Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation Archives - Page 3 of 13

November 30, 2022

What Percentage Of People Entering Canada Illegally Are Allowed To Make Asylum Claims?

A question that often gets asked: What percentage of people who come into this country illegally are allowed to still make asylum claims? Just because they self-identify as refugees, it doesn’t mean that their cases will be forwarded to the I.R.B.

The quick and dirty answer: roughly 81%, or four fifths of them.

Of those making claims: some 59%, of three fifths of those, are accepted by the I.R.B.

Note: The I.R.B. page “says” 59,736 claims were started between February 2017 and September 2022. But adding them manually, it comes to 73,407. Now, these are just claims that are initiated, not necessarily the number of people granted asylum.

As should be obvious: these numbers only relate to people entering Canada illegally. This does not take into account various refugee programs that are administered. And it’s well known that this happens primarily through Roxham Road in Quebec.

This answer was calculated by contrasting data on illegals detained from Immigration and Citizenship Canada, with claims filed with the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

Total illegals detained in 2017: 20,278 (starting partially through February)
Total illegals detained in 2018: 19,419
Total illegals detained in 2019: 16,503
Total illegals detained in 2020: 3,302
Total illegals detained in 2021: 4,246
Total illegals detained in 2022: 27,052 (data up until Q3, or September 2022)

Total illegals detained: 90,800 (February 2017 to September 2022)

FOR REFERENCE
Q1: January to March
Q2: April to June
Q3: July to September
Q4: October to December

This is from the various pages available here. The numbers are not exact, but a start. The Immigration and Refugee Board says that 73,407 claims by illegals were made during that time.

If these are anywhere near accurate, then 73,407/90,800 is 0.8084, or ~81%. So, approximately four fifths of the people entering Canada illegally are able to make asylum claims.

A few disclaimers need to be mentioned though.

First, if the percentages seem out of whack, there may be gaps between when people are detained by the RCMP, and when the claims are actually launched. If they are stopped at the end of a quarter, but the claim isn’t started for a few weeks, there will be discrepancies. It looks as though they were busy clearing a backlog.

If a person’s identity cannot be confirmed, or if there are security questions, it can take a very long time before a claim is filed. As such, looking at the longer range is a lot more accurate.

Still, this is a place to begin.

YEAR, QUARTER	INTERCEPTIONS	CLAIMS WITH IRB	PERCENTAGE
2017, Feb-March	1,575	433	27.5%
2017, Q2	2,485	2,159	87.8%
2017, Q3	10,727	8,558	79.8%
2017, Q4	5,491	6,912	?
2018, Q1	5,052	5,581	?
2018, Q2	5,692	6,183	?
2018, Q3	4,982	5,037	?
2018, Q4	3,693	3,798	?
2019, Q1	2,698	2,918	?
2019, Q2	4,009	3,957	98.7%
2019, Q3	5,373	5,148	95.8%
2019, Q4	4,423	4,139	93.6%
2020, Q1	3,035	3,500	?
2020, Q2	59	360	?
2020, Q3	108	128	?
2020, Q4	100	162	?
2021, Q1	115	216	?
2021, Q2	78	232	?
2021, Q3	284	314	?
2021, Q4	3,769	789	20.9%
2022, Q1	7,049	2,772	39.3%
2022, Q2	9,382	4,512	48.1%
2022, Q3	10,621	5,599	52.7%
Feb 2017-Sept 2022	90,800	73,407	80.8%

Note: Beginning in Q4 of 2017, and Q1 of 2018, it seems that there were more than 100% asylum applications compared to people arriving. The likely reason is that the claims weren’t started right away, making the backlog worse.

Strange, even when there were few illegals coming in 2020 and 2021, it seems that the backlog wasn’t finished off. Guess everyone stopped working.

Now, this doesn’t answer the obvious question about how many people who are declared ineligible actually leave. Either the Government doesn’t keep such data, or they don’t make it easy to find.

The CBSA reported that in 2019 and 2020, some 11,444 “removals” had taken place, but no detailed breakdown is provided. This number apparently includes failed asylum seekers, and people ordered deported for other reasons. The CBSA has also complained that the majority of the removal orders are unenforceable.

More digging will need to be done in a follow-up.

Even when this subject is covered, little in the way of hard numbers are provided. This is one of the better ones. As one point, it was reported back in 2017 that there was a backlog of some 40,000 people. It’s currently at around 17,000.

Also, the totals of 25,789 (accepted), and 18,019 (rejected) are not accurate

As for how many of them are granted asylum, doing a manual count:
February 2017 to September 2022: 29,344 claims were accepted.
February 2017 to September 2022: 20,179 claims were rejected.

Total claims ruled = 29,344 + 20,179 = 49,523.

True, this includes claims started before February 2017, but assuming the acceptance rate is pretty consistent…

If we ignore the withdrawn and abandoned claims (as is done here), then 29,344 out of 49,523 were accepted for asylum. That works out to about 59%.

If the source material is at all accurate, roughly 81% of people coming into Canada illegally are allowed to have claims heard by I.R.B., and 59% of them are accepted. If it’s not accurate, that figure could be a lot higher.

(1) https://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/statistics/Pages/Irregular-border-crosser-statistics.aspx
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2022.html
(3) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2021.html
(4) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2020.html
(5) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2019.html
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2018.html
(7) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2017.html
(8) https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/10/19/new-data-show-69-of-illegal-border-crossers-are-being-granted-asylum.html
(8) https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/security-securite/arr-det-eng.html
(9) https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/pd-dp/bbp-rpp/pacp/2020-11-24/km-mc-eng.html

October 17, 2022October 17, 2022

Supreme Court Reserves Decision On Challenge To Safe Third Country Agreement

The Supreme Court of Canada recently heard a challenge to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA), on grounds that it violates the Charter of Rights. This was based on 3 consolidated cases of people attempting to enter Canada from the U.S., and being denied.

The primary NGOs acting were: (a) Amnesty International; (b) the Canadian Council for Refugees; and (c) the Canadian Council of Churches. However, there were others who piled on, demanding open borders for people entering Canada illegally.

Appellant Canadian Council for Refugees et al.
Appellant Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Intervener Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
Intervener David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights et al
Intervener National Council of Canadian Muslims et al
Intervener Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
Intervener Queen’s Prison Law Clinic
Intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Intervener Advocates for the Rule of Law
Intervener Rainbow Railroad
Intervener HIV AIDS Legal Clinic of Ontario
Intervener Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights et al
Intervener Rainbow Refugee Society

It’s strange that virtually any special interest group can get standing as an intervenor to attack our borders. Meanwhile, actual citizens don’t have standing to demand that laws and borders be enforced.

For context, it’s important to realize that attacking the function of a border is not new. In fact, these groups have been at it for a long time. Here are some of their efforts. Note: these listings are not exclusive.

Efforts appear to have kicked off after January 1, 1989. This was based on changes to the procedures for determining whether applicants come within the definition of a Convention Refugee.

First attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

April 26, 1989, the Federal Court dismissed an application to strike from the Attorney General of Canada. This had been brought on the basis that the Canadian Council of Churches did not have standing to bring the action and had not demonstrated a cause of action.

March 12, 1990, the Federal Court of Appeals refused to hear the challenge of this idea, since no country had yet been designated a “safe country”. In other words, the Canadian Council of Churches had simply fought the concept of a safe country designation.

January 23, 1992, the Supreme Court disallowed the challenge on the grounds that the CCC lacked the necessary standing, and that there were other, more effective ways to achieve their results.

Second attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

December 2004, the Canada/U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement comes into effect. It’s worth noting that it’s really a 3-way treaty that includes the UNHCR, or United Nations High Commission on Refugees. Of course, there are also limitation and exceptions that make it largely worthless.

November 29, 2007, the Federal Court ruled that the S3CA violated Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter, and that they couldn’t be “saved” as reasonable limitations under Section 1. Ottawa decided to appeal that ruling.

June 27, 2008, the previous ruling was set aside on the grounds that appearing at a border port meant they could be turned away, and that it wasn’t a breach of international obligations.

Third attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 23, 2015, the Federal Court allowed reconsideration of refugee applications from people coming from Hungary and Serbia. Up until this point, those countries were considered “safe” under the Designation Country of Origin (DCO) policy. This meant that approximately 40 countries — mainly in Europe — were viewed as safe. As a result, there would be mechanisms to expedite the process (and deportations) of claimants from there.

May 17, 2019, the Trudeau Government ended the DCO practice. This meant that no source country would automatically be considered “safe”, for people coming to Canada. Considering the S3CA was still in place, that left the United States as the only country that people could be turned away from (close to automatically). The list (and dates) are still available for reference.

Fourth attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 22, 2020, the Federal Court ruled that Section 7 of the Charter (security of the person) was violated by the S3CA. While Section 15 (equality) was cited as well, the Judge declined to rule on that provision. Barring an appeal, or legislative changes, the treaty was effectively dead.

April 15, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeals overturned that decision. Section 7 was no violated after all. Now, there had been a cross appeal, as the initial Judge declined to address Section 15. That was dismissed as well, meaning the S3CA was restored to its original form.

October 6, 2022, the Supreme Court hears arguments on striking down the S3CA on constitutional grounds. The decision is reserved, and it’s unclear when the ruling will occur. This is where we are today.

There’s a certain hypocrisy that needs to be pointed out: Refugee groups attack the S3CA, at least partially on the grounds that the U.S. is an unsafe country, and that they need better protection. In the meantime, these same groups promote refugee resettlement into America, as it’s a safe haven. In other words, whether or not the U.S. is safe depends entirely on who the audience is.

Of course, there was never any consultation with Canadians as to whether this is what they really wanted. It’s outrageous that the citizens might want to weigh in.

There’s also another elephant in the room that needs to be addressed: having lax border policies makes it easier to smuggle (or worse, traffic) people into another country. This does nothing to address that problem, but more on that elsewhere on the site.

September 10, 2022September 10, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 17, 2022August 17, 2022

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/

August 16, 2022August 15, 2022

At Least 9,384 Illegal Entries Into Canada In Q2 Of 2022

Things are picking up again, particularly in Quebec. The data for the second quarter of 2022 (April – June) shows that another 9,384 people illegally entered Canada, and that’s just what’s on the books. It should surprise no one that Roxham Road remains the most popular point of entry.

To make it clear, these are just the number of interceptions that happened BETWEEN official border ports. It says nothing of the system itself being otherwise gamed.

YEAR: 2022
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
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
TOTALS	16,319	12	95	7	16,433

It appears that illegals coming into Canada is back in full swing, not that it ever stopped. Over 7,000 people were intercepted by the RCMP in the first 3 months of 2022. Another 9,400 came in the next 3 months. Of course, this is just what’s on the books, and just what’s publicly available.

The police didn’t seem to have any issues with shutting down businesses, stopping peaceful protests, enforcing mask orders, and the like. However, maintaining borders is something they lack the willpower to do. But they do make good bellhops.

Of course, this problem has been going on for a very long time. Here are some earlier years, to show the trends. There was a significant drop (although not a complete stop) during this “pandemic” psy-op. Makes sense, as flaunting the open borders would have been too obvious.

Let’s not pretend that this is an unsolvable problem. Governments could put a stop to mass illegal entries very quickly, if that was their goal. But they don’t, regardless of what party is in power.

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. However, it’s only considered an issue when liberals is in power. A cynic may wonder if this is done in order to help perpetuate the myth that conservatives take this seriously.

YEAR: 2017
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
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
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
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
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
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
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
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
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
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

There are of course some other points to bring up to give additional context to the subject of illegal border crossings. These are some recent ones.

Something not really reported on in 2019 was the fact that the Canadian Government scrapped the DCO, or Designated Country of Origin policy. This stopped people from 42 countries (mainly in Europe) from being able to abuse the refugee system with bogus claims.

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 for the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, people are still allowed to enter, and it’s still being gamed by human smugglers and traffickers. Few people know this, but the Treaty is actually a 3-way arrangement with the UNHCR acting as a sort of facilitator.

Not only is the United Nations a party to U.S/Canada border security, but the organization distributes information packages on how to circumvent the Safe Third Country Agreement. While claiming to care about the integrity of countries, they publish materials to do exactly the opposite.

And no, this isn’t just well meaning naivety. The U.N. has extensively studied the connection between lack of border enforcement, and the facilitation of human smuggling and trafficking. It isn’t a surprise that open borders lead to increases in illegal crossings. They know exactly what’s going on.

If that doesn’t make your blood boil, what will?

In all fairness, the issue of illegal crossings into Canada isn’t nearly as bad as the United States. Still, it’s an issue that does need to be reported on. The Q3 statistics will presumably be released in October or November of this year.

June 17, 2022June 17, 2022

U.N. Death Cult: 73 Million Abortions Annually Worldwide

The World Health Organization openly posts and discusses some pretty disturbing and messed up data on abortion worldwide. (See archive).

This expands on a recent Canuck Law article, which estimates that there have been over 4.2 million abortions just in Canada since 1970. This averages out to approximately 20% of pregnancies being willfully terminated. Few are aware of just how big this problem is.

Here are some claims W.H.O. promotes:

Abortion is a common health intervention. It is safe when carried out using a method recommended by WHO, appropriate to the pregnancy duration and by someone with the necessary skills.
Six out of 10 of all unintended pregnancies end in an induced abortion.
Around 45% of all abortions are unsafe, of which 97% take place in developing countries.
Unsafe abortion is a leading – but preventable – cause of maternal deaths and morbidities. It can lead to physical and mental health complications and social and financial burdens for women, communities and health systems.
Lack of access to safe, timely, affordable and respectful abortion care is a critical public health and human rights issue.

And this one is a doozy:

Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year. Six out of 10 (61%) of all unintended pregnancies, and 3 out of 10 (29%) of all pregnancies, end in induced abortion

This claim is based on work from Bearak J, Popinchalk A, Ganatra B, Moller A-B, Tunçalp Ö, Beavin C et al, which covered estimates from the years 1990 through 2019. They used a “Bayesian framework”, meaning dta on pregnancy intentions and abortion were compiled from country-based surveys, official statistics, and published studies found through a literature search. So, it’s not just a straight compilation, but estimates as well.

Of course, if this figure of 73 million, per year, is even remotely accurate, it would be somewhere between 2 and 5 billion children have been aborted since the 1970s, when the movement really took off.

Restrictive abortion regulation can cause distress and stigma, and risk constituting a violation of human rights of women and girls, including the right to privacy and the right to non-discrimination and equality, while also imposing financial burdens on women and girls. Regulations that force women to travel to attain legal care, or require mandatory counselling or waiting periods, lead to loss of income and other financial costs, and can make abortion inaccessible to women with low resources.

Estimates from 2006 show that complications of unsafe abortions cost health systems in developing countries US$ 553 million per year for post-abortion treatments. In addition, households experienced US$ 922 million in loss of income due to long-term disability related to unsafe abortion. Countries and health systems could make substantial monetary savings by providing greater access to modern contraception and quality induced abortion.

A set of scoping reviews from 2021 indicate that abortion regulations – by being linked to fertility – affect women’s education, participation on the labour market and positive contribution to GDP growth. The legal status of abortion can also affect children’s educational outcomes, and their earnings on the labour market later in life. For example, legalization of abortion – by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus increasing the likelihood that children are born wanted – can be linked to greater parental investments in children, including in girls’ schooling.

Does W.H.O. condemn the hundreds of millions — if not billions — of lives that are lost through this? Not exactly. The rights of the unborn never seem to factor into the equation.

W.H.O. attempts to make several economic arguments as to why abortion should be legal and as accessible as possible. Of course, they don’t seem to bother with addressing the long term physical and psychological impacts of women who do abort their children.

The World Health Organization also has its own division on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research (SRH). (See archive). It’s funded both by various governments and private companies, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (See archive). They always seem to be around whenever there are population reduction programs involved.

5.6 Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences

Enshrining abortion is also written right into Agenda 2030, which was signed by “Conservative” Stephen Harper in 2015. (See archive). It’s item #5.6 on the Treaty.

One might think it strange that population control groups are interested in keeping abortion legal and readily available. Then again, once one realizes the scale of this mass infanticide, things start to make a whole lot more sense.

Furthermore, the W.H.O. and U.N. link to the U.N. Population Fund, their 2014 Programme of Action, and to the Beijing Declaration And Platform For Action. (See archive). In a sick twist, abortion is promoted as women’s rights, and pregnancy an often unwanted evil.

Of course, 50% or so of the babies who are killed would have grown up to become women. This is something that many women’s rights groups don’t get, or at least pretend they don’t.

It’s interesting that groups like the United Nations claim to be against child exploitation and human trafficking. That said, they support encourage practices that ensure the deaths of countless unborn, while their remains can be sold off for a variety of purposes.

It’s even more disturbing that the U.N. keeps detailed and up-to-date records of abortion regulations across countries. Guess it’s one way of tracking where the most victims are likely to come from.

Has abortion been stopped, or slowed over the last 2 1/2 years during this so-called pandemic? Not at all. In fact, it’s one of the few things that were still available in Canada the entire time. Sure, weddings, churches, and funerals were “non-essential”. However, abortion, weed and liquor were still accessible.

SOURCE MATERIAL
(1) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/eugenics-in-canada-20-of-babies-aborted-in-pro-choice-movement/
(3) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32710833/
(4) https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research-(srh)/human-reproduction-programme
(5) https://archive.ph/uyd8J
(6) https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research-(srh)/human-reproduction-programme/donors
(7) https://archive.ph/7tb5Q
(8) https://www.un.org/ohrlls/sites/www.un.org.ohrlls/files/2030_agenda_for_sustainable_development_web.pdf
(9) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development web
(10) https://www.unfpa.org/publications/international-conference-population-and-development-programme-action
(11) https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/CSW/PFA_E_Final_WEB.pdf
(12) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/UN-Beijing-Declaration-And-Platform-For-Action.pdf
(13) https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/related-health-issues
(14) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331561/WHO-2019-nCoV-essential_health_services-2020.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(15) WHO-2019-nCoV Essential Health Services 2020 March 2020
(16) WHO-2019-nCoV-essential_health_services June 2020
(17) https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/policy/AbortionPoliciesReproductiveHealth.pdf

Category: Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

What Percentage Of People Entering Canada Illegally Are Allowed To Make Asylum Claims?

Like this:

Supreme Court Reserves Decision On Challenge To Safe Third Country Agreement

Like this:

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

Like this:

Parliament’s Guidelines On Euthanizing The Mentally Ill

Like this:

At Least 9,384 Illegal Entries Into Canada In Q2 Of 2022

Like this:

U.N. Death Cult: 73 Million Abortions Annually Worldwide

Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year. Six out of 10 (61%) of all unintended pregnancies, and 3 out of 10 (29%) of all pregnancies, end in induced abortion

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year. Six out of 10 (61%) of all unintended pregnancies, and 3 out of 10 (29%) of all pregnancies, end in induced abortion

Share this:

Like this: