Kong 6,297 5.2 4
India 5,049 4.1 5
Uganda 5,021 4.1 6
Italy 4,608 3.8 7
Greece 4,016 3.3 8
Philippines 3,946 3.2 9
France 2,742 2.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 81,231 66.6
TOTAL — OTHERS 40,775 33.4
GRAND TOTAL 122,006 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1973
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 26,973 14.6 1
United States 25,242 13.7 2
Hong Kong 14,662 8.0 3
Portugal 13,483 7.3 4
Jamaica 9,363 5.1 5
India 9,203 5.0 6
Philippines 6,757 3.7 7
Greece 5,833 3.2 8
Italy 5,468 3.0 9
Trinidad-Tobago 5,138 2.8 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 122,122 66.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 62,078 33.7
GRAND TOTAL 184,200 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1974
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 38,456 17.6 1
United States 26,541 12.1 2
Portugal 16,333 7.5 3
India 12,868 5.9 4
Hong Kong 12,704 5.8 5
Jamaica 11,286 5.2 6
Philippines 9,564 4.4 7
Greece 5,632 2.6 8
Italy 5,226 2.4 9
Haiti 4,857 2.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 143,467 65.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 74,998 34.3
GRAND TOTAL 218,465 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1975
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 34,978 18.6 1
United States 20,155 10.7 2
Hong Kong 11,132 5.9 3
India 10,144 5.4 4
Portugal 8,390 4.5 5
Jamaica 8,211 4.4 6
Philippines 7,364 3.9 7
Italy 5,078 2.7 8
Guyana 4,394 2.3 9
South Korea 4,314 2.3 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 114,163 60.8
TOTAL — OTHERS 73,718 39.2
GRAND TOTAL 187,881 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1976
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 21,548 14.4 1
United States 17,315 11.6 2
Hong Kong 10,725 7.2 3
Jamaica 7,282 4.9 4
Lebanon 7,161 4.8 5
India 6,733 4.5 6
Philippines 5,939 4.0 7
Portugal 5,344 3.6 8
Italy 4,530 3.0 9
Guyana 3,430 2.3 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 90,007 60.2
TOTAL — OTHERS 59,422 39.8
GRAND TOTAL 149,429 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1977
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 17,977 15.6 1
United States 12,888 11.2 3
Hong Kong 6,371 5.5 3
Philippines 6,232 5.4 4
India 5,555 4.8 5
Lebanon 3,847 3.3 6
Portugal 3,579 3.1 7
Italy 3,411 3.0 8
France 2,757 2.4 9
Guyana 2,472 2.4 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 65,089 56.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 49,825 43.3
GRAND TOTAL 114,914 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1978
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 11,801 13.7 1
United States 9,945 11.5 2
India 5,110 5.9 3
Hong Kong 4,740 5.5 4
Philippines 4,370 5.1 5
Portugal 3,086 3.6 6
Italy 2,976 .43 7
France 1,754 2.9 8
South Africa 1,653 1.9 9
Lebanon 1,454 1.7 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 46,880 54.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 39,424 45.7
GRAND TOTAL 86,313 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1979
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Vietnam 19,859 17.7 1
United Kingdom 12,853 11.5 2
United States 9,617 8.6 3
Hong Kong 5,966 5.3 4
India 4,517 4.0 5
Laos 3,903 3.5 6
Philippines 3,873 3.5 7
Jamaica 3,213 2.9 8
Guyana 2,473 2.2 9
China 2,058 2.1 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 68,332 61.0
TOTAL — OTHERS 43,764 39.0
GRAND TOTAL 112,096 100

Permanent Residents: U.S., Europe and Australia as a percentage of overall migration globally. The vast majority of people getting PR in recent years aren’t from those areas.

YEAR # U.S. % U.S. # Eur. % Eur. # Aust % Austr # Other % Other
1973 25,242 13.7 71,883 39.0 2,096 1.1 84,979 46.1
1974 26,541 12.1 88,694 40.6 2,022 0.1 102,208 46.3
1975 20,155 10.7 72,898 38.8 1,654 0.1 87,174 46.4
1976 17,315 11.5 49,908 33.3 1,387 0.1 80,819 54.1
1977 12,888 11.2 40,747 35.5 1,063 0.1 60,216 52.4
1978 9,945 11.5 30,075 34.8 1,233 1.4 45,060 52.2
1979 9,617 8.6 32,858 29.3 808 0.1 68,813 61.4

3. More Recent Statistics On Immigration Source Countries

The above may not seem too bad, but keep in mind that the trends are about to get a whole lot worse. Here are numbers from within the last decade. Of course, this doesn’t include the hordes of students and “temporary” workers who come and don’t leave.

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

Notice any major changes? The U.K. and U.S. are nowhere near as prominent as they once were, and the demographic replacement is accelerating.

Of course, this doesn’t address the levels of student visas and “temporary” workers, which would increase drastically in the coming years.

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

(A.0) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/index.html
(A.1) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1966.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1966
(A.2) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1967.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1967
(A.3) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1968.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1968
(A.4) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1969.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1969
(A.5) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1970.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1970
(A.6) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1971.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1971
(A.7) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1972.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1972
(A.8) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1973.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1973
(A.9) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1974.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1974
(A.10) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1975.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1975
(A.11) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1976.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1976
(A.12) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1977.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1977
(A.13) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1978.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1978
(A.14) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1979.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1979
(A.15) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1980.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1980
(A.16) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1981.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1981
(A.17) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1982.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1982
(A.18) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1983.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1983
(A.19) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1984.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1984
(A.20) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1985.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1985
(A.21) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1986.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1986
(A.22) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1987.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1987
(A.23) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1988.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1988
(A.24) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1989.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1989
(A.25) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1990.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1990
(A.26) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1991.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1991
(A.27) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1992.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1992
(A.28) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1993.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1993
(A.29) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1994.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1994
(A.30) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1995.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1995
(A.31) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1996.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1996

2004.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2005.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2006.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2007.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2008.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2009.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2010.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2011.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2012.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2013.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2014.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2015.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2016.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2017.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2018.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2019.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2020.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament

%d bloggers like this: