Changes To Safe Third Country Agreement Won’t Close All Loopholes

Starting on March 25th, people illegally entering Canada from the United States to claim asylum will no longer be able to bypass immediate deportation simply by crossing between ports. A new change is expected to apply the same standard regardless of where they cross.

However, it’s not anywhere near the “fix” that it’s being made out to be.

Sean Fraser, Minister of Immigration, spread the notice on Friday.

To address irregular migration, we are expanding the Safe Third Country Agreement to apply not only at designated ports of entry, but across the entire land border, including internal waterways, ensuring fairness and more orderly migration between our two countries. This change will come into effect at 12:01 A.M (EDT) on Saturday, March 25, 2023. Canada also announced we will welcome 15,000 migrants on a humanitarian basis from the Western Hemisphere over the course of the year, with a path to economic opportunities to address forced displacement, as an alternative to irregular migration.

Even if this were to be applied, and Roxham Road effectively closed, the Safe Third Country Agreement has a number of other loopholes built into it to ensure a steady stream of crossers. This applies to “refugees” fleeing from the United States. More on that later in the article.

And what are the numbers on people illegally crossing into Canada over the last several years? Keep in mind, these are just official statistics.

PROVINCE/TERRITORY 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Newfoundland 0 0 0 0 0 0
Prince Edward Island 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nova Scotia 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Brunswick 10 5 5 ? ? 25
Quebec 1,335 1,295 785 875 1,035 2,595
Ontario 2,660 2,340 1,995 2,630 2,790 3,7935
Manitoba 20 15 25 10 225 505
Saskatchewan ? ? ? ? ? 30
Alberta 35 40 35 65 70 120
British Columbia 125 85 110 130 170 220
Yukon 0 0 0 0 0 5
Northwest Territories 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nunavut 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 4,185 3,770 2,955 3,715 4,290 7,365

Illegals were still coming into Canada via land border crossings during the Harper years. Interestingly though, it only receives major attention when Liberals are in power. A cynic may wonder why.

YEAR: 2017
January 245 19 46 5 315
February 452 142 84 0 678
March 654 170 71 2 897
April 672 146 32 9 859
May 576 106 60 0 742
June 781 63 39 1 884
July 2,996 87 51 0 3,314
August 5,530 80 102 0 5,712
September 1,720 78 79 4 1,881
October 1,755 67 68 8 1,890
November 1,539 38 46 0 1,623
December 1,916 22 40 0 1,978
TOTAL 18,836 1,018 718 22 20,593
YEAR: 2018
January 1,458 18 41 0 1,517
February 1,486 31 48 0 1,565
March 1,884 53 33 0 1,970
April 2,479 50 31 0 2,560
May 1,775 36 53 0 1,869
June 1,179 31 53 0 1,263
July 1,552 51 31 0 1,634
August 1,666 39 39 3 1,747
September 1,485 44 68 4 1,601
October 1,334 23 37 0 1,394
November 978 23 18 0 1,019
December 1,242 11 27 0 1,280
TOTAL 18,518 410 479 7 19,419
YEAR: 2019
January 871 1 16 1 888
February 800 1 6 2 808
March 967 13 22 0 1,002
April 1,206 15 25 0 1,246
May 1,149 27 20 0 1,196
June 1,536 26 5 0 1,567
July 1,835 23 15 1 1,874
August 1,712 26 22 2 1,762
September 1,706 19 17 0 1,737
October 1,595 18 8 1 1,622
November 1,118 9 21 0 1,148
December 1,646 2 5 2 1,653
TOTAL 16,136 180 182 9 16,503
YEAR: 2020
January 1,086 7 7 0 1,100
February 976 2 2 0 980
March 930 7 18 0 955
April 1 0 5 0 6
May 17 0 4 0 21
June 28 1 3 1 33
July 29 2 17 0 48
August 15 3 0 0 18
September 30 4 7 0 41
October 27 0 4 0 31
November 24 0 8 0 32
December 26 2 8 0 36
TOTAL 3,189 28 84 1 3,302
YEAR: 2021
January 28 1 10 0 39
February 39 0 1 0 40
March 29 5 2 0 36
April 29 2 2 0 33
May 12 3 13 0 28
June 11 0 6 0 17
July 28 5 6 0 39
August 63 2 11 0 76
September 150 0 19 0 169
October 96 0 17 0 113
November 832 1 12 0 845
December 2,778 0 33 0 2,811
TOTAL 4,095 19 132 0 4,246
YEAR: 2022
January 2,367 0 16 0 2,383
February 2,154 1 9 0 2,164
March 2,492 2 8 0 2,502
April 2,791 3 8 3 2,805
May 3,449 3 40 1 3,493
June 3,066 3 14 3 3,086
July 3,645 3 29 0 3,677
August 3,234 5 10 0 3,249
September 3,650 10 0 0 3,660
October 3,901 16 34 0 3,951
November 3,731 23 34 0 3,788
December 4,689 3 52 1 4,745
TOTALS 39,171 72 289 7 39,540

And of course, this has continued into 2023. This is because…. reasons.

YEAR: 2023
January 4,875 19 100 0 4,994
February 4,517 5 53 0 4,575
TOTALS 9,392 24 153 0 9,569

Keep in mind, there are a number of “exceptions” that will let people enter from the United States anyway. These include:

(1) Family member exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:

  • is a Canadian citizen
  • is a permanent resident of Canada
  • is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
  • has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
  • has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
  • holds a valid Canadian work permit
  • holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
  • is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.)

(2) Unaccompanied minors exception
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:

  • are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
  • have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
  • do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.

(3) Document holder exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:

  • hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
  • hold a valid work permit
  • hold a valid study permit
  • hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
  • are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.

(4) Public interest exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:

  • they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.

Even if a ride through the Quebec crossing isn’t an option for everyone, there are enough exceptions that a lot of people will still qualify. A cynic may wonder if this is being done in an effort to help obscure the true numbers of how many are entering Canada.

In any event, why this sudden announcement? It could be over recent revelations that New York City was paying for tickets to ship illegals to Canada. The “solution” to Quebec’s problem has been to start relocating illegals elsewhere in Canada, which left a bad taste.

Even so-called “based” U.S. State Governors like Ron DeSantis (Florida), and Greg Abbott (Texas) are doing the same thing. Of course, no one ever voted for any of this.

But this recent announcement is at least a step in the right direction.

1. The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
2. These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
3. The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

As mentioned many times, the UNHCR is actually a party to this border agreement. This means that the decisions really aren’t strictly between Canada and the U.S. This detail isn’t reported by any mainstream outlet in Canada.

The UNCHR also publishes instructional guides on how to circumvent border controls. They should be a decision maker…. why exactly?

Thanks to a 2019 change, Canada scrapped the Designated Country of Origin practice. This had labelled dozens of countries (mainly in Europe) as “safe”, and led to an expedited deportation process for those apply from there.

While it’s nice to close the loophole that exists in between official border ports, the issues are much larger than that.


Vaccine Choice Canada’s OTHER Lawsuit: Dormant After 3 1/2 Years

Often in court cases, the information being eventually drops off. As a result, many lose track of interesting claims that they were otherwise interested in. An October 2019 suit with Vaccine Choice Canada is one such case. This is case #CV-19-00629810-0000, filed in Ontario Superior Court, in Toronto.

This isn’t to be confused with the high profile suit of July 2020. This was filed to challenge lockdown measures imposed (primarily) by the Ford Regime in Ontario. These are quite different. The 2019 suit covered vaccination policies in schools.

While there are 2 different cases, they have something in common: both have sat idly for years, without any activity to show for it.

Thankfully, we’re in an age where case status can be SEARCHED online, and documents can often be obtained for free. As there had been no announcements since 2019, an update is long overdue. And as it turns out, there’s nothing to report. Nothing has happened since the pleadings in later 2019/early 2020.

Nor does it seem like the 2019 case has had a single hearing.

So, what happened with all the donations?

And that’s interesting, considering some of the problems with the drafting.

1. Should Have Been An Application, Not A Statement Of Claim

Applications for judicial review
2 (1) On an application by way of originating notice, which may be styled “Notice of Application for Judicial Review”, the court may, despite any right of appeal, by order grant any relief that the applicant would be entitled to in any one or more of the following:
1. Proceedings by way of application for an order in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari.
2. Proceedings by way of an action for a declaration or for an injunction, or both, in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise or proposed or purported exercise of a statutory power.

Section 2 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act lays out some circumstances which cases need to be brought as an Application for Judicial Review, as opposed to having more discretion to file a Statement of Claim.

Page 6 of the Statement of Claim makes it clear that both a Mandamus (requirement to perform a duty) and a Prohibition (a restriction) are being sought. As a result, it looks like the wrong paperwork was filed to get this going.

2. Suit Should Probably Have Been Filed In Divisional Court

Application to Divisional Court
6 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an application for judicial review shall be made to the Divisional Court.

Application to judge of Superior Court of Justice
(2) An application for judicial review may be made to the Superior Court of Justice with leave of a judge thereof, which may be granted at the hearing of the application, where it is made to appear to the judge that the case is one of urgency and that the delay required for an application to the Divisional Court is likely to involve a failure of justice.

Section 6 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act states that an Application for Judicial Review must be brought in Divisional Court. Now, it’s possible to get permission to file in Superior Court, but it doesn’t look like that ever happened. Nor does it appear that it was attempted.

3. Rules Of Civil Procedure Not Followed In Drafting Claim

To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01(1) A party may move before a judge,
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Material Facts
25.06(1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Pleading Law
25.06(2) A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded.

Documents or Conversations
25.06(7) The effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material.

Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.

This is a common criticism. The Rules of Civil Procedure need to be followed when drafting lawsuits. The people being sued need to have enough specific information to understand the allegations against them. It also has to be written in a way that’s understandable.

The Ontario Government also claims that the Sections 2 and 7 Charter challenges are so vague and non-specific that they are impossible to respond to.

4. VCC Has To Plead For Public Interest Standing

Starting on page 10, the Statement of Defence argues that there is no standing here, as the organization is not a person, and not directly impacted. This is funny.

There is a way for organizations to do this, and they have to convince the Court that they meet a 3 part test. That’s how standing is granted.

(1) Does the Application raise a serious justiciable issue?
(2) Do the Organizations have a real stake or genuine interest in that issue?
(3) Is the participation of the Organizations a reasonable and effective way to litigate?

Granted, a well written document could probably have gotten them standing, but it still needs to be covered.

Then again, if the case was never intended to go forward, then maybe it’s not necessary to write a Claim or Application properly.

5. Why No Attempt To Get Claim Thrown Out?

Why keep covering these grifts? Because the truth matters.

This isn’t to suggest that there weren’t real issues to bring to Court. Obviously, there were, and they deserve considerable media attention. However, the case has just sat idly for years now.

A question worth asking is why the Ford Government has made no attempt to get this case thrown out (struck) since it was filed in October 2019. No action has been taken to bring it forward either. Was there collusion to keep everything in limbo?

It appears that the wrong paperwork was filed, and submitted to the wrong Court. The quality of the Statement of Claim is very poor as well. So, why just let it sit?

Keep in mind, Ford also let the July 6, 2020 Claim sit unchallenged for the first 2 1/2 years as well. Vaccine Choice didn’t have their first Court appearance until January 17, 2023. And that was just to set down Motion dates.

Are these just “placeholders”? Is the goal to keep them on the books as long as possible, in order to give the appearance that something is being done? Is this a way to enrich the Directors?

Remember to donate, suckers!


(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit
(2) VCC – Statement Of Defence, October 2019 Lawsuit

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(5) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike

Private Member’s Bill C-245 DEFEATED: Would Entrench Climate Change Into Canadian Infrastructure Bank

Last year a Private Member’s Bill was defeated, and it wasn’t widely reported. This is interesting because of the subject matter, namely, embedding climate change into the agenda of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. This would have allowed the C.I.B. to become even more of a giant slush fund, doling out money for eco causes.

It was introduced February 8th, 2022, by N.D.P. M.P. Niki Ashton of Manitoba. It was soon defeated in Parliament, on June 22nd.

Of course, the usual disclaimer must be added in: just because this particular Bill was defeated, that doesn’t mean it won’t be reintroduced. Nor does it mean that it won’t be embedded into some larger legislation at some point in the future.

1 Section 6 of the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act is replaced by the following:
Purpose of Bank
6 The purpose of the Bank is to invest in infrastructure projects in Canada or partly in Canada that are end in the public interest by, for example, supporting conditions that foster climate change mitigation or adaptation, or by contributing to the sustainability of infrastructure in Canada.

3 Section 7 is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.‍1) In carrying out the functions set out in subsection (1), the Bank must give priority to:
(a) investments from public institutions, all levels of governments and Northern and Indigenous communities;
(b) infrastructure projects that propose measures aimed at mitigating or adapting to climate change; and
(c) infrastructure projects that are not harmful to the environment.

4 Section 8 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.‍1) The membership of the Board must include at least
(a) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of First Nations;
(b) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of the Inuit; and
(c) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of the Métis.

Worth noting as well: had this Bill passed in its original form, it would have put racial quotas into the Board of the C.I.B.

  • Canadian Climate Institute
  • Environmental Defence Canada
  • ONE Global (Canada)

Environmental Defence Canada is an interesting group to lobby Parliament. Why? Because Nathaniel Wallace, one of their lobbyists, was a Parliamentary Assistant (part Time) for Niki Ashton. No conflict of interest here.

Again, just because this specific Bill was voted down, that doesn’t mean that it won’t come back in some form. Stay vigilant.


Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(B) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(C) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(D) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(E) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(F) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(G) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(H) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(I) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(J) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(K) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(L) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(M) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(N) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(O) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Action4Canada Roasted By B.C. Law Society Over Horrendous Galati Filing

The Law Society of British Columbia is the organization that’s responsible for licensing lawyers in that Province. Unsurprisingly, lawyers are expected to have a certain level of competence in order to practice. This is to ensure that members of the public don’t end up with a complete moron representing them, costing lots of money.

In any event, the “Professional Legal Training Course 2023” is now available online. This is aimed primarily at articling students who want to take the last steps to be licensed.

The course is explained as follows:

“The Law Society’s PLTC has earned international recognition and has served as a model for Bar admission programs all over the world. It emphasizes practical skills training, ethics, practice management and practice and procedure to help new lawyers bridge the gap between law school and practice.”

“PLTC is a full-time, 10-week course. Classes are held three times a year at the Law Society offices in Vancouver, and once a year at Camosun College in Victoria and at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops. Classes are taught by full-time faculty with many years of teaching and practice experience and by practising lawyers who volunteer to share their expertise.”

Makes sense. Prospective lawyers need to prove a high degree of skill. Now, here’s where things really start to get interesting.

On page #15, (or the 27th page of the pdf), we see a new entry:


Yes, that infamous dumpster fire that was struck by Justice Alan Ross is now being used as a “teaching exercise” by the Law Society of B.C. to demonstrate how pleadings shouldn’t be done.

If pleadings are inadequate the matter will typically not get as far as trial. In a recent example of wholly inadequate pleadings the plaintiff filed a 391-page notice of civil claim that was struck (see §2.06(3) below on striking pleadings) as being “prolix” and “bad beyond argument.” In Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507, the plaintiffs sued a host of politicians and crown corporations over pandemic-related measures they said were not based in science, exceeded the defendants’ authority, and breached Charter rights. The notice of civil claim was struck in its entirety. The judge said (at para. 51) it is counsel’s job to draft pleadings that do not offend the Rules. The judge also said the claim was too prolix for the defendants to be able to respond, and it was not the court’s job to interpret the claim:

To put those points another way, I have indicated above that the prolix nature of the NOCC makes it impossible for the defendants to respond to it. For the same reason, I am not able to parse the 391 pages of the improperly drafted NOCC and indicate whether paragraphs, categories or claims should remain in, or should be struck. That is not the proper role of this court. It is counsel’s obligation to draft pleadings that do not offend the mandatory requirements of the Rules.

It turns out that the NOCC (Notice of Civil Claim) from Action4Canada was so inadequate that it never stood a chance of going to Trial. If only someone could have warned Tanya about that either in advance, or shortly after the fact. It was pretty obvious.

And what were the thanks received? A $7,000,000 defamation lawsuit.

Have to wonder if the Law Society of B.C. will now be sued as well for publishing Action4Canada’s decision in their training manual. After all, Galati sued the Law Society of Ontario for $500,000 for daring to forward complaints by the public to him for comment.

Why are all the topics mandatory?
When you are licensed to practise law in British Columbia, you are licensed as both a barrister and solicitor and permitted to practise in any area of the law. PLTC has therefore identified core practice areas that represent typical areas of practice for articled students and newly called lawyers. By requiring you to demonstrate entry-level competence in each of these practice areas, PLTC supports the Law Society’s mandate to set standards for lawyers and to protect the public interest.

Unsurprisingly, there is an FAQ section. It’s explained that it’s in the public interest to ensure that licensed lawyers have a basic level of competence in certain areas.

Keep in mind, this is geared towards new lawyers. Constitutional lawyers with decades of experience should probably have a handle on this sort of thing already.

And again, the Action4Canada case is being used as an example of what not to do, as it’s liable to waste large amounts of time and money, by getting it struck.

The B.C. Law Society also publishes a practice manual specifically for civil, and it’s quite informative. On page #13, (or the 25th page of the pdf), we get to the sections on pleading documents.

The fundamental purpose of pleadings is to define the issues to be tried with clarity and precision, to give the opposing parties fair notice of the case to be met, and to enable all parties to take effective steps for pre-trial preparation: Mayer v. Mayer, 2012 BCCA 77 at para. 215.

Proper Pleadings are Good Advocacy
In practice, pleading the case properly is critical. Pleadings come at an early stage of the litigation, often before all the facts are known. Some counsel fail to craft pleadings carefully, perhaps expecting to clean them up later, if necessary, through amendments. This is poor practice: pleadings are the foundation upon which a case is constructed. If you take care and exercise diligence in framing the pleadings, the rest of the case will fall into line. The pleadings also determine what is relevant at the discovery stage, so proper pleadings will ensure relevant documents are produced and examinations for discovery canvas relevant issues.

And this last part sums up the Action4Canada case well.

Good pleading will not, in my opinion, give a litigant with a bad case a victory. But bad pleading
may very well deprive a litigant with a good case of a victory
that ought to be his.

This perfectly outlines what happened with the NOCC. While there certainly were valid causes of action, the NOCC was drafted so poorly that the entire document had to be struck out. While a rewrite was allowed, this was a huge waste of time and money.

And once again: these documents from the B.C. Law Society are aimed at prospective lawyers. This is designed for newbies. And the Action4Canada case is now teaching material for what not to do.

Action4Canada’s suit was struck in its entirety on August 29, 2022, for the reasons mentioned earlier. Instead of simply doing the Claim properly, it was appealed instead.

It would be interesting to see the Professional Legal Training Course in a few years. Perhaps it will updated again to include Action4Canada in how not to appeal a case. See critique.

Although their case is “fully funded”, Action4Canada is once again asking for money. Apparently, the extra costs of filing an appeal weren’t factored in. Despite promises to submit an amended Claim, it hasn’t happened in over 6 months.

Remember to donate, suckers!


(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(12) A4C Notice of Discontinuance Federico Fuoco Fire Productions
(13) A4C Notice of Discontinuance Amy Muranetz
(14) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022

Royal College Of Physicians & Surgeons A Charity That Received “Pandemic” Bailouts

A topic that hasn’t been covered in quite some time is the long list of business and organizations that received bailout money from the CEWS Program. Of course, this is short for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. There were a few colleges Of physicians & surgeons that got it.

  • Royal College Of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada
  • College of Family Physicians in Canada
  • College of Physicians and Surgeons in Newfoundland and Labrador

Granted, the program did end over a year ago, but it doesn’t erase the fact that so many organizations received this money in the first place.

This can be easily verified by visiting the CEWS Registry (see new link).

About the Royal College, there are 2 different charities: (a) The Royal College Of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada; and (b) Royal College Of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada Foundation.

It’s worth pointing out that registered charities also automatically were eligible for CERS, the Canada Emergency Rental Subsidy, and other lockdown grants.

Now, what does the Royal College describe as its functions?


Looking at some tax information in recent years, we get this:

March 31, 2020
Receipted donations: $523,771.00 (0.78%)
Non-receipted donations: $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities: $587,500.00 (0.88%)
Government funding: $35,672.00 (0.05%)
All other revenue: $65,682,187.00 (98.28%)
Total revenue: $66,829,130.00

Charitable programs: $38,896,568.00 (56.35%)
Management and administration: $25,033,055.00 (36.26%)
Fundraising: $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees: $0.00 (0.00%)
Other: $5,098,798.00 (7.39%)
Total expenses: $69,028,421.00

Total compensation for all positions: $27,934,692.00
Full-time employees: 327
Part-time employees: 164
Professional and consulting fees: $11,781,429.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 2
$250,000 to $299,999: 2
$300,000 to $349,999: 3
$350,000 and over: 3

March 31, 2021
Receipted donations: $36,792.00 (0.05%)
Non-receipted donations: $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities: $378,431.00 (0.55%)
Government funding: $4,267,623.00 (6.20%)
All other revenue: $64,139,221.00 (93.20%)
Total revenue: $68,822,067.00

Charitable programs: $32,720,809.00 (57.19%)
Management and administration: $24,492,552.00 (42.81%)
Fundraising: $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees: $0.00 (0.00%)
Other: $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $57,213,361.00

Total compensation for all positions: $35,971,607.00
Full-time employees: 270
Part-time employees: 62
Professional and consulting fees: $13,125,154.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$160,000 to $199,999: 3
$250,000 to $299,999: 2
$300,000 to $349,999: 3
$350,000 and over: 2

March 31, 2022
Receipted donations: $22,614.00 (0.03%)
Non-receipted donations: $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities: $1,155,246.00 (1.67%)
Government funding: $892,245.00 (1.29%)
All other revenue: $66,959,192.00 (97.00%)
Total revenue: $69,029,297.00

Charitable programs: $39,197,885.00 (65.42%)
Management and administration: $20,477,992.00 (34.18%)
Fundraising: $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees: $0.00 (0.00%)
Other: $238,261.00 (0.40%)
Total expenses: $59,914,138.00

Total compensation for all positions: $35,073,801.00
Full-time employees: 327
Part-time employees: 57
Professional and consulting fees: $6,969,896.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 1
$250,000 to $299,999: 1
$300,000 to $349,999: 4
$350,000 and over: 4

The Royal College Foundation, by contrast, is much, much smaller. It seems primarily geared towards bursaries and scholarship opportunities for medical students.

The Royal College announced in the Fall of 2021 that people who haven’t taken at least 2 shots would be prohibited from entering the premises. However, it appeared that taking tests within the last 3 days would be an alternative. Failure to comply meant possible termination from employment.

The requirement for entry would apply to:

  • Employees
  • Visitors
  • Contractors
  • Volunteers
  • Members of the public

For employees, this would presumably mean tests at least twice per week. Never mind that no virus has ever been proven to exist. This is only the Royal College Of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada.

Why would they play along with this? One possibility is that they know how financially beneficial the bailouts and charity designations are.

The Royal College is also part of HEAL, a coalition of health groups that lobbies Ottawa on issues such as: “mental health, health care improvement, opioids, pharma care, seniors care and other priority health topics”.

The College of Family Physicians of Canada (which also got the CEWS bailout), is part of that Federal lobbying coalition.

It’s interesting that no organizations within HEAL did much to push back on the implementation of vaccine passports in late 2021. Have to wonder why.

(7) Royal College Mandatory Vaccination Policy

(A.1) Hotel, Restaurant Groups Getting Wage/Rental Subsidies
(A.2) Liberals, Conservatives, NDP All Getting Bailout Money
(A.3) Lawyers, Bar Associations Receiving CEWS Money
(A.4) Conflicting Out? Lawyers Getting More Than Just CEWS
(A.5) Churches Are Charities, Getting CEWS, Subsidies & Promoting Vaccines
(A.6) Trucking Alliance Grants Raising many Eyebrows
(A.7) Chambers Of Commerce Subsidized By Canadians, Want Open Borders
(A.8) Banks, Credit Unions, Media Outlets All Getting CEWS
(A.9) Publishing Industry Subsidized By Taxpayer Money
(A.10) Gyms And Fitness Centers Getting Subsidies To Push Vaxx Pass
(A.11) Sports Groups That Took CEWS To Push Pandemic Hoax
(A.12) Chapters-Indigo Getting Millions In Subsidies To Discriminate
(A.13) Toronto Region Board Of Trade Pushing Vaxx Passports

Private Member’s Bill C-219: Introducing “Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights”

Private Member’s Bill C-219 has a number of interesting parts, which should make people wary about the intent and purpose of it. It was introduce by N.D.P. M.P. Richard Cannings. As always, it can’t be assured that this won’t become law, or be embedded into other legislation at some point.

This Bill is to enact the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights. Sounds harmless enough, doesn’t it? Let’s see what it says.

Paramountcy of Principles of Environmental Law
Environmental law principles
5 Every enactment must be interpreted consistently with existing and emerging principles of environmental law, including

(a) the precautionary principle according to which where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the environment, lack of full scientific certainty must not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation;

(b) the polluter-pays principle according to which polluters must bear the cost of measures to reduce pollution according to the extent of either the damage done to society or the exceeding of an acceptable level of pollution;

(c) the principle of sustainable development according to which development must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;

(d) the principle of intergenerational equity according to which present generations of Canadians hold the environment in trust for future generations and have an obligation to use its resources in a way that leaves that environment in the same, or better, condition for future generations; and

(e) the principle of environmental justice according to which there should be a just distribution of environmental benefits and burdens among Canadians, without discrimination on the basis of any ground prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

To be blunt, this sounds somewhat Communistic. It gives the Government the right to act, even if there isn’t really a scientific or informed basis for doing so. Taken to its logical outcome, property could be seized, or businesses could be shut down in the name of protecting environmental rights.

The “polluter pays” is a reiteration of the climate change/Carbon tax initiatives that are ongoing, and is just wealth redistribution. If Carbon Dioxide is considered pollution, then almost anything can be.

All of this talk about equity and environmental justice also sounds like redistribution, but with language designed to conceal what’s really going on.

Things get interesting when you realize that anyone (at least in theory) can bring a Court challenge to protect their “environmental rights”.

Right of access to courts
9 (1) Every person residing in Canada has the right to bring a matter regarding the protection of the environment before a court or tribunal regardless of whether or not they are directly affected by the matter.

No challenge to standing
(2) The Government of Canada must not challenge the standing of a person residing in Canada to bring a matter regarding the protection of the environment before a court or tribunal on the sole ground that the person is not directly affected by the matter.

Right to request review
10 Every person residing in Canada has the right to request the Auditor General to review, in accordance with section 22 of the Auditor General Act, any Act of Parliament respecting the environment, any instrument made under the authority of such an Act or any environmental policy of the Government of Canada to determine whether, in order to ensure respect for the rights conferred under this Act, it should be amended, repealed or revoked.

Anyone familiar with the Court system knows that you need “standing” to bring a challenge. This means private interest standing (impacts you directly), or public interest standing (impacts society). This Bill would imply that public interest is automatic, so there’d be no need to prove a direct impact.

Also worth noting is that it says anyone “residing in Canada”. It doesn’t specify Canadian citizens. It also doesn’t say that people bringing such challenges have to be in country legally.

It would also amend the Canadian Bill of Rights by adding this section:

Canadian Bill of Rights
37 Paragraph 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights is replaced by the following:
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person, including to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment as defined in section 2 of the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

But here’s where that may get tricky: yes, the Bill of Rights mentions property rights. However, when anyone has public interest standing to bring a legal challenge, how secure are your property rights? How would we realistically decide which rights prevail?

And what happens if the Government decides to appropriate your property in some way on the grounds that it violates other people’s rights to a healthy environment?

The Bill’s sponsor, Richard Cannings, is listed 375 times in the Lobby Registry of Federal officials. In fairness though, many of these have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Cannings’ recent meetings include representatives from:

  • Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment Foundation
  • Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
  • Climate Action Network Canada
  • Ecojustice Canada
  • Environmental Defence Canada
  • Greenpeace Canada
  • Nature Canada
  • The Nature Conservancy of Canada
  • World Wildlife Fund Canada

There’s considerable overlap with Rosa Galvez’s Bill S-243.

It’s fair to ask who wrote Bills C-219 and S-243.

As we’ve seen with the 2005 Quarantine Act, and various Provincial Public Health Acts, harmless sounding legislation can be used as a basis to trample rights. While this environmental “Bill of Rights” seems great at first glance, how would things actually work?


%d bloggers like this: