Category: Globalism

Posted on

Review Of 2022 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament

With the end of this so-called “pandemic” in Canada, expect the agenda to move ahead. There were increases in every category in 2021 (compared to 2020). Expect this to get worse.

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. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

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
2021 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2022 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament

The information in this article, and similar ones, comes directly from information provided by the Government of Canada in their annual reports. These numbers, while likely not truly accurate, are at least a good starting point.

3. Immigration Largely Controlled By Provinces

Concurrent Powers of Legislation respecting Agriculture, etc.
.
95 In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from Time to Time make Laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any Law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.

Contrary to popular belief, immigration is largely set by the Provinces. This is laid out in Section 95 of the Constitution. While Ottawa may impose laws from time to time, the understanding seems to be that the Premiers will be mostly the decision makers. While it’s understandable to get angry at Trudeau, he’s far from the only deserving target.

Additionally, there are talks underway to launch a Municipal Nominee Program, which will allow cities to directly bring people in, and to sponsor their bids to become permanent residents. It’s unclear at this point how large it will ultimately be.

4. Key Highlights From The Year 2021

AS stated before, it’s not entirely clear how many people are staying after some kind of temporary visa, v.s. how many leave. We also don’t have hard data on the “inadmissibles” who don’t leave, and on the visitors who overstay. Consequently, take this as a rough estimate:

405,999 new permanent residents
-191,338 temps transitioning to PR
= 214,661 new permanent residents brought into Canada

Temporaries Brought Into Canada
445,776 (Student Visas Issued)
+103,552 (Temporary Foreign Worker Program)
+313,294 (International Mobility Program)
= 862,622 (in the temporary classes)

6,687 “inadmissibles” allowed under Rule 24(1) of IRPA
95 “inadmissibles” allowed under Rule 25.2(1) of IRPA

813,306 eTAs (electronic travel authorizations)
+654,027 TRV (temporary resident visas)
1,467,333 combined eTAs and TRV

221,919 permanent residents became citizens in 2021. That’s interesting, considering it’s far lower than the number of people who got their PR. Perhaps the population of Canada is much larger than we think, with a huge number who remain as PR, and don’t officially become citizens.

How many people remained in Canada? Who knows?

Other immigration (PR pathway) plans to take note of:

  • 2 pathways for Hong Kong residents (June 1, 2021 to August 31, 2026)
  • PR for TRP holders and their families (May 6, 2021 to November 5, 2021)
  • Families of air crashes PS 752 and EA302 can get PR
  • 500 people (+families) amnesty for illegals to work in construction
  • “Refugees” willing to work in health care settings can get PR

The Government brags about expediting work permits for “essential workers”, even as Canada experienced record high unemployment. They even created a program for “refugees” to get accelerated permanent residence if they work in health care settings. This comes at a time when Canadian workers are being let go for refusing the experimental shots.

Foreign students (under a rule change) became exempt from the 20 hour/week work limit that their visas typically imposed. Supposedly, this was to enable them to provide essential services. Again, this seems screwed up given how many Canadians were forced out of work.

Foreign students also received emergency benefits designed for Canadians, although the full extent of this is not yet published.

In January 2020, the G.T.A./IIRC started their program to give out permanent residencies to 500 people — and their families — who had overstayed their initial visas. This could be interpreted as an amnesty-for-illegals program, and we’ll have to see how much it expands.

IIRC also extended the Interim Federal Health Program, or IFHP, which is a plan that also covers so-called asylum claimants. This applies also to people who’ve illegally entered from the United States. Some 14% of claimants in 2020 had entered the country illegally, primarily via Roxham Road.

There’s also an initiative underway to bring in large numbers of people from Hong Kong, who claim to be fleeing persecution. Interesting, as Canada doesn’t seem to be run much better these days.

The Rainbow Refugee Assistance Program is supposed to grow. This is to resettle people alleging they are persecuted because of their questionable behaviours.

Canada also will allow people (women primarily) fleeing domestic violence to get a temporary permit, with a the possibility of becoming a permanent resident. There isn’t any information given about whether the abuser will be deported.

New initiatives have been announced to fast-track Afghans, Ukranians and Iranians into Canada. Expect details (and numbers) in the next annual report.

There is, of course, the usual GBA+ nonsense in the document.

5. Continued Population Replacement

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(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)

(Page 33 of the 2020 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2021 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 50 of the 2022 Annual Report to Parliament)

Ever get the sense that people are European descent are being replaced? It’s no coincidence. The plan for decades has been to bring in large numbers of people from the 3rd World (mostly Asia and Africa), to remake society.

As usual, the top 3 are: (a) India; (b) China; and (c) The Philippines. No surprise that the enclaves in Canada are growing. More data from the recent census will be released later this year, and the results shouldn’t be a shock to anyone. India itself comprises nearly 1/3 of the total.

And keep in mind, these are just official statistics for Permanent Residents. This is by no means everyone who is coming into the country.

6. Temporary Visitors To Canada

TRV = Temporary Resident Visa
eTA = Electronic Travel Authorization

YEAR TRV Issued eTA Issued Totals
2016 1,347,898 2,605,077 3,952,975
2017 1,617,222 4,109,918 5,570,197
2018 1,898,324 4,125,909 6,024,233
2019 1,696,871 4,077,471 5,774,342
2020 257,330 648,789 906,119
2021 654,027 813,306 1,467,333

813,306 eTAs (electronic Travel Authorizations)
654,027 TRV (Temporary Resident Visa)

Travelers entering Canada increased by 62%, compared to 2020, according to the Government’s data. Expect the numbers in 2022 to come pretty close to 2018/2019 levels.

7. More “Inadmissibles” Let Into Canada

Broadly speaking, there are two provisions within IRPA, the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act, that allow people who were previously deemed inadmissible to Canada to be given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. Here are the totals from the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. Note: the first one listed only started in 2010.

Those allowed in under Rule 25.1(2) of IRPA

YEAR TRP Issued Cumulative
2010 17 17
2011 53 70
2012 53 123
2013 280 403
2014 385 788
2015 1,063 1,851
2016 596 2,447
2017 555 3002
2018 669 3,671
2019 527 4,198
2020 115 4,313
2021 95 4,408

From 2010 to 2021, a total of 4,408 people who were otherwise inadmissible to Canada were allowed in anyway under Rule 25.1(2) of IRPA. This is the category that Global News previously reported on. As for the other one, under Rule 24(1) of IRPA, Global News leaves that out:

Year Permits Cumulative
2002 12,630 12,630
2003 12,069 24,699
2004 13,598 38,297
2005 13,970 52,267
2006 13,412 65,679
2007 13,244 78,923
2008 12,821 91,744
2009 15,640 107,384
2010 12,452 119,836
2011 11,526 131,362
2012 13,564 144,926
2013 13,115 158,041
2014 10,624 168,665
2015 10,333 178,998
2016 10,568 189,566
2017 9,221 198,787
2018 7,132 205,919
2019 6,080 211,999
2020 2,044 214,043
2021 6,687 220,730

From 2002 to 2021 (inclusive), a total of 220,730 people previously deemed inadmissible to Canada were given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. This has almost certainly been going on for a lot longer, but is as far back as the reports go. Now let’s consider the reasons these people are initially refused entry.

SEC = Security (espionage, subversion, terrorism)
HRV = Human or International Rights Violations
CRIM = Criminal
S.CRIM = Serious Criminal
NC = Non Compliance
MR = Misrepresentation

YEAR Total SEC HRV Crim S.Crim NC MR
2002 12,630 ? ? ? ? ? ?
2003 12,069 17 25 5,530 869 4,855 39
2004 13,598 12 12 7,096 953 4,981 20
2005 13,970 27 15 7,917 981 4,635 21
2006 13,412 29 20 7,421 982 4,387 18
2007 13,244 25 8 7,539 977 4,109 14
2008 12,821 73 18 7,108 898 4,170 17
2009 15,640 32 23 6,619 880 7,512 10
2010 12,452 86 24 6,451 907 4,423 36
2011 11,526 37 14 6,227 899 3,932 11
2012 13,564 20 15 7,014 888 5,206 18
2013 13,115 17 10 6,816 843 5,135 8
2014 10,624 12 2 5,807 716 3,895 14
2015 10,333 3 3 5,305 578 4,315 28
2016 10,568 8 4 4,509 534 2,788 20
2017 9,221 10 5 5,035 591 3,412 121
2018 7,132 5 3 4,132 559 2,299 131
2019 6,080 2 0 3,202 546 2,139 175
2020 2,044 2 1 666 131 1,000 37
2021 6,687 1 2 602 134 1,552 48

In 2021, some 6,687 people barred were allowed in under Rule 24(1) of IRPA. That is triple what it was in 2020. Nevertheless, none of these people should be coming in.

Interestingly, even though the Government has wide discretion to let people into the country under 24(1) and 25.1(2) of IRPA, it chose not to use its discretion to prohibit anyone from entering.

Even if people are excluded from Canada — for a variety of valid reasons — often they will still be given temporary entrance into Canada. Will they ever leave? Who knows?

8. Students & Temporary Workers

After a steep decline in 2020, the number of student visas being issued has shot back up in 2021. Expect this to get worse in the coming years.

As for the “temporary” workers, the image here seems to imply that these are the total numbers of people with permits. However, it elsewhere states that these are the number issued in 2021. Of course, the International Mobility Visas (a.k.a. “working holiday”) are only 1-2 years in length.

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 – 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 – 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 – 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 – 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 – 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 – 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 – 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 – 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 – 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 – 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 – 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

2019 402,427 98,310 306,797 807,534

2020 256,740 84,609 242,130 583,452

2021 445,776 103,552 313,294 862,622

Stu = Student Visa
TFWP = Temporary Foreign Worker Program
IMP = International Mobility Program

Even during a “global pandemic” there were still 862,452 international student and temporary worker visas issued. This does represent an increase of about 48% from the 583,452 that came in 2020. Still, this is a staggering large number. As long as they were willing to take the shots, it seems anyone is welcome.

There are, of course, a number of pathways to remain in Canada longer and/or transition in permanent residence. Let’s not pretend that they’re all leaving afterwards. In fact, recent changes have allowed students to remain in their home countries while collecting time towards a PR designation here.

It would be nice to have more of a breakdown on the number of people who use more than 1 type of visa, but it doesn’t seem to be included here.

9. Refugee And Asylum Programs In Canada

The report claims to have resettled some 20,428 refugees in 2021. There isn’t a full breakdown. As far as the top 5 source countries, they are listed as:

(a) Afghanistan (6,105)
(b) Syria (4,195)
(c) Eritrea (3,674)
(d) Iraq (1,520)
(e) Democratic Republic of Somalia (1,297)

Expect far more Afghans, Ukranians and Iranians in the next few years.

10. “Anti-Racism” Initiatives To Be Advanced In Canada

The agenda endorsed by the Federal Government is to be implemented into immigration policy as well. It’s quite openly anti-white, and gaslights objections as racism and oppressions.

  • That racism against Indigenous Peoples, Black people and racialized groups has persisted over time; it exists to support, reinforce and build upon supremacy of one group over many. In our society, this is the elevation of (the) white people (or settler groups) above everyone else in many areas of Canadian life. The inertia continues to be upheld by access, privilege and indifference.
  • That colonialism, through our immigration system, has had an impact on Indigenous Peoples.
  • That global events, such as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Asian communities, fuel the rise of hate crimes in Canada. This has a profound effect on the safety and mental health of our racialized clients and employees.
  • That the experiences of many Indigenous Peoples, Black people and racialized groups intersect with sexism, ethnocentrism, classism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination, such as those experienced by persons with visible and non-visible disabilities. These intersections exacerbate an already difficult and in some cases precarious existence.
  • That, despite efforts and some progress made, IRCC has not yet achieved a fully diverse, equitable and inclusive workplace. Black employees remain in entry-level positions, and Indigenous employees, as well as employees from racialized groups, are not sufficiently represented at the executive level.
  • That many of our staff, as expressed in town halls, focus groups, trust circles and surveys, experience racism in the workplace, feel it impacts their career advancement and lack trust in senior management to address this.
  • That our fight against racism happens in solidarity with our fight against all forms of inequity.
  • That our renewed focus on Anti-Racism today builds on the tireless efforts of many unsung heroes who have long contributed to the fight against racism and all forms of inequity.
  • That racism spans beyond hate; it includes unconscious and unintended actions.

Interestingly, the idea of colonialism via immigration is mentioned. Of course, it’s primarily non-whites who are coming these days, which should throw the narrative for a loop.

When they speak of making workplaces more diverse and equitable, they really mean that the goal is to make them less white.

Pretty strange that people continue to come to Canada in record numbers, if this place really is the racist hellhole that’s being displayed.

11. Illegals Entering Via U.S./Canada Border

Although the report focused primarily on LEGAL immigration into Canada, the illegal brand is still worth talking about, since so few actually do. The United Nations gives detailed instructions and guidance on how to go about circumventing the border. The result, quite predictably, is that people keep trying to cross over.

YEAR: 2019
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA British Columbia 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 British Columbia 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 British Columbia 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

Although not listed in the Annual Immigration Report to Parliament, this is worth a mention. Illegal crossings from the U.S. did drop quite drastically in the Spring of 2020. Of course, the Government had to play along and make this “pandemic” seem real. In recent months, however, it seems the numbers are creeping back up again.

Keep in mind, the text of the Safe Third Country Agreement requires both Canada and the U.S. to consult with the UNHCR on refugees, and to get input from NGOs. We haven’t had meaningful borders in a long time.

As a reminder: the Trudeau Government scrapped the DCO, or Designated Country of Origin, back in 2019. This would allow for claims from “safe” countries to be denied much more quickly. However, with things the way they are, it seems nowhere is really safe. While the issue was very mainstream from 2017 to 2019, it seems to have disappeared.

In June 2020, a new policy kicked in to finally track who is leaving the country. Even more strange that a Trudeau would bring it in when he did. Probably to make it harder for people fleeing his regime.

Overall, the replacement agenda slowed down in 2020, but it rebounded significantly in 2021. Expect it to resume in full swing for 2022 and beyond.

Posted on

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

Posted on

Danielle Smith Betrays Supporters On Vaccine Passport Ban

In a move that was disappointing, but not surprising, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has backed off on a promise to enshrine “vaccination status” as a human right. This would effectively ban the passes that her predecessor, Jason Kenney, had brought in. The latest video was published on Global News, and involves Smith explaining why this isn’t going to happen. Apparently, the issue is too complex to be handled with a single piece of legislation.

However, the reasoning makes no sense. Jason Kenney brought in the passes by Ministerial Order. This was done without public consultation, a referendum, or any debate. If the Premier wields that kind of power, then surely Smith can ban the use of them in the same way. A Bill wouldn’t even be needed.

This comes despite public pressure for remaining business to drop their own requirements for patrons, clients and customers. In other words, Smith wants businesses to voluntarily do away with the QR codes, but isn’t willing to do it herself.

This was addressed in an earlier piece. If Smith were serious about protecting the freedoms of Albertans, she would come clean on exactly what is happening regarding “public health”.

Over a century ago, an International Public Health Office was created, which we became a part of. This was done without any democratic mandate of course.

1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.
2005: Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, is brought as domestic implementation of WHO-IHR.

It should be pointed out as well: the Quarantine Act was the basis for a lot of the content within the various Provincial Public Health Acts. Medical martial law is on the books, courtesy of policies that weren’t even written in Canada. That’s very undemocratic.

Of course, it’s possible that Smith knows nothing about any of this. If that’s the case, it’s scary how a person can wield this much power, without any awareness.

A cynic may wonder whether Smith never intended to introduce legislation in the first place. Perhaps this was a calculated plot to win the leadership race.

Another possibility is that this will come up again in the May 2023 election. Smith can facetiously campaign against the NDP, demanding she be elected, otherwise, face the return of QR codes. We’ll have to see what the next move is.

Just 6 weeks ago, Smith capitulated at the altar of political correctness. People were offended that she called the unvaccinated “the most discriminated group”. Instead of standing her ground, she apologized.

So, are the vaxx passes a human rights issue or not?

And when she says it’s important to have a “proper pandemic planning response for next time”, does she know something we don’t? Can we expect another psy-op like before?

(1) https://globalnews.ca/news/9309856/danielle-smith-bill-protect-unvaccinated/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/what-danielle-smith-isnt-telling-her-supporters/
(3) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/index.aspx
(4) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103984&t=637793587893732877
(5) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103986&t=637862410289812632
(6) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103990&t=637793587893576566
(7) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103994&t=637862410289656362
(8) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103997&t=637793622744842730
(9) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=105025&t=637793622744842730
(10) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
(11) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.convention.on_.immunities.privileges.pdf
(12) https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/publications/basic-documents-constitution-of-who179f0d3d-a613-4760-8801-811dfce250af.pdf?sfvrsn=e8fb384f_1&download=true
(13) WHO Constitution Full Document

Posted on

CSASPP Certification Hearing Approaching For Class Action Suit Against Bonnie Henry

With all the bad news about Court challenges being thrown out, here’s one to keep an eye on. British Columbia may very well have a class-action suit against Bonnie Henry and the B.C. Government get to Trial in April 2023. This comes from the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, or CSASPP.

It’s nice to see regular status updates, which should be commonplace in litigation that involves public donations. People don’t want to be left in the dark.

B.C. uses a service called “Court Services Online“, which allows members of the public to search for cases in the Supreme Court, and Court of Appeal. However, it’s behind a paywall, so here are some highlights of what’s been going on.

It appears there have been Court appearances every few months (on average). This is encouraging to see, as long silences make people wonder.

Here are the notes of the decisions thus far, and it’s mostly procedural stuff.

Yes, the courts do proceed at a snail’s pace, but it’s nice to be able to see some progress being made. This is especially important for donors who have chipped in.

There is to be a certification hearing from December 12 to 16, 2022. That’s just a few weeks away. The Judge will make the decision as to whether this class action will go ahead or not.

If the case is certified, then BCPHO Bonnie Henry would be forced to testify under oath. And she does have so much to answer for.

There are a few other (smaller) cases that CSASPP is working on, but this class action is by far the largest. We will see how things turn out.

As for other B.C. news: remember that in August 2021, Action4Canada filed an incoherent 400 page Notice of Civil Claim in Vancouver. Predictably, it was struck in its entirety, although a rewrite was allowed. Instead of fixing the problem, it was appealed for some strange reason.

The CSASPP/A4C comparison is like professional baseball v.s. children’s T-ball. Guess having competent lawyers does make a difference. Then again, the T-ball players generally don’t sue spectators for pointing out glaring flaws.

In any event, the certification hearing in December will be worth watching, and hopefully it will be broadcast online. Below is just a section of the documents that are available. Many more aren’t listed.

DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FROM CASE
(A) CSASPP 20210126 Notice of Civil Claim
(B) CSASPP 20210321 Request for Assignment of Judge
(C) CSASPP 20210331 Response to Civil Claim
(D) CSASPP 20210531 Cease and Desist Letter to Regulators
(E) CSASPP 20210621 CSASPPs Case Plan Proposal
(F) CSASPP 20210621 Dr Bonnie Henrys availability requested
(G) CSASPP 20210731 Defendants Case Plan Proposal
(H) CSASPP 20210813 Requisition for JMC for 1 October 2021
(I) CSASPP 20210817 Demand for Particulars
(J) CSASPP 20210821 Plaintiffs Response to Demand for Particulars
(K) CSASPP 20210913 Oral Reasons for Judgment Short Leave Application Seeking Stay
(L) CSASPP 20210915 Amended Notice of Civil Claim
(M) CSASPP 20211025 Affidavit No 2 of CSASPP Executive Director
(N) CSASPP 20211028 Proceedings in Chambers Defendants Application for Further Particulars
(O) CSASPP 20221101 Affidavit No 3 of Redacted Deponent Redacted
(P) CSASPP 20221102 Dr Henry and HMTKs Application Response for Webcast Application
(Q) CSASPP 20221115 Respondents Requisition Seeking 16 Nov 2022 CPC to Be Held by MS Teams

(1) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(2) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/court-documents
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates
(4) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/faq
(5) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/transparency

Posted on

AB Court Of Appeals Confirms HCW Are “Independent Contractors”, Can Refuse Unvaccinated Patients

The Alberta Court of Appeals had upheld a Queen’s Bench (now King’s Bench) decision that allows life saving treatments to be denied on the basis of vaccination status.

Interestingly, both Courts acknowledged, but skirted around the issue of whether these shots were actually safe. Instead, it came down to the case of doctors not actually being Government agents. As such, they can’t be forced to protect people’s Charter rights and freedoms.

This seems to be — at least in part — semantics, as Alberta Health Services gives direction on these kinds of issues all the time.

That said, the Lower Court stated that it was pointless, and in fact, unproductive, to issue Orders unless it was prepared to enforce them.

[42] In my view it is not necessary for the Treating Physicians to reconcile these differences in expert opinions rather, they must be free to decide which expert opinions they accept in exercising their clinical judgment, which informs the standard of care.

Defining the Legal Relationship Between Treating Physicians and the Applicant
[44] In Rasouli (Litigation Guardian of) v. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2011 ONSC 1500, the following passages are found at paragraphs 88 and 89:
.
However, as noted by Ellen I. Picard and Gerald B. Robertson in their text Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada:
.
In the great majority of cases, patients engage and pay their doctor (usually through medicare plans) and have the power to dismiss them. The hospital does not employ the physicians nor are they carrying out any of the hospital’s duties to the patient. They are granted the privilege of using personnel, facilities and equipment provided by the hospitals but this alone does not make them employees. They are independent contractors who are directly liable to their patients, and the hospital is not vicariously liable for their negligence.
.
Doctors owe a duty of care to their patients that begins upon the formation of the doctor-patient relationship. When this duty is breached, it is the individual doctors who are liable in negligence, not the hospital.
.
[45] In the result, the Treating Physicians are independent contractors who owe the applicant a duty of care.

Is the Relationship Between the Applicant and Her Treating Physicians Governed by the Alberta Bill of Rights?
[46] Since the advent of the Charter, Courts have looked to the Charter to determine if constitutionally protected rights are affected as the Charter can be interpreted more generously than Provincial Bills of Rights. There is no need to consider the claim under the Alberta Bill of Rights because if the Charter claims fail, her claim under the Alberta Bill of Rights will necessarily fail as well.

[52] The fact that the Treating Physicians, who are independent contractors, work in publicly funded hospitals under the rubric of Provincial and Federal healthcare legislation, does not mean that they are state actors subject to the Charter.

[56] In R v Dersch [1993] SCR 768, it was held at para 20, that a doctor who illegally took a blood sample at the request of the police was acting as an agent of government subjecting the action of the doctor in taking the blood sample to Charter scrutiny.
.
[57] However, at para 18, the Court observed that the actions of emergency room physicians in providing emergency treatment to the accused did not render the physicians agents of government for the purposes of the Charter.

[61] There is no evidence that at any time the Treating Physicians became agents of government in establishing preconditions for transplantation or that any governmental body was in any way involved in this process.

[69] In order for the medical system to function properly, Treating Physicians who are providing clinical advice, must be free to do so and are not governed by the Charter but rather by the standard of care which is owed to every patient.

[77] In Sweiss v Alberta Health Services, 2009 ABQB 691 at paragraph 60, the perils of the court attempting to interfere with the exercise of the clinical judgment were described:
.
The overriding theme which pervades the reasons of the English Court of Appeal in Re J. relates to its concern over the Court ordering a medical professional to treat his or her patient in a fashion which is contrary to clinical judgment. The Court in Re J. expressed its rationale as follows at 519:
.
…The Court is not, or certainly should not be, in the habit of making orders unless it is prepared to enforce them. If the Court ordered a doctor to treat a child in a manner contrary to his or her clinical judgment, it would place a conscientious doctor in an impossible position. To perform the Court’s order it could require the doctor to act in a manner which he or she generally believed not to be in the patient’s best interests; to fail to treat the child as ordered would amount to a contempt of court. Any judge would be most reluctant to punish the doctor for such a contempt, which seems to me to be a very strong indication that such an order should not be made.

Conclusion
[89] In the result, I conclude that the Charter has no application to clinical treatment decisions made by the Treating Physicians, and in particular has no application to the Treating Physicians establishing preconditions for XX transplantation. The Originating Application is dismissed in its entirety.

The Courts also brought up the issue of scarcity: people can be denied organs, given their relatively low supply, if they don’t meet certain criteria. Again, it’s not forcing anyone to get the shot, as long as they are fine with not getting the organs they need.

It’s difficult to view this as anything other than coercion.

IV. Conclusion
[74] This is not the first time medical judgments about allocation of scarce resources have been made in the face of competing needs. While such decisions are doubtless exceedingly difficult, they nevertheless must be made. In this case, the Charter does not apply to the respondents’ exercise of clinical judgments in formulating pre-conditions to [organ] transplant, including requiring vaccination against COVID-19 in the wake of the pandemic.

[75] In conclusion, we are not persuaded this Court can, or ought to, interfere with generalized medical judgments or individualized clinical assessments involving Ms Lewis’ standard of care. In the circumstances of this appeal, while Ms. Lewis has the right to refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, the Charter cannot remediate the consequences of her choice.

[76] The appeal is dismissed.

Think about the ramifications of these rulings: a person cannot be forced to get an experimental vaccine. However, doctors have the right to withhold life saving treatments if they refuse. In other words, it’s still “take the vaccine or die”.

A cynic may wonder if doctors are going along with this since they were forced to get the shots in order to keep practicing. Perhaps they wish for everyone to suffer, instead of admitting they made a mistake.

This may (or may not) be the end of the road. At this point, the only available option is to file an Application for Leave to be heard at the Supreme Court. And although they reject cases deemed not to be “in the national interest”, it seems likely that this one would be heard at least.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2022/2022abqb479/2022abqb479.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2022/2022abqb479/2022abqb479.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2022/2022abca359/2022abca359.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2022/2022abca359/2022abca359.pdf
(5) https://edmontonjournal.com/news/crime/court-upholds-doctors-right-to-require-covid-vaccination-for-organ-transplant-patient-saying-alternative-is-medical-chaos

Posted on

N.S. Court Of Appeals Rules On Strang’s Attack On Free Assembly

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ruled a week ago on a challenge to a May 2021 injunction. Previously, the Provincial Supreme Court ruled ex-parte that Robert Strang could effectively suspend freedom of assembly on an indefinite basis.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, CCLA, applied to intervene to appeal the matter. It was granted on August 31, 2021. Due to the complexity of the issues, and other delays, it took a year for the case to be heard.

While the issue of infringing on civil rights did come up in the decision, it wasn’t front and center. Instead, there were many procedural errors cited. Still, the trio did make many findings which can be used at a later date. It wasn’t a total loss.

Strang got (rightfully) rebuked for his overreaching power grab, but it could have been done in a much more forceful way.

Overall, it’s a “meh” kind of ruling.

Issues:
1. Should the Court hear an appeal of an ex parte order?
.
2. Should the Court entertain a moot appeal?
.
3. Did the judge err by:
a) Granting an injunction order without the applicants having advanced any common law cause of action, statutory authority, or other right to a remedy;
b) Applying the test for an interlocutory injunction to the applicants’ request for a permanent injunction;
c) Stating and applying the wrong test for a quia timet injunction;
d) Granting an Injunction Order against all Nova Scotians without requiring evidence that such a remedy was needed against all Nova Scotians;
e) Granting an injunction order without considering that the order infringed the Charter rights of all Nova Scotians and that this infringement may not be justified in circumstances;
f) Accepting the evidence of a named applicant as independent expert evidence, without compliance with Rule 55 or the common law requirements for independent expert evidence.

Between the 3 Justices, there was some dissent on a few issues, although they seemed to agree for the most part. The more important things they were all in agreement on:

  • The Attorney General’s application should not have been ex parte;
  • The Court should hear this moot appeal;
  • Dr. Strang’s expert opinion was not admissible;
  • The Nova Scotia Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to issue a quia timet injunction to enjoin apprehended breaches of the Public Health Order made pursuant to the Health Protection Act;
  • The motion judge erred when he employed the test for an interlocutory injunction when he actually was asked for and did issue a permanent injunction;
  • The motion judge erred by not considering the impact on Charter rights when considering if he should issue the requested injunctive relief;
  • The motion judge erred by issuing injunctive relief that was far too broad.

There was dissent on the following:

  • The AGNS failed in its duty to provide full disclosure of information in its possession on the ex parte application;
  • The motion judge erred in law in finding the prerequisites for a permanent quia timet injunction had been made out;
  • Dr. Strang’s opinion about the risk of outdoor transmission should not have been accepted because he lacked the necessary independence and impartiality as set out in White Burgess.

In contrast to a few other recent decisions, the NSCOA decided to hear the case in spite of it being moot. The issues were of such a public interest that it should go ahead. This differed significantl from other recent cases, in which there was no inclination to do so.

(Para 47) The COA disagreed that applying for an injunction without notice was appropriate. Unless: (a) it’s impossible to give notice; or (b) giving notice may cause the event, this type of procedure shouldn’t be attempted. The Government could have given notice, but simply found it more expedient not to.

(Para 54) The Government chose a method that was designed for temporary measures, but the open-ended nature of the Order sought was effectively permanent, or semi-permanent. There was no end date provided.

(Para 56-57) The Government tries to argue that it would have met the test for a permanent injunction with the information it had the time. Additionally, the Court found that the wrong test had been applied for in seeking a permanent — as opposed to temporary — injunction.

(Para 61-63) The proper quia timet test was used. This is a test used to get injunctions based “on the fear of” something happening. Problem is, this test seems to be almost entirely subjective, and open to abuse.

(Para 64-69) The question came up as to whether or not there was even a valid cause of action. The Court decided that the likelihood of these Orders being violated, combined with the fear of disease spreading, was justifiable in and of itself.

(Para 127-140) The Order applied not only to certain people wanting to attend gatherings, but to Nova Scotians as a whole. The Court also said that this was overreaching given the overstated likelihood of infection.

(Para 141-148) The Court took issue with the fact that the original Order was obtained ex-parte, and there wasn’t enough consideration given to the Charter violations that would likely result.

(Para 149-168) Robert Strang, the Medical Officer of Health, should not have been qualified as an “expert”. Given his position, there was an inherent conflict of interest. He gave evidence in support of submissions that would validate his own demands. As such, he wasn’t separate enough.

[169] The Province incorrectly applied for a permanent ex parte injunction, but argued the test for an interim injunction described in RJR. The Province should have sought an interlocutory injunction on notice to which the RJR test properly applied. The Charter rights engaged should have been considered in the balance of convenience step of the RJR test.

[170] The Province did not establish a basis for granting either an interlocutory or permanent injunction because it did not tender admissible evidence of outdoor transmission of COVID-19 on which a finding of “high probability” of serious or irreparable harm could be grounded. The Chief Medical Officer should not have been qualified as an expert. In any event, the Order granted should not have been indefinite as to time, place and person.

(Para 200-218) The issue of mootness came up. Since the Orders have been rescinded, was there an issue to even be tried? The NSCOA decided to limit its scope to questions of law, and not revisit the factual findings from the Lower Court.

(Para 220-247) Robert Strang’s role as expert witness was questioned, given his conflict of interest. The NSCOA acknowledged that sections 8, 20, 24, 32 and 37 give him the right to issue directives based on his opinions and beliefs.

(Para 248-280) The ruling went on at length as to whether the proper test had been applied for permanent injunction. This was important, as it related to the concerns of Charter breaches. The Judges agreed that the test hadn’t been met.

(Para 281-303) The Court of Appeals took issue with the fact that the injunction would apply to everyone in the Province, and was done without the means to challenge in the first place. It was an error of due process to not allow others to confront accusers. This wasn’t limited to a select group, either.

(Para 303-328) The Panel avoided the question — for the most part — about whether these Orders were violation of Charter rights. A full analysis apparently wasn’t required. Instead, there was more of an issue with the roughshod way this was done. In short, there were more procedural than substantive problems.

(Para 329-350) Is this “virus” transmissible, and was there proper disclosure? Here, the NSCOA seemed to avoid that, and simply stated that Strang was offering full disclosure with whatever available information he had. He was able to get the injunction without introducing actual evidence. The Court didn’t seem too bothered by that.

In a sense, this was academic, as there’s currently no Order in place. Still, there’s a ruling now, and the good parts may be useful later.

SOME THOUGHTS ON THIS

It was helpful to have a (somewhat) favourable ruling from Nova Scotia. However, the problems go much deeper than just the Charter, or some Officer of Health. To date, it doesn’t seem that any lawyer has brought this forward.

1908: International Public Health Office to be created
1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s scary.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.

2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12
2004 creation of PHAC
Health Canada’s Real History

Although probably outside the scope here, it would be nice to see the Public Health Acts themselves challenged in Court. No one ever voted for this, but the W.H.O. is able to write our laws to include medical tyranny.

If laws are put in place that aren’t written in this country, shouldn’t that be grounds to have them challenged and struck down?

Also, it’d have been preferable to fully address the issue of civil rights violations. Freedom of assembly, especially when protesting Government overreach, is an important ability to have. Without it, there’s no open society.

The NSCOA acknowledged that the May 2021 Order violated Charter rights, but didn’t really dive into it. Instead, they seemed more content to focus on the many breaches of procedure that had taken place.

The panel also seemed to go out of their way to give Strang the benefit of the doubt. He took the rights of a million people away. He needs to be held to account, not given deference.

On the bright side: there are parts of this ruling which could be the basis for future actions at a later date, such as restricting the use of ex-parte injunctions. It wasn’t a complete loss. Another Judge might quote portions of this to come to favourable conclusions elsewhere.

Guess we’ll see what happens next.

(1) https://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/59th_1st/1st_read/b026.htm
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/laws/stat/sns-2004-c-4/latest/sns-2004-c-4.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2021/2021nssc170/2021nssc170.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsca/doc/2021/2021nsca65/2021nsca65.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsca/doc/2021/2021nsca65/2021nsca65.html