TSCE #16: Bit Of History, NGOs Trying To Open Canada’s Borders For Decades

1. Important Links

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)

CLICK HERE, for TSCE #10: letting illegals in violates int’l treaties.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #11: Using courts to open Canada’s borders.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #12: Amnesty International’s Zionist roots.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #13: Canadian Council for Refugees’ lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #14: Bridges Not Borders, Plattsburg Cares, Solidarity Across Borders.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #15: Amb David Berger, Jewish Refugee Action Network, CCR.

2. Why Canadians Should Care

It should worry Canadians greatly when there is a sustained effort to undermine and erode our borders. The overwhelming majority of people don’t know how far back this goes. Although efforts predate these cases, this is where we will start.

On the first attempt, the Canadian Council of Churches went to court to try to get certain new legislation thrown out. This legislation would have made it harder for people to enter Canada from the U.S. and claim asylum. It went to the Supreme Court, but ultimately, it was ruled the group did not have public interest standing.

3. Court History Over The Years

Again, many more attempts have been made in recent decades to erase borders, but this article will only focus on a few of them.

(a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3

(b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534

(c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236

(a) 2008 ruling S3CA has no effect
Docket: IMM-7818-05
S3CA Provisions Struck Down

(b) The 2008 ruling is overturned on appeal
Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229
Appeal granted, S3CA restored

(a) 2017, Prothonotary Milczynski considers consolidation
IMM-2229-17, IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17
Milczynski Considers Consolidation

(b) 2017, CJ Crampton transfers cases to J. Diner
Crampton Transfers Consolidated Cases

(c) 2017, Justice Diner grants public interest standing
Citation: 2017 FC 1131
Amnesty Int’l, CDN Councils of Churches, Refugees

(d) 2018, Justice Diner grants consolidation of 3 cases
Citation: 2018 FC 396
Cases to be consolidated

(e) 2018, Justice Diner allows more witnesses
Citation: 2018 FC 829

(f) 2019, Justice McDonald says no more witnesses
Citation: 2019 FC 418

4. 1992: SCC Rules No Standing

The CanLII link is here.

Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3
Rouleau J. dismissed the application. His judgment reflects his concern that there might be no other reasonable, effective or practical manner to bring the constitutional question before the Court. He was particularly disturbed that refugee claimants might be faced with a 72-hour removal order. In his view, such an order would not leave sufficient time for an applicant to attempt either to stay the proceedings or to obtain an injunction restraining the implementation removal order.
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534
MacGuigan J.A. speaking for a unanimous Court allowed the appeal and set aside all but four aspects of the statement of claim.
In his view the real issue was whether or not there was another reasonably effective or practical manner in which the issue could be brought before the Court. He thought there was. He observed that the statute was regulatory in nature and individuals subject to its scheme had, by means of judicial review, already challenged the same provisions impugned by the Council. Thus there was a reasonable and effective alternative manner in which the issue could properly be brought before the Court.
He went on to consider in detail the allegations contained in the statement of the claim. He concluded that some were purely hypothetical, had no merit and failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action. He rejected other claims on the grounds that they did not raise a constitutional challenge and others on the basis that they raised issues that had already been resolved by recent decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal.
He granted the Council standing on the following matters raised on the statement of claim

Without getting too much into the technical details, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the Canadian Council of Churches, an organization, should be granted public interest standing to strike down all or part of the immigration laws. Ultimately, the ruling was no.

Disposition of the Result
In the result I would dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal on the basis that the plaintiff does not satisfy the test for public interest standing. Both the dismissal of the appeal and the allowance of the cross-appeal are to be without costs.
Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed.
Solicitors for the appellant: Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondents: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
Solicitors for the interveners The Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped and The Quebec Multi Ethnic Association for the Integration of Handicapped People: Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto.
Solicitors for the intervener League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada: David Matas, Winnipeg, and Dale Streiman and Kurz, Brampton.
Solicitors for the interveners Women’s Legal Education and Action (LEAF) and Canadian Disability Rights Council (CDRC): Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto and Dulcie McCallum, Victoria

Ultimately, the Supreme Court thought that a refugee, someone with actual standing (or something at stake) should be the one making the case.

Also worth noting, consider who some of the intervenors are in this case. A lot of people who want to make it easier to get into Canada.

5. 2008: S3CA, Parts Of IRPA Struck Out

S3CA, Parts of IRPA Struck

IT IS ORDERED THAT this application for judicial review is granted and the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” is quashed.

Yes, the Canada/U.S Safe Third Country Agreement was actually declared to have no legal effect. However, this is not the end of it, as we will soon see.

1. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United
States of America are ultra vires and of no legal force and effect.
2. The Governor-in-Council acted unreasonably in concluding that the United States of
America complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the
Convention Against Torture.
3. The Governor-in-Council failed to ensure the continuing review of the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” as required by
paragraph 102(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
4. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the operation of the Safe Third Country Agreement between
Canada and the United States of America violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are not justified under section 1 thereof.

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS are certified as serious questions of general
1. Are paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and
the United States of America ultra vires and of no legal force and effect?
2. What is the appropriate standard of review in respect of the Governor-in-Council’s
decision to designate the United States of America as a “safe third country” pursuant
to s. 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
3. Does the designation of the United States of America as a “safe third country” alone
or in combination with the ineligibility provision of clause 101(1)(e) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is such violation justified under section 1?

If the United States is not a safe country, then why do tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people try to apply for asylum there every year?

The Safe Third Country Agreement was meant to prevent “asylum shopping” from taking place, but that is exactly what this ruling would have allowed.

6. 2009: Previous Ruling Overturned

The impugned Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement are not ultra vires the IRPA. Subsection 102(1) of the IRPA gives the GIC the power to promulgate regulations governing the treatment of refugee claims which may include provisions designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. This is a broad grant of authority intended to give effect to Parliament’s expressed intent that responsibility for the consideration of refugee claims be shared with countries that are respectful of their Convention obligations and human rights. The factors to be considered before designating a country are expressly set out in subsection 102(2) of the IRPA. The applications Judge’s misapprehended concern that the GIC would have the discretion to designate a country that does not comply with the Conventions led him to transform the statutory objective of designating countries “that comply” into a condition precedent.

The applications Judge adopted a hypothetical approach to the respondent organizations’ Charter challenge, i.e. that a class of refugees would be treated a certain way if they were to present themselves at a Canadian land border port of entry. This approach went against the well-established principle that a Charter challenge cannot be mounted in the abstract. There was no evidence that a refugee would have to bring a challenge from outside Canada. The respondent organizations’ ability to bring the Charter challenge depended on John Doe. As the latter never presented himself at the border and therefore never requested a determination regarding his eligibility, there was no factual basis upon which to assess the alleged Charter breaches. The applications Judge thus erred in entertaining the Charter challenge.

[14] On December 29, 2005, the respondents launched an application for leave and judicial review seeking a declaration that the designation of the U.S. under section 102 of the IRPA was ultra vires, that the GIC erred in concluding that the U.S. complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and further, that the designation breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. For purposes of clarity, it is useful to set out in full the issues set out in the judicial review application filed before the Court:

[130] In short, a declaration of invalidity of the STCA Regulations is not required in order to ensure that they are not applied to claimants for protection at the land border in breach of either Canada’s international obligations not to refoule, or the Charter.
[131] For these reasons I would allow the appeal

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Lower Court considered a hypothetical scenario, and wrongly applied it to a Charter challenge. Put simply, Charter challenges are supposed to be ground in fact, and not “what if” situations. The ruling was overturned, and the Safe Third Country Agreement was restored.

7. 2017-Present: Toronto Challenge

Chief Justice Paul Crampton transferred 3 related cases to Justice Diner for case management. This is the same CJ Crampton who ruled that private citizens wishing to oppose the destruction of the S3CA don’t have standing.

Justice Diner granted public interest standing to 3 NGOs: Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches.

Justice Diner order the 3 cases to be consolidated and tried together because of the overlapping issues.

Note: also see here, for decisions from the Federal Court in the matter above.

The case is still pending.

8. So Who Are These NGOs?

Amnesty International

B’nai Brith League For Human Rights

B’nai Brith National Organization

Bridges, Not Borders
Bridges Not Borders, Mainpage
Bridges Not Borders, About
Bridges Not Borders, Why They Cross
Bridges Not Borders, Media Page
Bridges Not Borders, Pro Asylum Shopping

Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers

Canadian Council For Refugees

Plattsburgh Cares
Plattsburgh Cares Main Page
Plattsburgh Cares, Humanitarian Support

Solidarity Across Borders
Solidarity Across Borders’ Homepage
SAB Supports Illegal Migrant Caravans
SAB Supports Sanctuary Cities For Illegals
SAB Calls To Open Up The Borders

These are of course not the only NGOs working to open up our borders (and other nations’ borders as well), but it does at least provide some insight.

Also, see the above links in Section #1 for other articles published on these NGOs.

9. Look At The Bigger Picture

Last fall, the story made the news that a challenge would be coming to Toronto to the Safe Third Country Agreement.

However, the Canadian media left out important information. Shocking.

First, it didn’t go into any detail on the groups lobbying for this. It wasn’t just some helpless “asylum claimants”, but an organized effort to help erase Canada’s border with the U.S.

Second, the full extent of the NGO meddling is not mentioned. True, some media DO reference the 2007 case, but not further. It doesn’t provide a complete picture of what is going on. Nor does it mention how these groups are pushing similar initiatives elsewhere. Amnesty International, for example, claims to have 7 million members pushing to bring more migrants (primarily) to the West. The Canadian Council for Refugees, as another example, spends considerable time and effort lobbying our Parliament for more refugee friendly laws.

Third, there seems little concern for the Canadian who would have their safety and sovereignty eroded should this pass. Instead, the focus is always on people coming to Canada and what their needs are.

This is lawfare: using our courts and legal system to open our borders.

TSCE #15: David Berger, Ex-MP, Ex-Israel Ambassador, Now With JRAN, CCR

1. Important Links

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)

CLICK HERE, for David Berger’s LinkedIn page.
CLICK HERE, for David Berger is part of CCR.
CLICK HERE, for Berger wants to bring UK refugee to Canada.
CLICK HERE, for IFCJ Canada Board of Directors.
CLICK HERE, for the Jewish Refugee Action Network.
http://archive.is/HjDov (2017)
http://archive.is/3zwWq (2020)
CLICK HERE, for JRAN – refugee connection.
CLICK HERE, for JRAN Board Members.
CLICK HERE, for JRAN, the issues.
CLICK HERE, for Berger/JRAN letter to PM.
CLICK HERE, for Berger/Goldstein law practice.
CLICK HERE, for Netanyahu doesn’t want refugees.

2. From LinkedIn Page

My practice includes many different aspects of immigration, refugee and citizenship law including skilled worker applications, business immigration programs, and work or study permits.
I provide counsel to individuals, families and businesses in all facets of an application, notably in identifying the most expeditious manner of obtaining a visa or permit, communications with government officials, and appeals. I also have had particular success with difficult applications where clients faced considerable obstacles in obtaining or maintaining status in Canada.
Immigration to Canada represents opportunity but also difficulties and risks. I help clients to minimize the difficulties and risks and ensure the best possible results.

Just from the LinkedIn page we can get lots of information about David Berger. He was a Member of Parliament for several terms, is a former Ambassador to Israel, and now works for the NGO, Canadian Council for refugees.

3. Berger Pushed Asylum For UK “Refugee”

Dr. Khalid, 32, was forced into exile in London in March, along with her husband, but maintains she had always intended to seek asylum in Canada, where her relatives live.

Canada was one of the first countries to include gender-based persecution in its refugee determination process, and should come to the aid of the high-profile victim of violence, said Mr. Berger, a former Quebec Liberal MP (Westmount-St. Henri) who was posted to Israel as ambassador in 1995.

“The U.K. may not be the safest place for her,” said Mr. Berger, a lawyer who has taken Dr. Khalid’s case pro bono.
“It appears for some time Dr. Khalid has indicated she wanted to come to Canada and this is the country where she would be the happiest.”

Two interesting points about this Globe and Mail article. The first is that Mr. Berger sees nothing wrong with asylum shopping, and that refugees should simply be allowed to go where they please.

The other is that he claims the UK is not a safe country. Could this be because of their policy of bringing in huge numbers of Muslim migrants? Now the demographic shift has made the UK unsafe? In that case, why should we bring Muslims to Canada, and turn it into the UK (or essentially the 3rd world)?

4. David Berger Part Of CCR

Immigration lawyer and David Berger is a member of the Canadian Council of Refugees, an NGO that advocates for migrants. Berger is also Canada’s former Ambassador to Israel and a former member of Canada’s Parliament. “We’ve got a backlog today of 30,000 claims whereas about two years ago the backlog was 10 or 15 thousand,” he explained. He said there aren’t enough immigration judges, formally known in Canada as decision makers.

“We believe the government has to appoint more decision makers. 120 decision makers is just not enough,” Berger continued. He added that Canada is a better country for the contributions refugees make. He represents or has represented people with advanced degrees in literature and finance, images that defy stereotypes harbored by some anti-immigrant forces.

David Berger is part of the Canadian Council for Refugees, which, among other things, is working to strike down the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement. If this is successful (it was initially, but overturned on appeal a decade ago), people from the warzone that is the United States will be free to waltz in and claim they are refugees, regardless of how meritless the claims may be.

5. Jewish Refugee Action Network

Overview of JRAN’s concerns
Since 2012, significant changes have been made to Canada’s treatment of refugees. For decades, Canada’s refugee system worked towards protecting people in danger and other humanitarian goals. The new changes, however, do the following: discriminate between individuals based on their country of origin or how they arrived in Canada; create serious challenges in the refugee determination process, which could lead in some cases to the deportation of individuals to their home countries and a real risk of persecution or worse; and limit certain humanitarian protections. In addition, since 2012, a half century’s old system of providing healthcare coverage to people seeking refugee status has been cut, thereby stranding thousands of people who are lawfully in Canada without emergency or life-saving healthcare.

1. Refugee Determination Process
Since 2012, changes to the refugee determination system make it difficult for many refugee claimants to prove their claims, and limits their ability to get a fair hearing due to severely shortened timelines, restrictions on appeal rights, and restrictions on other legal processes. Without a fair refugee hearing, there is a risk that people will be deported to countries where they face danger to their safety, freedom, or even their lives….

2. “Designated Countries of Origin” (DCOs)
The new Designated Countries of Origin (DCO) scheme creates a new category of refugee claimant. Refugee claimants from designated countries are not entitled to the same legal process as refugee claimants from non-designated countries. Ostensibly created to distinguish between refugee claimants from “safe” countries and claimants from other countries, in reality the DCO scheme creates a two-tiered system that discriminates between refugee claimants based on their country of origin, and limits the ability of claimants to get a fair hearing regarding their individual case….

3. “Designated Foreign Nationals” (DFNs)
Under the new designated foreign national (DFN) scheme, the Minister of Public Safety may “designate” two or more refugee claimants who arrive in Canada without the appropriate Canadian visas or documents, if the Minister believes that they have paid someone to help them enter Canada, or if they lack the papers necessary to prove their identity in what the Minister believes is a “timely manner.” Being identified as a DFN has serious consequences, including mandatory group detention for what may be lengthy periods, restrictions on appeal rights, and restrictions on gaining permanent residence status…

4. Cuts to Refugee Healthcare Coverage
In 2012, the Canadian government made drastic cuts to healthcare coverage for refugee claimants. An Order in Council took away even basic emergency and life-saving medical care from thousands of refugee claimants who have lawfully sought Canada’s protection…

The Jewish Refugee Action Network states that it is concerned about rights and social services for refugees coming into Canada. Interesting that Berger, a several term Member of Parliament, shows far more concern for the well being of foreigners than he does Canadians.

Now let’s get to what JRAN considers the “refugee issue”, and it attempts to give some historical context.

Jews as Refugees – Biblical Connection
The Exodus from Egypt, one of the central stories in Jewish tradition, is a foundation document of Jews as refugees. Having been held slaves under the pharoahs for several hundred years, the Israelites were desperate for their freedom. Their dramatic departure reached its climax at the Red Sea, when the Israelites were finally able to escape Pharoah’s soldiers and Egypt.
Jewish law – Spiritual Connection
Jewish texts and laws provide a constant reminder about the Exodus and about the experience of slavery in Egypt. The Exodus is the central experience recounted in the Torah. It is mentioned as part of our weekly Friday night blessings, and is told in far greater detail at our annual Passover seders. At the seder, surrounded by comfort and good food, we are encouraged to remember the story as if we were the ones who had been slaves and refugees.
The experience in Egypt is repeated often in the Torah, with the explicit admonition to treat others with compassion and justice. Our Biblical laws – requiring us to provide for the widow and orphan, to treat workers fairly, and to help the foreigners in our midst – explain that we must do so because we ourselves were foreigners in Egypt. This idea is echoed more than 30 times in the Torah. Here too, we are asked to put ourselves in the position of our ancestors: slaves and foreigners in Egypt.
Jews as Refugees – Historical Connections
The Shoah (Holocaust) was another defining moment for the Jewish people. The genocide of six million Jews was a tragedy, heightened by the indifference of those free countries who refused to admit Jews to safety on their shores. Canada is one of several countries who bear the shame of having refused to receive 900 Jewish refugees who had managed to escape Germany aboard the ocean liner St. Louis. Many Canadian Jews remember the treatment of these desperate Jewish refugees.
Jews and Roma – Parallel Histories of Persecution
The persecution of Jews in Europe for many centuries, bears certain similarities to that experienced by the Roma people, who also faced restrictions on their employment and permitted living areas, violence, expulsions, and other forms of oppression. The Roma people, like the Jews, were the only other group legally targeted for extermination by the Nazis, and experienced their own genocide known as the Porajmos. Unfortunately, the Roma in Europe continue to suffer many forms of violence, discrimination, at the hands of bigots and fascists with the collusion of some governments.

Clearly, never missing an opportunity to play the victim narrative. David Berger is a Board Member of this group. This is the list.

JRAN Members
Honorary Members

  • Stephen Lewis, Honorary Canadian Co-Chair
  • Michele Landsberg, Honorary Canadian Co-Chair

Board Members

  • Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld, founder of JRAN
  • Ken Rosenberg, Chair
  • Maureen Silcoff
  • Mary Jo Leddy
  • Noa Mendelsohn Aviv
  • Dr. Philip Berger
  • Bernie M Farber
  • Mitchell Goldberg
  • Valerie Hyman
  • Audrey Macklin
  • Anna Porter
  • Gabriela Ramo
  • Avrum Rosensweig
  • Jon Telch
  • Rivka Augenfeld
  • Cynthia Levine-Rasky
  • David Berger
  • Mira Oreck
  • Hesh Troper

6. Berger, JRAN, Lobbied For “Syrian Refugees”

As a wealthy and peaceful country, we have a shared international responsibility to be a safe haven for refugees and to treat them with fairness. As Jewish Canadians, we join other faith groups, legal organizations, and settlement workers in calling on our government to do our share for the vulnerable people fleeing Syria. Specifically:

1. To put in place flexible provisions to allow family members of Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and recognized refugees to enter Canada by issuing Temporary Resident Permits, with the possibility of access to permanent residence later.

2. In close consultation and coordination with sponsorship agreement holders, to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees from refugee camps within the next year. The UNHCR recently requested countries to settle 100,000 Syrian refugees. Canada has traditionally agreed to resettle 10 per cent of UNHCR requests.

3. That all pending applications for Syrian refugees be processed expeditiously, and that in no case should the processing of a refugee claim take more than one year.

4. That processing of Syrians not replace or divert any resources from other refugee or family reunification programs.

Refugees from Syria cannot afford to lose any more time. People are in crisis, and the world is watching. Prime Minister, the government must act now. We would be pleased to meet with you or members of your staff to further discuss this urgent issue.

Yours very truly,
Noa Mendelsohn Aviv
Rivka Augenfeld
David Berger, former Ambassador to Israel
Dr. Philip Berger
Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld
Bernie Farber
Mitchell Goldberg
Valerie Hyman
Michele Landsberg, OC
Maureen Silcoff
Jon Telch
Ken Rosenberg

The Jewish Refugee Action Network (which Berger is a Director of) was a major player in lobbying then PM Harper to take in so-called Syrian refugees.

Was Berger “ever” working for Canadians? Even during his several terms as an MP, or his tenure as Ambassador to Israel? Or was he a refugee lobbyist this entire time?

7. David Berger’s Many Roles

  • Canadian Bar Association (Immigration Section)
  • Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
  • Jewish Refugee Action Network
  • associate member of the Canadian Council for Refugees
  • former President of the Canadian Football League
  • former Member of Parliament
  • former Ambassador to Israel

8. David Berger’s Law Practice

David Berger, B.A., B.C.L.
David Berger, B.A. (Toronto) 1971; B.C.L. (McGill) 1975, was admitted to the Barreau du Québec in 1986.
David relies on a unique experience in elective office, diplomacy, business, and law in advising and representing his clients.
From 1979 to 1994, David served as a Member of the House of Commons of Canada, representing the constituencies of Laurier and St-Henri-Westmount.
From 1995 to 1999, David served as Canadian ambassador to the State of Israel, representative to the Palestinian Authority and High Commissioner to Cyprus.
Earlier in his career, from 1975 to 1979, David was executive vice-president of the Montreal Alouette Football Club, Inc. In 1978-1979, he served as President of the Canadian Football League.
David assists people in applications for temporary and permanent residence, including work and study permits and visitor visas, skilled worker applications, business immigration, family sponsorships and humanitarian and compassionate applications.
He represents clients in refugee claims, appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division, and judicial review applications to the Federal Court of Canada and the Quebec Superior Court.
David speaks English, French and Spanish.
David is a member of AQAADI (L’Association Québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration), the Canadian Bar Association (Immigration Section), the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Jewish Refugee Action Network, and an associate member of the Canadian Council for Refugees.
David is a director of several not for profit organizations including the Canada International Scientific Exchange Program (CISEPO), the Jerusalem Foundation of Canada, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (Canada), and the Trevor Williams Kids Foundation.

9. Israel Refuses To Take Refugees

During a solidarity visit to Tel Aviv last Thursday, Netanyahu, Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan and Culture Minister Miri Regev toured south Tel Aviv and vowed that the government would “give back” the neighborhood to its Israeli residents.

Netanyahu has previously said the government would take a three-pronged approach to the issue: a security fence along the Egyptian border, which has already succeeded in significantly reducing the number of migrants who cross into Israel from African countries; increased enforcement against those employ illegal migrants and migrants who break the law; and the ministerial committee, which the prime minister said he will lead himself.

Expulsion to a third country is largely unprecedented in the Western world. Italy and Australia signed similar agreements with third-party countries — Italy with Libya, and Australia with Malaysia — but both proposals were shot down by local courts. In both cases, courts ruled the bills inconsistent with international law and the 1951 UN convention on refugees — to which Israel is also a party.

Interesting. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel claims that the migrants in the country are not refugees, and seems content to deport them. Where is the outrage of people like David Berger? If Canada should do its part to take in people in a vast humanitarian effort, why the outrage at Israel refusing to do the same?

Netanyahu wants to keep Israel a Jewish nation, and he doesn’t want hordes of very different people irreversibly changing the demographics. Yet Berger, and people like him, see nothing wrong with forcibly remaking the west.

Why isn’t the former Ambassador to Israel lobbying for Israel to take refugees and open up its borders? After all, isn’t humanity and compassion supposed to be universal? Why the double standard?

TSCE #14: Bridges Not Borders, Plattsburgh Cares & Solidarity Across Borders Coordinates Illegal Crossings At Roxham Rd

1. Important Links

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)

CLICK HERE, for Bridges, Not Borders mainpage.
CLICK HERE, for the BNB “about” section.
CLICK HERE, for “why” people are crossing illegally.
CLICK HERE, for BnB media page.
CLICK HERE, for BnB encouraging asylum shopping.

CLICK HERE, for a list of recent UNHCR publications.

Articles On BNB website

CLICK HERE, for CBC, Frances Ravensbergen and Sue Heller.
CLICK HERE, for a VPR article on Roxham crossings.

CLICK HERE, for Plattsburgh Cares mainpage.
CLICK HERE, for Plattsburgh cares, humanitarian support.

CLICK HERE, for Solidarity Across Borders’ homepage.
http://archive.is/oGtlX (2018)
http://archive.is/XjrUY (2020)
CLICK HERE, for SAB supporting illegal migrant caravans.
CLICK HERE, for SAB pushing sanctuary cities.
CLICK HERE, for SAB, let’s open the borders.

2. BnB Doesn’t Believe In Borders

Also, the original links for the YouTube videos above are here and here

Earlier in 2017 President Trump signed executive orders that suspended the refugee admission program and allowed for widespread arrest and deportation of undocumented people in the USA. This means that people needing protection can be sent back to their countries of origin where they may face torture, persecution or even loss of life. Yet, this is prohibited under international law.

Trump has also withdrawn Temporary Protected Status from citizens of Haiti, El Salvador and Honduras. This will come into effect in late 2019. The Haitians had fled to the USA following the disastrous earthquake in 2010. Haiti was hit hard again by Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and is still in a very bad state, facing huge problems of homelessness, poverty, illiteracy, violence against women and indentured child labour (see PDF Guardian article below).

For all the above reasons many people no longer feel safe in the USA and want to seek asylum and safety in Canada. But they face a hurdle in the 2002 Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between Canada and the USA which came into effect in 2004.

The STCA means that, if someone crosses into Canada from the USA at an official border crossing and asks for asylum, they will be sent back to the USA, unless they fall under one of four exceptions to the Agreement. However if they cross the border at an irregular crossing such as Roxham Road, the Agreement does not apply. They can then make a claim for refugee status. That is why many people are choosing that route, so as to not risk being sent back to the USA and being unable to make a refugee claim in Canada in the future.

There are two issues here. The first one is: can the USA really be considered to be a safe country for refugees? The Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Council of Churches and Amnesty International don’t think so and have launched a legal challenge to the STCA (see PDF files below including our Briefing document). The second issue is that of irregular crossings. Given the STCA, most asylum seekers are in a ‘catch 22’ situation: it’s not safe for them to stay in the USA and it’s not safe for them to enter officially. The 1951 Refugee Convention, ratified by Canada, says that states shall not penalize asylum seekers if they enter a country irregularly, providing they present themselves without delay to the authorities. Section 133 of the (Canadian) Immigration and Refugee Protection Act also states that people seeking asylum will not be prosecuted for irregular entry into Canada.

People crossing irregularly are not ‘illegal immigrants’ as has been wrongly asserted. Nor are they ‘queue jumpers’, as refugee claims are treated as received. We believe the STCA should be revoked, so that everyone seeking asylum could enter Canada safely and with dignity at an official border crossing. This is especially important during the winter or any period of extreme weather. During the winters of 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, many people suffered hypothermia and frostbite during irregular crossings into Canada and have lost fingers and toes. Tragically, in spring 2017, a woman from Ghana, Mavis Otuteye, died while trying to cross from Minnesota into Manitoba.

Straight from the horse’s mouth. This group believes that everyone should be allowed to enter Canada, and this includes from the United States. The fact that the U.S. gives asylum to tens of thousands of people each year seems to not matter.

3. BnB Encourages Asylum Shopping

URGENT MESSAGE FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS: If you have applied for asylum in the USA (or in the United Kingdom, New Zealand or Australia) you are no longer entitled to the full independent refugee determination process in Canada. Instead you only have access to a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) hearing conducted by a government official. You will be able to have a lawyer or immigration consultant present with you. You need to be aware that the PRRA is a much less thorough process and has a low success rate. However, if you are successful you will be recognized as either a refugee or a protected person in Canada. Please consider this carefully before deciding to enter Canada either via Roxham Road or at an official Port of Entry.

Why would you publish this information, unless it was to help advise so-called “refugees” to circumvent the process by entering the U.S. under false pretenses, and then come illegally to Canada?

4. BnB Coordinates With “Plattsburgh Cares”

We have close connections with members of Plattsburgh Cares, a group that supports refugees who want to cross into Canada. We’re also in contact with Solidarity Across Borders (Montreal), as well as with various groups, committees, and institutions that support refugees locally and in Montreal (including UNHCR).

That admission came from the about page. As for what Plattsburgh Cares claims to provide:

Let us know what support you can offer. Here’s a partial list of what we need:
-Translation. The refugees who come through the area speak a variety of languages. If you are proficient in any second language and would like to help, let us know.
-Transportation. Individuals may need help getting to the grocery store, doctor’s appointments and so forth.
-Legal advice. The refugees need access to qualified individuals with knowledge of immigration law.
-Short-term temporary housing. Some may need access to safe housing for a night or a week or two.
-Long-term temporary housing. Others may need a place for a longer period.
-Clothing. Some may need clothes, especially during the winter months.
-Educational outreach. We will need help getting educational materials into the hands of refugees coming into our region.

None of these items are bad per se. The problem is that this NGO, like many others, has no concern for whether people are in the country illegally. Moreover, they help facilitate illegal border crossings.

5. BnB Worked With Solidarity Across Borders

Our first group activity in September 2017 was a table at the Roxham Road Woolgathering, for which we had made buttons with the theme ‘Refugees Welcome’. We also provided information explaining how the ‘Safe Third Country Agreement’ between Canada and the USA forces refugees to cross irregularly to prevent being sent back to the USA (see the pages WHY and WHO for this info).

Our second activity was to participate in a demonstration at the border crossing at Lacolle which was organized by the Montreal-based group Solidarity Across Borders. This was a response to the presence at the Lacolle border of far right groups opposed to the irregular crossings of asylum seekers. A local artist created the beautiful ‘Bridges not Borders’ wood cut after which we named our group.

This came from the ABOUT section of Bridges Not Borders. Apparently wanting borders makes you a member of the far right. Now, who is “Solidarity Across Borders”?

Let’s just look at one of the demands of Solidarity Across Borders: free services for all illegals. Not joking. Here is the actual text.

We demand that:
everyone living here should have access to free health care in clinics, CLSCs and hospitals. Medical facilities should never ask for information on immigration status. Instead, they should work to provide appropriate and respectful care to all users. We want health care to be accessible to all and support efforts to defend the public health care system.
everyone living here should be able to attend school free of charge, regardless of their – or their parents – immigration status. We are in favor of universal education for all, from kindergarten to university, and defend accessible education at all levels and for all people.
the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) should not have any right to enter and arrest migrants in hospitals, clinics, shelters, schools, or any space providing essential services; ultimately, the CBSA should not be welcome anywhere in our communities.
any person living here should have access to social housing, food banks, unemployment benefits and any other social welfare regardless of immigration status.

This is one of the groups that Bridges Not Borders sees no problem in partnering with. Free services and effective amnesty for all illegals. What could possibly go wrong?

6. UNHCR Admits These Claims Are Bogus

CLICK HERE, for UNHCR 2019 data on illegals.

The majority of asylum seekers had valid status in the U.S. at the time of crossing (often a visitor visa) and only transited in the U.S. for a short period with the intention of claiming asylum in Canada, the American visa being reportedly easier to obtain that the Canadian one.

Others had stayed in the U.S. for a number of years, including persons with pending/denied asylum claims and to a lesser extent, persons whose status in the U.S. had expired.

Under the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), individuals in the U.S. cannot make a claim at the Canadian official border post unless they qualify for an exception to the agreement, such as having a close family member in Canada.
The STCA does not apply to those who cross the border in-between official border posts, as at the time they claim asylum, there are already in Canada.

7. Completely Undermining Border Security

This is (partly) why borders are so damn hard to enforce. It’s because organizations like: (a) Bridges Not Borders; (b) Plattsburg Cares; and (c) Solidarity Across Borders are doing what they can do undermine it.

Further, efforts are crippled by the UNCHR, who make it clear that they see nothing wrong with illegal crossings, and hamstring local efforts to stop it. Efforts in court are at best mixed, since the “rights” of illegals must be balanced against those of society’s.

Finally, corrupt politicians (both government and controlled opposition), do little to nothing to stop this problem. In short, border security COULD be a very straightforward issue, if the system weren’t rigged to prevent that.

This is disheartening, to say the least.

TSCE #13: Canadian Council For Refugees, Lobbying To Open Our Borders

1. Important Links

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)

CLICK HERE, for CCR lobbying efforts since 1997.
CLICK HERE, for CCR Communications Reports filed.

CLICK HERE, for 2018/2019 tax information.

CLICK HERE, for CNN on DNA testing at US/Mex border.

CLICK HERE, for CCR supports Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists.

2. Context For This Article

Canadians should have control over their own laws. They should be drafted by and for Canadians. This should not be a difficult or controversial topic.

However, one organization, the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), is attempting to lobby Canada’s politicians to create more “refugee” friendly laws. This has been going on for over a decade, and seems to have been a long term effort.

Yes, the CCR is one of the groups trying to strike down the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement in the Toronto Federal Court. However, this article will focus more on the political efforts that CCR has undertaken. Indeed, CCR has been busy trying change our laws.

3. CCR Lobbying The Federal Government

Here is an alphabetical list of those who have been lobbied by the Canadian Council for Refugees since 2008.

Gary Anandasangaree, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Sacha Atherly, Policy Advisor | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Matthieu Bélanger, Chief of Staff | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Bill Blair, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Jacques Cloutier, Vice-President | Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)
Claudette Deschênes, Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Dawn Edlund, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Steve Foster, Senior Policy Advisor (specializing in social justice issues) | House of Commons
Ralph Goodale, Minister | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Sadia Groguhé, MP, Deputy Critic Immigration, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism | House of Commons
Alyx Holland, Office of the Minister of Public Safety Canada | Public Safety Canada (PS)
David Hurl, Director of Policy and Parliamentary Affairs | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Ahmed Hussen, Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Jenny Kwan, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Les Linklater, Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
David Manicom, Assistant Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
John McCallum, Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Marta Morgan, Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Kyle Nicholson, Director of Policy | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Kim Pate, Senator | Senate of Canada
Olga Radchenko, Director of Parliamentary Affairs | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Murray Rankin, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Ali Salam, Chief of Staff | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Oline Twiss, Policy and Stakeholders Relations Officer | House of Commons
Richard Wex, Associate Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)

Now, let’s take a look at some specific proposals that CCR is advocating for. Sections 4-10 cover the most important ones. But those are by no means all of them.

4. CCR Challenges Canada/US S3CA

US-Canada safe third country agreement – oppose denial of access to refugee determination in Canada on the basis of the Safe Third Country Agreement

The Canadian Council for Refugees is one of the groups aiding a challenge in Toronto to strike down the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement. If this were to be successful, it would mean that (even at official border ports), so called “refugees” from the US could simply stroll in and be legally entitled to a hearing.

5. CCR Opposes DNA Testing

Interestingly, they also oppose DNA testing. (see the last section for the screenshot). Now why would any responsible organization be doing this? Wouldn’t they want to ensure that children are being reunited with their true, biological relatives?

Washington (CNN)The Department of Homeland Security will start a DNA testing pilot program next week to help identify and prosecute individuals posing as families in an effort to target human smuggling, two department officials confirmed to CNN.

The Rapid DNA testing, as it’s known, involves a cheek swab and can, on average, provide results in about 90 minutes, a senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement official said.

The pilot program will run for two to three days in two border locations.

It’s the latest move by the Trump administration to address the swell of migrants, predominantly families and children from Central American countries, at the border using a wide variety of technology and increased resources to fight illegal immigration.

That was an American article, but it also raises an interesting question here. If there is a risk of child smuggling or child trafficking, why WOULDN’T the Canadian Council for Refugees want to ensure that true families are being reunited? Do they want to aid and abet smuggling and trafficking?

6. CCR Against Custody Req’t For Illegals

Immigration detention policies – advocating for the end to the immigration detention of children and families and for reduction in immigration detention, including through the introduction of fair and effective alternatives to detention.

Why should people in the country illegally, or accused of other crimes while not a citizen be locked up for any reason? Perhaps self deportation would be in everyone’s best interests….

7. CCR Challenges Removing Criminally Inadmissible PR

Removals of permanent residents on the basis of criminal inadmissibility, particularly in the wake of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act made in 2013. CCR’s concern relates to lack of due consideration of humanitarian and compassionate factors in making removals, particularly of long-term residents.

8. CCR Challenges Deportations To Certain Countries

Removals to situations of risk – calling for suspension of removals to countries of generalized risk and policies ensuring individuals at risk have removal deferred.

9. CCR Promotes Amnesty For Illegals

Regularization of persons without status – promoting measures to allow persons in Canada without status to obtain permanent residence, including advocating for regularization of “legacy” claimants, ie. those who made a refugee claim before 15 December 2012.

This is exactly what it sounds like. The Canadian Council for Refugees is lobbying for amnesty-for-illegals, which will create a path to permanent residence, and presumably citizenship at some point.

10. CCR Wants Canadians To Foot The Bill

Availability of legal aid to refugee claimants and other vulnerable migrants, including the role of the federal government in providing adequate funding to provinces to cover the costs of legal aid.

It wouldn’t really be complete without ensuring that Canadians were on the hook paying for these people’s legal costs, now would it?

11. Some Government Funding CCR Gets

  • City of Montreal
  • Canadian Heritage
  • City of Victoria
  • Government of Quebec
  • Federal Government (IRCC)

While CCR undoubtedly has some private donors, it is a recipient of Government aid. Or to be more precise, it receives taxpayer aid.

12. Info From Canada Revenue Tax Filings

Receipted donations $94,255.00 (22.94%)
Non-receipted donations $17,110.00 (4.16%)
Gifts from other registered charities $117,291.00 (28.55%)
Government funding $5,000.00 (1.22%)
All other revenue $177,168.00 (43.13%)
Total revenue: $410,824.00

Receipted donations $80,885.00 (9.85%)
Non-receipted donations $221,686.00 (27.01%)
Gifts from other registered charities $208,696.00 (25.42%)
Government funding $38,086.00 (4.64%)
All other revenue $271,506.00 (33.08%)
Total revenue: $820,859.00

Receipted donations $85,242.00 (12.44%)
Non-receipted donations $47,860.00 (6.99%)
Gifts from other registered charities $103,198.00 (15.06%)
Government funding $142,513.00 (20.80%)
All other revenue $306,250.00 (44.70%)
Total revenue: $685,063.00

Receipted donations $93,961.00 (12.99%)
Non-receipted donations $49,488.00 (6.84%)
Gifts from other registered charities $119,054.00 (16.45%)
Government funding $109,905.00 (15.19%)
All other revenue $351,132.00 (48.53%)
Total revenue: $723,540.00

More detailed information

13. Corporate Documents


14. CCR’s Previous Attempt On S3CA

In 2007, the CCR (along with Amnesty International, and the Canadian Council of Churches) were successful in getting the Safe 3rd Country Agreement struck down.

However, in 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned that ruling, stating that these groups didn’t have standing to bring it themselves.

Now, the trio (Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches) are at it again. They’ve taken up the cases of “refugees” from the US who want this law struck down.

15. CCR Supported Bill C-6 (Citizenship for Terrorists)

CCR calls for further amendments to Citizenship Act to reduce barriers and make all citizens equal
The Canadian Council for Refugees published today its submission on Bill C-6, welcoming the introduction of amendments to the Citizenship Act and calling for further changes to provide equal access to citizenship and fair process.
“We need to bring down barriers to citizenship, especially for already disadvantaged groups such as refugees, the elderly, and women,” said Loly Rico, CCR President. “In line with Canada’s international obligations, we encourage the government to craft a new citizenship regime to which all applicants will have equal access without discrimination.”
Bill C-6 mostly reverses changes made under the previous Bill C-24, which took effect in 2015. The CCR welcomes the changes that will give refugees and other newcomers earlier access to citizenship, which will lead to better integration.
Bill C-6 also rightly re-affirms the equality of all citizens by eliminating provisions allowing for dual citizens to lose their citizenship in cases of “treason” or “terrorism” and requiring applicants for citizen to have an “intent to reside in Canada”.
While Bill C-6 contains many good measures to strengthen citizenship, other changes are also needed to remove barriers and end second class citizenship. The CCR is calling on Parliament to amend the bill to:
Create a right to apply for citizenship for youth under 18 who do not have a parent or legal guardian in Canada.
Create a system to exempt people from citizenship fees if they can’t afford them.
Provide better accommodation for applicants with disabilities.
Prevent long wait times by requiring the government to process applications within a reasonable time.
Stop the use of citizenship applications to launch a process to strip status from former refugees (through cessation).
Provide better procedural rights for loss of citizenship based on fraud or misrepresentation.
Restore Canadian citizenship to second generation born abroad to Canadian citizens. In the alternative, at least give citizenship for those who would be otherwise be stateless.

Yes, the CCR supported Trudeau’s Bill C-6, which would have stripped Canadian citizenship away from dual citizens convicted of terrorism or treason. Way tp pick a winning issue.

16. CCR Is A Political Organization

Despite the presumption that charities or NGOs simply act for a god cause that they represent, this is not really the case here. The Canadian Council for Refugees has a political branch to it, which is trying to change Canadian laws. Let’s summarize a few:

  • Trying to strike down Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
  • Opposing DNA testing for refugees
  • Removing immigration detention
  • Permanent residence for criminal inadmissibles
  • No deportation to various countries
  • Amnesty/PR for illegals
  • Taxpayer funded court services
  • Citizenship for terrorists

Those are just a few of the things that CCR lobbies for. It is a political organization deliberately lobbying to weaken our borders even more. It’s time to call a spade a spade.

TSCE #12: The Zionist Roots Of Amnesty International

1. Important Links

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)

CLICK HERE, for National Post article on S3CA challenge.
CLICK HERE, for Amnesty Int’l Federal lobbying efforts.
CLICK HERE, for Pinnacle Public Affairs, Titch Dharamsi.

CLICK HERE, for Peter Benenson, founder of Amnesty International.
CLICK HERE, for Flora Solomon (Benenson), mother of Peter Benenson.
CLICK HERE, for the Benenson Society, named for Peter Benenson.
CLICK HERE, for the Benenson Society archives.
CLICK HERE, for UK Independent obituary on Peter Benenson.
CLICK HERE, for Guardian article on Flora Solomon (Benenson).
CLICK HERE, for legacy.com article on Benensons/AI.
CLICK HERE, for NY Times on Grigori Benenson (Paywall)
CLICK HERE, for Jewish Press article on AI.

2. Why Should Canadians Care?

Amnesty International operates in countries across the world, including Canada. It is one of the groups attempting to further open Canada’s borders, by getting the Safe Third Country Agreement struck down in Federal Court.


Hypocrisy from Prothonotary Milczynski and Chief Justice Crampton

While that is obviously a very serious case, let’s look at some other instances of Amnesty International trying to weaponize the Canadian Courts. While striking down the S3CA (and effectively allowing open borders) is a huge issues, it is not at all the only things Amnesty does.

3. AI Lawfare In Canadian Courts

Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of the Defence Staff), 2008 FC 336 (CanLII), [2008] 4 FCR 546

Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of the Defence Staff), 2008 FCA 401 (CanLII)

Amnesty International Canada v. Canadian Forces, 2007 FC 1147 (CanLII)

Amnesty International Canada v. Canadian Forces, 2008 FC 162 (CanLII)

Canada (Attorney General) v. Amnesty International Canada, 2009 FC 426 (CanLII)

Canada (Attorney General) v. Amnesty International Canada, 2009 FC 918 (CanLII), [2010] 4 FCR 182

Gitxaala Nation v. Canada, 2015 FCA 73 (CanLII)
Choc v. Hudbay Minerals Inc. et al., 2013 ONSC 998 (CanLII)

Choc v Hudbay Minerals Inc., 2013 ONSC 1414 (CanLII)

Garrick v. Amnesty International Canada, 2011 FC 1099 (CanLII), [2013] 3 FCR 146

Isakhani v. Al-Saggaf, 2006 CanLII 42605 (ON SC)

Jacobson v. Atlas Copco Canada Inc., 2015 ONSC 4 (CanLII)

Mohammad v. Tarraf, 2019 ONSC 1701 (CanLII)

Prophet River First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 120 (CanLII)

Tanudjaja v. Attorney General (Canada), 2013 ONSC 1878 (CanLII)

Tanudjaja v. Attorney General (Canada) (Application), 2013 ONSC 5410 (CanLII)

This is of course no where near the entire list, but Amnesty International has been quite busy using Canada’s courts for its own political goals.

Strange that they are granted “public interest standing” to do these things, but ordinary citizens are not. This of course refers to not allowing Canadian citizens standing to close the loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

4. Amnesty International Lobbying Efforts

Although it’s record in the Federal lobbying registry is brief, it is there. Amnesty International has been lobbying the Government with respects to the International Convention on Human Rights.

A more interesting story is on the lobbyist Titch Dharamsi:

Titch Dharamsi, Principal
Titch Dharamsi brings over 15 years of senior public sector and government relations experience to your cause. He has served as lead consultant to a number of major national and international organizations in areas as diverse as tax policy, mining, and international trade. He has an established an impressive record of success in meeting client objectives.
While in national government, Titch served as the Senior Policy Advisor and Executive Assistant to a senior federal Cabinet Minister. Prior to that he was a consultant in the corporate finance division of an international consulting company, where he advised on public-private partnerships. Titch also served in the Ontario government as an aide to various Ministers and the Premier, and as an Executive Council Member of a provincial agency.
Titch concluded his post-graduate studies at Cornell University, where he was appointed a Fellow of the Institute for Public Affairs and where he founded and edited a prominent public policy journal.
Titch has also contributed to numerous community activities. He has served as Chair of Medical Education for South African Blacks (MESAB – Canada), Secretary of the Ontario Liberal Party, and President of the Madope Development Corporation, which established agricultural and human development projects in rural Tanzania.
In delivering the results crucial to your organization, Pinnacle engages senior associates from numerous sectors, including leading economists, international trade consultants, and former senior public officials.

He was an influential member of both the Federal and Ontario Liberal parties. Good to know he is “really” independent from the people he lobbies.

5. Canadian Chapter Corporate Documents

2017 Director Changes
Notice Of Financials
Organization By-Laws
Certificate Of Continuance

Amnesty International does have a legitimate branch registered in Canada. Problem is, Amnesty International Canada isn’t Canadian. Instead, it is part of a globalist organization to help open the borders of other nations.

6. Peter Benenson Founded Amnesty Int’l

The Benenson Society is named after the now deceased man, and claims to be carrying out more humanitarian work. The archives of the society list many causes around the world. And indeed, many of them sound great.

Problem is: Amnesty International (Benenson’s legacy) still is devoted to helping masses of people around the world cross borders, often without much concern as to whether it is legally or illegally.

For some perspective, A foundation started by a Russian Zionist Jew is helping FOREIGNERS enter other nations, and seems to care little about the legality of it.

7. Benenson’s Obituary (UK Independent)

Peter Solomon (Peter Benenson), barrister and human-rights campaigner: born London 31 July 1921; married first Margaret Anderson (two daughters; marriage dissolved 1972), second 1973 Susan Booth (one son, one daughter); died Oxford 25 February 2005.

Peter Benenson founded Amnesty (later Amnesty International) in 1961 and thereby became the creator of a human-rights movement which now counts more than a million members in 150 countries. His warmth and generosity of spirit gained him friends round the globe. His modesty was such that decades later many, even at Amnesty, did not realise he was the founder of the organisation.

The Benensons were a Russian Jewish family and Peter Benenson’s maternal grandfather, Grigori Benenson, earned a fortune in Tsarist times from banking and oil. The family left Russia at the time of the Revolution. In London Grigori’s daughter Flora met and married Harold Solomon, a member of a City stockbroking family who had risen to Brigadier-General in the First World War. Their only child, Peter Solomon, was born in London in 1921.

Despite the family riches, his was not a happy childhood. In 1920 Harold was attached to the staff of Sir Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner in Palestine, and they went to live in Jerusalem, an entrancing development for the passionately Zionist and untiringly party-mad Flora.

Awaiting the demobilisation which eventually came in 1947 Benenson studied law, preparing himself for a career as a barrister. He joined the Labour Party and the Society of Labour Lawyers. Without success, he tried three times to win a seat in the Commons despite the help given by such as Clement Attlee, Roy Jenkins and Anthony Wedgwood Benn.

According to the obituary, Peter Benenson, from his mother’s side, was wealthy due to successes in banking and oil. His mother, Flora, was a proud and unabashed Zionist. The family was made up of Russian Jews.

Interestingly, Peter goes by his mother’s maiden name (Benenson), and not his birth name, Solomon. One has to wonder why that is.

8. Guardian Article On Flora Solomon

The Guardian also pushed a piece, on Flora Solomon, mother of Peter Benenson (Solomon). She was very proud of her Russian roots, and Jewish ancestry.

A legacy.com publication outlines the family heritage and comments that:

Born July 31, 1921, Benenson was the grandson of Grigori Benenson, a Russian-Jewish banker, and the son of Flora Solomon, who raised him alone after the death of her husband, British army Col. John Solomon.

In fact, there are several mainstream outlets and blogs outlining who Peter Benenson’s family really was, and his Russian/Jewish heritage. And several claim that Flora has long been a proud Zionist.

9. Grigori Benenson, Peter’s Maternal Grandfather

Russian-Jewish banker who made his fortune in oil. The family left Russia at the time of the Revolution.
«BENENSON. On April 4, 1939, at Quenn’s Gate, London, W.1, Grigori Benenson, beloved father of Flora, Fira and Manya, and much-loved grandfather of Mira.” (The Times (London, England), Thursday, Apr 06, 1939; pg. 1; Issue 48273.)

Source: Find A Grave

The New York Times, of all places has information on Grigori Benenson and his wealth. Unfortunately, all of it is behind a paywall. But Grigori Benenson was a Russian Jew who made a fortune in oil and banking. Hence, Peter Benenson was set to go from the start.

Some of the blogs have written that Grigori Benenson was actually related to the Rothschild Family. While that is possible, and quite likely, I haven’t independently verified it. If true, it would certainly explain at least in part how he initially became wealthy.

10. Amnesty Int’l Blurs The Line: Legal/Illegal

Who is a migrant?
There is no internationally accepted legal definition of a migrant. Like most agencies and organizations, we at Amnesty International understand migrants to be people staying outside their country of origin, who are not asylum-seekers or refugees.
Some migrants leave their country because they want to work, study or join family, for example. Others feel they must leave because of poverty, political unrest, gang violence, natural disasters or other serious circumstances that exist there.
Lots of people don’t fit the legal definition of a refugee but could nevertheless be in danger if they went home. It is important to understand that, just because migrants do not flee persecution, they are still entitled to have all their human rights protected and respected, regardless of the status they have in the country they moved to. Governments must protect all migrants from racist and xenophobic violence, exploitation and forced labour. Migrants should never be detained or forced to return to their countries without a legitimate reason.

Although not explicitly stated, it is implied that Amnesty International sees international migration as a human right. Again, little to no concern over the legality of these measures.

11. Jews Accuse AI Of Anti-Semitism

Talk about “eating your own”. In this submission from JewishPress.com, Amnesty International is accused of anti-Semitism for criticizing Israel’s expansion into Palestine.

However, according to the report titled “Amnesty International – From Bias to Obsession,” Amnesty has employed people with “open pro-terrorist sympathies, crucially relying on them to provide information upstream that shapes opinion.”

One Amnesty consultant was found to be tweeting support for a terrorist group and sharing advice about hiding the truth to protect what he termed as the “resistance,” a euphemism for terrorist organizations. Another was found advising “factions,” another term for terrorist groups, not to publicly identify “martyrs,” terrorists killed in action, as belonging to terrorist groups.

Amnesty Consultant Hind Khoudary referred to two Islamic Jihad terrorists as “heroes”.

Nadine Moawad, MENA Communications Manager for Amnesty International, referred to Israel as the “Zionist entity” and called for a “full disbanding” of the Jewish state.

“Amnesty’s arsenal is turned towards Israel. All of its departments appear to allocate disproportionate resources to attack Israel. The cumulative effect results in what can only be termed as a never-ending obsession,” Collier wrote.

He also notes “the alignment between Amnesty’s anti-Israel campaigns and the aims of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment & Sanction) movement, which leave little room for doubt that it is coordinated rather than coincidental.
The report said that Amnesty “displays a symbiotic relationship with BDS” and thus concludes that “elements within Amnesty International actively seek to promote the destruction of the Jewish state.”

Because there is a religious aspect to some of the Amnesty content detailed in the report, the report concludes that “the cumulative effect of the organization’s unnatural hostility towards Israel is anti-Semitic.”

Perhaps they never got the message who actually founded Amnesty International. But then again, an awful lot of Jews will cry “anti-Semitism” whenever their BEHAVIOUR is criticized. Still, enjoyable to watch. And there are many such articles on this subject.

12. Nothing Grassroots About A.I.

Amnesty International was founded by Peter Benenson, grandson of Grigori Benenson. Grigori was a Russian tycoon due to his successes in oil and banking. Peter’s mother, Flora, was a proud Zionist.

Despite attempts to portray Amnesty as some sort of grassroots campaign funded on very little money, the truth about its founder speaks volumes.

Amnesty is an NGO, whose purpose (among others) is getting “migrants and refugees” from Country A to Country B. From its own website, it appears to blur the line between people entering legally v.s. illegally.

In an amusing twist, Israelis accuse Amnesty of anti-Semitism for its repeated criticism of what goes on in the West Bank. Interestingly, many of the people at AI don’t give Israel a pass for their behaviour.

Amnesty has also been trying for many years to weaponize the Canadian Courts, and is one of the players currently involved in attempting to have the Safe 3rd Country Agreement struck down. It’s yet another example of trying to open OTHER countries’ borders.

Gladue 2.0: Blacks Also Get Race-Based Discount In Sentencing, What The Media Missed

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for race-based discounts in criminal court.
CLICK HERE, for Terri McClintic going to a healing lodge.
CLICK HERE, for proposal to scrap Gladue Rights entirely.

CLICK HERE, for Canadian Charter.

Aboriginal Specific Cases
(A) R. v. Gladue, 1997 CanLII 3015 (BC CA)
(B) R. v. Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 688
(C) R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 (CanLII), [2012] 1 SCR 433

2. Context For This Article

Much of the Canadian public knows about “Gladue Rights”, which is essentially a race-based discount given to Aboriginal defendants in criminal proceedings. In short, judges must consider systemic racism and other discrimination, and search for ways to reduce their sentences.

However, this does not extend only to Aboriginals. Blacks can also use many of the same excuses in pleading for reduced punishment for crimes they commit.

Everyone, regardless of their race, should be against this. The only way a society works is when everyone is treated the same way for their actions. One group should not benefit, or be hindered by unequal laws.

3. Court Cases For Blacks

Here are some recent court cases in which “racial discrimination” or “system racism” was taken into account by judges sentencing black felons. This is not the complete list.

(A) R. v. Borde, 2003 CanLII 4187 (ON CA)
(B) R v Reid, 2016 ONSC 954 (CanLII)
(C) R. v. Diabikulu, 2016 BCPC 390 (CanLII)
(D) R. v. Deng, 2017 BCPC 225 (CanLII)
(E) R. v. Jackson, 2018 ONSC 2527 (CanLII)
(F) R. v. Shallow, 2019 ONSC 403 (CanLII)
(G) R. v. Faulkner, 2019 NSPC 36 (CanLII)
(H) R. v. Kabanga-Muanza, 2019 ONSC 1161 (CanLII)

Again, this is not nearly all of them, but a snapshot into what the legal system (it’s not really a justice system) has become in Canada.

4. Looking At A Cultural Assessment

[17] Cultural Assessment – Completed by Mr. R. Wright, MSW, RSW. It is extensive, well-informed and well-researched.
The Nature of an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment
Though much has been written about the intersection of race and the criminal justice system, and in particular the experience of North Americans of African descent, until the development of IRCA’s (sic) there had been no recognized form for the presentation of such a report. That people of African descent have been overrepresented among incarcerated persons in Canada has been studied by academics, justice system leaders, and activist persons. The Office of the Correctional Investigator took special notice of the conditions of inmates of African descent in federal correctional institutions in its year end report in 2013. It concluded:

“Black inmates are one of the fastest growing sub-populations in federal corrections. Over the last 10 years, the number of federal incarcerated Black inmates has increased by 80% from 778 to 1,403. Black inmates now account for 9.5% of the total prison population (up from 6.3% in 2003/04) while representing just 2.9% of the general Canadian population.” (p.8)

Now, 4 years after the advent of these reports in the well publicized YCJA matter described as R v. X, IRCAs have been widely accepted in Nova Scotia courts and have also been conducted in Ontario. Though I fully respect that the experience of aboriginal Canadians is quite unique, and I have no wish to expropriate or exploit their struggle and leadership, I nevertheless need to acknowledge that my development of IRCAs has been influenced by my familiarity with Gladue reports. Like Gladue reports, the goal of IRCAs is to provide courts with more background information about an offender’s race and cultural background to assist the court at arriving at a just sentence: A sentence that considers the circumstances of the offender, alternatives to incarceration, and does not further contribute to the systemic problems of overrepresentation of persons within correctional populations. This principle is generally stated in the Criminal Code of Canada with particular attention given to Aboriginal offenders:

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also taken into consideration the following principles:
(e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

In keeping with these principles, it is a founding premise of IRCAs that a person’s race and cultural heritage should be considered as a significant factor in considering their sentence n a criminal matter. Not just because of cultural responses to normal stressors, but also because of the forces of racism that person experience and our growing understanding of how this affects outcomes when one encounters the justice and other government systems. In Nova Scotia we have significant reason to understand these effects. We are the province of the Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution (1989), which opening paragraph is very telling:

The criminal justice system failed Donald Marshall, Jr. at virtually every turn from his arrest and wrongful conviction for murder in 1971 up to, and even beyond, his acquittal by the Court of Appeal in 1983. The tragedy of the failure is compounded by evidence that this miscarriage of justice could – and should – have been prevented, or at least corrected quickly, if those involved in the system had carried out their duties in a professional and/or competent manner. That they did not is due, in part at least, to the fact that Donald Marshall, Jr. is a Native. (p.1)

We are also the province of the Black Learners Advisory Committee Report on Education: Redressing Inequity – Empowering Black Learners (1994). This report was produced as part of a comprehensive study of the education inequities that exist for African Nova Scotians (ANS). It produced 3 volumes of materials and 30 recommendations for education reform. That systemic racism exists in the Nova Scotia education system was well described by this report:

Black Nova Scotians, like other Black Canadians, are victimized by a racist ideology and a racist social structure. Racism permeates the entire social, economic, political and cultural environment of Nova Scotian and Canadian….

During the BLAC research, we encountered widespread condemnation of the education system as biased, insensitive and racist. Systemic racism was seen as manifested in student assessment and placement; in labelling of large numbers of Black students as slow learners or having behaviour problems; in steraming (sic); in low teacher expectation; in denigration by and exclusion of Blacks from the curriculum; and in the total lack of responsiveness to the needs of Black learners and concerns of the Black community.” (pp. 34, 35)

Similarly, the differential and disadvantageous experience of African Canadians in the federal corrections system has been documented by the Office of the Correctional Investigator in it year end report in 2013. Nova Scotia’s review of the Mental Health and Addictions system produced the Together We Can Strategy (2012) found that African Nova Scotians were among a number of diverse communities whose mental health and addictions treatment needs had not yet been served sufficiently. This Nova Scotian finding was identified earlier in a national study completed by a subcommittee of the Mental Health Commission of Canada. The document they produced: Improving Mental Health Services for Immigrant, Refugee, Ethno-Cultural and Racialized Groups: Issues and Options for Service Improvement (2009). It is interesting to note, that I served on the MHCC subcommittee and was a contributor to that report. Ms. Lana MacLean, my colleague and friend who is also a person who conducts IRCAs served on the committee that produced the Nova Scotia review document.

Knowing all of this, an IRCA then seeks to understand how an individual’s ANS heritage and interaction with formal and informal systems has affected their involvement in criminal behaviour, will be a factor in their treatment while incarcerated, and will be a factor in their rehabilitation and reintegration in the community. These issues are consistent with the expectations of the report described in Judge Curran’s order requesting: “preparation of a cultural assessment report regarding his African Nova Scotian background and any cultural factors and racial factors which are suggested to be systemic in nature, but may also have individual impacts on him,” Examination of “the role played by Derek Demitrius Faulkner’s cultural and racial background with respect to the criminal offence herein.”

Preparation of this Report
In preparing this report I have participated in the following activities:
• Interview in person of Mr. Faulkner at Northeast Nova Scotia Correctional Facility
• Review of JEIN report, Crown Brief and other Disclosure material
• Interview by phone of Mr. Michael Dull, counsel for Mr. Faulkner in the civil matter
• I attempted contact with other collaterals but were not able to reach them in time for the drafting of this report. I will continue to reach out to collaterals in the event that I am called to testify on this report.

According to the cultural report, Nova Scotians engage in system racism. This is the case of R. v. Faulkner, 2019 NSPC 36 (CanLII).

It had nothing to do with any of the AGGRAVATING FACTORS that were cited in Paragraph 5 of the sentencing report

(1) Robbery is inherently violent and there were implied threats of violence to clerk #1 and specific to #2
(2) Lengthy record including two robberies, 2005/2009
(3) Accused released from custody; breached release
(4) Prolonged nature of the offence – accused was in store for over an hour
(5) Clerk asked member of public to call police

Nothing to do with committing a robbery and making threats.
Nothing to do with a robbery in 2005.
Nothing to do with a robbery in 2009.
Nothing to do with other criminal convictions.
Nothing to do with being in the store over an hour.
Nothing to do with breaching conditions of release.
The court needs to consider the “systemic racism” that blacks face.

Yeah, it’s all about those racist Nova Scotians. Turned him into a career criminal.

5. Section 15 Of Canadian Charter

Equality Rights
Marginal note:
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Marginal note:
Affirmative action programs
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Serious question: under the Canadian Charter, would this count as a law that ameliorates conditions of disadvantaged individuals? Guess we aren’t so equal after all.

6. Follow-up To Old Story

This topic was covered in a previous article in June last year. It was reported that this may become the law of the land. Admittedly I should have checked deeper into it at the time.

However, it seems that these cases have been going on for many years. The National Post just missed that detail. It just has not been codified into law — yet.

How exactly do we live in any sort of just society, when there are different rules and standards for people based on their skin colour? This completely flies in the face of equality under the law, which SHOULD apply to everyone.

7. 3 Levels Of Justice Now?

Under the Gladue ruling, judges are REQUIRED to take an Aboriginal person’s background into account when handing down sentencing. There is no discretion in the matter.

However, for blacks, judges MAY take race and circumstances into account, but this is not mandatory.

Everyone else, though, must take responsibility for their own actions. They don’t have the race card to play.

CPC Policy Convention To Be Held During National Abortion Week (Satire)

It is official: the Conservative Party of Canada’s 2020 policy convention will be held the week of October 15th, in Vancouver, to coincide with the 4th Annual National Abortion Week.

This comes not long after the leadership race was held in Toronto, to accommodate gay pride. Party insiders agreed that they must do more to attract new voters. The Vancouver Convention was scheduled with that in mind.

In its ever expanding goal of being more inclusive, the Party has booked the Metro Vancouver Convention Center for that week. The halal-only event was supposed to be in Mid-Town, but Muslims protested the degeneracy being promoted in their neighbourhood. CPC officials promptly apologized for their Islamophobia.

The CPC has also announced there will be changes coming to employment insurance for maternal leave. According to new Party Leader, Peter “the Shank” MacKay, the CPC will not discriminate between babies who live, and those who die, when it comes to handing out EI. He said it’s important those women (and other people who give birth) get treated the same.

Furthermore, abortion services will also become available to trans-women. Party officials agreed that not having ovaries or a uterus shouldn’t exclude a person from accessing their “reproductive health care”.

It was noted that as a conservative, promoting abortion made sense. Eliminating the clump of cells could be done for under $1,000, while years of child care and tax credits would cost far more.

MacKay also announced expanding immigration levels, including making it easier to get students permanent residency. “We’re going to staple green cards to diplomas.” Since the Canadian birth rate was falling it was necessary to import a replacement population. However, MacKay denied any connection between expanding abortion usage and birth rates.

The policy convention will be kicked off with Drag Queen Story Hour, followed by a demonstration of how to self-abort using drugs and coat hangers. Discount ball-waxing and gynecological services will be available to all transgender people. The CPC claimed it was committed to diversity and inclusion.

The Conservative Party asserts that “Diversity is a product of our strength, and that strength is freedom.” No longer would it cling to archaic ideas such as CONSERVING the heritage, culture, traditions, customs, languages, demographics, or spirituality of the nation. Last year it voted to not even conserve the ladies’ room.

People’s Party Leader Maxime Bernier mocked the event, saying that it was just more shameless pandering. When asked when the PPC leadership race and policy vote would be, Bernier looked confused. “Why would we do that? We don’t even have a party constitution.”

Detractors criticized the event, claiming that the CPC is conserving nothing, and panders to every imaginable fringe group. The CPC response was to say that bigots will not be welcome at their events. To emphasize that point, the CPC stated that party members are allowed to believe in the pro-life agenda, but must keep it to themselves.

The convention is expected to attract at least 10,000 people over 6 days.

TSCE #10: Does Allowing Illegal Aliens Into Canada Violate International Agreements?

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

1. Important Links

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)

Links On Trafficking/Smuggling
CLICK HERE, for UN Review On Smuggling Migrants.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention On Transnational Crime.
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol Against Human Trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for UN Opt. Protocol On Rights Of The Child.
CLICK HERE, for UN Global Initiative To Fight Trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol To Prevent/Punish Trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for UN Rights Of The Child, Sale, Prostitution, Porn.
CLICK HERE, for Eliminate Worst Forms Of Child Labour.
CLICK HERE, for the Rome Statute, Int’l Criminal Court.
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t Of Canada On Trafficking.

CLICK HERE, for Washington Times on child abduction for border crossings.

From S3CA Court Case
CLICK HERE, for abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Prothonotary strikes out Statement of Claim.
CLICK HERE, for Uppity Peasants on the moral arguments.
CLICK HERE, for arguments to appeal S3CA dismissal.
CLICK HERE, for reply submissions in S3CA appeal.
CLICK HERE, for hypocrisy in Toronto/Vancouver cases.
CLICK HERE, for appeal in S3CA challenge dismissed.

2. Context For This Piece

Canada has signed several international treaties, relevant to the prevention of trafficking, smuggling, and other exploitation of people. These agreements include:

  • “Protocol to Prevent. Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. Especially Women and Children. supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime”, in 2000
  • “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography”
  • “ILO Convention 182 concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst forms of Child Labor”

The purpose, as you can imagine, is for governments around the world to cooperate in preventing these activities from happening. Also, it is to punish those responsible when it does happen. Accordingly, they must be taken seriously.

But what happens when certain governments turn a blind eye to people illegally crossing their borders? What happens when governments enact policies that openly encourage human smuggling and trafficking to occur? Does this not help circumvent the very treaties which are designed to keep vulnerable people safe?

This is a bit of a rhetorical question, but I believe the answers are “yes”. Should make for interesting discussion, especially if this ever gets advanced in court. As outlined in the last article, the appeal of the Prothonotary’s decision was dismissed. This is unjust, considering how big the issue of illegal crossings into Canada is.

3. Link Between Illegal Crossings/Trafficking

More on the research is available in this review. It details the size and scale of smuggling and trafficking, and gives much needed background information on the people who are likely to be involved. The original source is linked here, and well worth a read.

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

(There is a connection between smuggling and “irregular migration”)

(UN abhors smuggling, but fake refugees get a pass)

2.1 Smuggling of migrants and the concepts of irregular migration and trafficking in persons
2.1.1 Irregular migration
The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration.

In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents.

Yes, this has been brought up before, but it is designed to hammer the point home. Smuggling of people across borders is directly connected to the “irregular migration” that occurs at the end. It is the end result of these actions which show no respect for national borders or sovereignty. The UN review is rather blunt on the subject.

2.2 Conceptualization of smuggling of migrants
2.2.1 Smuggling as an illegal migration business
The conceptualization of smuggling as a migration business was formally developed by Salt and Stein in 1997, even if one may find reference to this theory in earlier literature. This new interpretation of the smuggling phenomenon had a great influence on academic circles, and the concept was then borrowed by many academics. In a critical analysis of this concept, Herman stresses that the focus of expert discussions then revolved around the notion of a migration industry and its professionalization, in which migrants are seen as “products” and “people who aid migrants are called ‘smugglers’, and are portrayed as illegal ‘entrepreneurs’”

Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both
legitimate and illegitimate sides
. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.

The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.

In some sense, this is quite obvious. Of course smuggling and trafficking are businesses, where the commodity being shipped is the people.

4. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress/Punish Trafficking

The full name of this treaty is the “Protocol to Prevent. Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. Especially Women and Children. supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. New York, US November 2000”.

Canada is a signatory to this treaty, and as such, should be expected to participate in good faith. Here is the preamble to the treaty, followed by a few Articles contained within.

The States Parlies to this Protocol,
Declaring that effective action to prevent and combat trafficking in persons, especially women and children, requires a comprehensive international approach in the countries of origin, transit and destination that includes measures to prevent such trafficking, to punish the traffickers and to protect the victims of such trafficking. including by protecting their internationally recognized human rights,
Taking into account the fact that, despite the existence of a variety of international instruments containing rules and practical measures to combat the exploitation of persons, especially women and children, there is no universal instrument that addresses all aspects of trafficking in persons,
Concerned that, in the absence of such an instrument, persons who are vulnerable to trafficking will not be sufficiently protected,
Recalling General Assembly resolution 53/111 of 9 December 1998, in which the Assembly decided to establish an open-ended intergovernmental ad hoc committee for the purpose of elaborating a comprehensive international convention against transnational organized crime and of discussing (he elaboration of, inter alia, an internationa.1 instrument addressing trafficking in women and children,
Convinced that supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime with an international instrument for the prevention, suppression and punishment of trafficking in persons, especially women and children, will be useful in preventing and combating that crime.
Have agreed as follows:

The goal is pretty straightforward, to create a universal and inclusive agreement on how to combat human trafficking.

The main difference between smuggling and trafficking is one of consent. Smuggled people are willing accomplices, while trafficked people are essentially prisoners. While this treaty specifically refers to trafficked people, the same measures should be taken considered people who are smuggled.

First, you can’t usually tell right away if the person is willing or not.

Second, the nations these people are entering should have some rights.

Article 2
Statement of purpose The purposes of this Protocol are:
(a) To prevent and combat trafficking in persons, paying particular attention to women and children;
(b) To protect and assist the victims of such trafficking, with full respect for their human rights: and
(c) To promote cooperation among States Parties in order to meet those objectives.

Article 11
Border measures
I. Without prejudice to international commitments in relation to the free movement of people, States Parties shall strengthen, to the extent possible, such border controls as may be necessary to prevent and detect trafficking in persons.
2. Each State Party shall adopt legislative or other appropriate measures to prevent, to the extent possible. means of transport operated by commercial carriers from being used in the commission of offences established in accordance with article S of this Protocol.
3. Where appropriate, and without prejudice to applicable international conventions, such measures shall include establishing the obligation of commercial carriers. including any transportation company or the owner or operator of any means of transport, to ascertain that all passengers are in possession of the travel documents required for entry into the receiving State.
4. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures, in accordance with its domestic law, to provide for sanctions in cases of violation of the obligation set forth in paragraph 3 of this article.
5. Each State Party shall consider taking measures that permit, in accordance with its domestic law, the denial of entry or revocation of visas of persons implicated in the commission of offences established in accordance with this Protocol.
6. Without prejudice to article 27 of the Convention. States Parties shall consider strengthening cooperation among border control agencies by, inter alia. establishing and maintaining direct channels of communication.

Our current process of letting the RCMP escort people across the border only to release them a few hours later does the public no good at all. Even if people are being willfully smuggled (as opposed to trafficked against their will), we should not be letting such people enter the country on these terms.

The 2000 agreement Canada signed onto “should” mean something substantive. It shouldn’t allow people to flaunt our laws, with possibly trafficked persons in the group.

5. Rights Of Child Not To Be Exploited

This UN Protocol is called the “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children,
child prostitution and child pornography”.

Considering also that the Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development,
Gravely concerned at the significant and increasing international traffic in children for the purpose of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography,
Deeply concerned at the widespread and continuing practice of sex tourism, to which children are especially vulnerable, as it directly promotes the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography,
Recognizing that a number of particularly vulnerable groups, including girl children, are at greater risk of sexual exploitation and that girl children are disproportionately represented among the sexually exploited,

Article 9
1. States Parties shall adopt or strengthen, implement and disseminate laws, administrative measures, social policies and programmes to prevent the offences referred to in the present Protocol. Particular attention shall be given to protect children who are especially vulnerable to such practices.
2. States Parties shall promote awareness in the public at large, including children, through information by all appropriate means, education and training, about the preventive measures and harmful effects of the offences referred to in the present Protocol. In fulfilling their obligations under this article, States Parties shall encourage the participation of the community and, in particular, children and child victims, in such information and education and training programmes, including at the international level.
3. States Parties shall take all feasible measures with the aim of ensuring all appropriate assistance to victims of such offences, including their full social reintegration and their full physical and psychological recovery.
4. States Parties shall ensure that all child victims of the offences described in the present Protocol have access to adequate procedures to seek, without discrimination, compensation for damages from those legally responsible.
5. States Parties shall take appropriate measures aimed at effectively prohibiting the production and dissemination of material advertising the offences described in the present Protocol.

Article 10
1. States Parties shall take all necessary steps to strengthen international cooperation by multilateral, regional and bilateral arrangements for the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution and punishment of those responsible for acts involving the sale of children, child prostitution, child pornography and child sex tourism. States Parties shall also promote international cooperation and coordination between their authorities, national and international non-governmental organizations and international organizations.
2. States Parties shall promote international cooperation to assist child victims in their physical and psychological recovery, social reintegration and repatriation.
3. States Parties shall promote the strengthening of international cooperation in order to address the root causes, such as poverty and underdevelopment, contributing to the vulnerability of children to the sale of children, child prostitution, child pornography and child sex tourism.
4. States Parties in a position to do so shall provide financial, technical or other assistance through existing multilateral, regional, bilateral or other programmes.

This protocol seems reasonable enough. Making sure that children are not being harmed or exploited is a valuable societal function.

However, when we allow people to enter Canada illegally, and release them into the country soon afterwards, we have no way of knowing what will happen. Our system, which rewards people for deliberately bypassing official border crossings does everyone a disservice.

No decent person wants children to be exploited, sexually or otherwise. But having laws that make it easy to do so ensures that it will happen at some point.

6. Eliminating Worst Child Labour


Article 2
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “child” shall apply to all persons under the age of 18.

Article 3
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “the worst forms of child labour” comprises:
(a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
(b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances;
(c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties;
(d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.

Article 4
1. The types of work referred to under Article 3(d) shall be determined by national laws or regulations or by the competent authority, after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, taking into consideration relevant international standards, in particular Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation, 1999.
2. The competent authority, after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, shall identify where the types of work so determined exist.
3. The list of the types of work determined under paragraph 1 of this Article shall be periodically examined and revised as necessary, in consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned.

Article 5
Each Member shall, after consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations, establish or designate appropriate mechanisms to monitor the implementation of the provisions giving effect to this Convention.

Article 6
1. Each Member shall design and implement programmes of action to eliminate as a priority the worst forms of child labour.
2. Such programmes of action shall be designed and implemented in consultation with relevant government institutions and employers’ and workers’ organizations, taking into consideration the views of other concerned groups as appropriate.

All of these articles are completely reasonable, and admirable goals. However, to repeat from earlier, how do we enforce these things we have committed ourselves to doing if we aren’t willing to properly enforce a border? How can we make sure the children (and adults too) are being let in under the pretenses we are told?

Without taking the time to check thoroughly, how can the RCMP, (and Border Services) ensure that they are not unwitting accomplices to human trafficking or human smuggling?

7. What If People Aren’t Who They Claim?

Canada of course has other international obligations. These listed are just 3 of them related to prevent of people being exploited.

  • “Protocol to Prevent. Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. Especially Women and Children. supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime”, in 2000
  • “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography”
  • “ILO Convention 182 concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst forms of Child Labor”

Let’s take a look at what is happening across the U.S./Mexico border: people are abducting children in order to pass as a “family unit” when illegally crossing into the U.S.

The government warned federal judges in 2016 that their attempts to create a catch-and-release policy for illegal immigrant families would lead to children being “abducted” by migrants hoping to pose as families to take advantage.

The court brushed aside those worries and imposed catch-and-release anyway.

Two years later, children are indeed being kidnapped or borrowed by illegal immigrants trying to pose as families, according to Homeland Security numbers, which show the U.S. is on pace for more than 400 such attempts this year. That would be a staggering 900 percent increase over 2017’s total.

This Washington Times article details how adults wanting to illegally cross into the U.S. are actually abducting children to appear as a “family unit”. That’s right, children are being kidnapped to make it easier for others to stay in the United States illegally. An article in May 2019 suggested that 1/3 of “families” crossing were not blood related at all.

Sure, the adults use children to cross the border. What happens to them afterwards?

Is permitting illegal crossings a violation of international agreements? In context, many people who say yes they are.

8. How Diligent Is IRB/CBSA?

This evidence transcript is from a Parliamentary meeting on the illegal crossings going on. Let’s look at a few sections of the testimony.

Spoiler, it’s not very encouraging. 16 month wait times, and it’s based largely on the honour system. Of course, we take people at their word that they, and “their” children, are who they claim to be.

The response team has both operational and adjudicative thrusts. I’d like to underline that this response has not diminished in any way IRB’s ongoing commitment to one of the key objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is the security of Canadian society. For example, the IRB has a publicly accessible policy that requires that the RPD not accept a refugee claim until CBSA has had a reasonable opportunity to complete its security screening. This policy remains in place for all claims, including those heard through the response team. There are other processes related to security matters that I would be happy to discuss during the question period, if they are of interest.

Since July 1, more than 8,000 claims were referred to the RPD. Before this, we were projecting an intake of 40,000 cases for this fiscal year. The strain on the organization to handle this many people's hearings is enormous, as our capacity to hear cases this fiscal year, following a plan of action for efficiency and internal reallocation of funds, is roughly 2,000 per month, or 24,000 per year. 

Naturally, claimants whose hearings are not brought before a decision-maker of the response team in the next two months will wait to be scheduled like other claimants. Wait times before the <strong>Lacolle arrivals were already at approximately 16 months per person</strong>. Intake in the eastern region, in the month of September alone, was equal to the eastern region's intake for all of 2016.

Mr. Larry Maguire:
What kind of lag time would we see in that?

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
We have a 16-month wait time for our regular stream. But are you asking me about when the basis of claim form will be expected?
That practice notice is just a temporary practice notice. We’re going to wait to see probably until the end of November before we reconsider whether or not we suspend that practice notice in which case it would go back to 15 days.

Mr. Larry Maguire:
How do you keep track of those people in the meantime? Where are they?

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
If you go to our website, it says that you need to submit all the information around tombstone data, like address, and you have to keep us apprised of your changes of address and contact information. If you have counsel or if you have a consultant who is working with you, we need their contact information as well.
We are in contact with them about the scheduling and their claim processing.

Mr. Larry Maguire:
Are either of you aware of any process that CBSA or others would use to make sure they know where all the illegal immigrants that come across are in Canada at all times?

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
Do you mean by that, people who have crossed the border irregularly?

Mr. Larry Maguire:

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
You have to ask CBSA but we all keep track of the claimants relative to the information they’ve given us. They are responsible for keeping all of us up to date on their changes of address and where they are in the country, which is how my colleague was able to describe where the secondary migration to other cities has happened.

Mr. Larry Maguire:
When you say “they”, is that information that immigration or CBSA has given you, or is it the individuals themselves?

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
The claimants are responsible for maintaining their files up to date. Like any court procedure, you would always be responsible to that tribunal for your information. These are very official processes with the claimants.

Mr. Larry Maguire:
You were saying there were 8,000 crossings since September 1, or was it July 1?

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
That’s the number that had been referred to us since July 1, and we don’t keep the statistics about the number of people crossing. We only become seized with the matter when the referral has been by CBSA or IRCC. Our data are always about our caseload, not about the number of people who have interfaced with IRCC or CBSA.

S3CA Appeal Dismissal: Quotes From Ruling

1. Previous Posts

CLICK HERE, for abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Prothonotary strikes out Statement of Claim.
CLICK HERE, for Uppity Peasants on the moral arguments.
CLICK HERE, for arguments to appeal S3CA dismissal.
CLICK HERE, for reply submissions in S3CA appeal.
CLICK HERE, for hypocrisy in Toronto/Vancouver cases.

2. Quotes From Ruling W/Feedback

Rule 221 is the rule which the original motion to strike was brought. However, the reason for citing the Toronto cases was another part of Rule 221, which prohibits inconsistent pleadings. More on that later

It’s interesting that these allegations are seen as bare assertions, when court protocol dictates that allegations be taken as fact at least in initial pleadings. Despite the abundance of evidence available about illegal crossings, they were considered “personal opinions” by the original Prothonotary.

This summary is actually pretty accurate here.

Okay, this isn’t too bad.

The Justice fails to mention that in the appeal motion there was an evidence affidavit submitted which contained plenty of evidence that the illegal crossings were going on.

Why was this not done initially? Because initial pleadings are not supposed to include evidence. And motions to strike are not allowed to contain evidence. So the appeal motion was the first opportunity to add proof.

And yes these are “discretionary”, meaning that Prothonotaries can essentially do what they like.

Yes, they should be read as generously as possible. This was not done here.

Some real mental gymnastics here. Wanting a secure border is cited, but apparently that doesn’t count for the purposes of asserting a personal interest. Nor is objecting unscreened/unvetted people into the country and posing a potential danger seen as asserting a personal interest.

Obviously, having a secure border benefits a person individually, as well as society as a whole. This is arguing for the sake of arguing.

Not sure what to make of this. The Appeal Justice asserts that providing security for the people is a legitimate state function, and that there is a real person interest in pursuing this.

However, despite having a real and recognized interest in the matter, it apparently doesn’t translate into having standing to bring such. I need to demonstrate how letting unvetted illegals into the country impacts me personally.

The million dollar question here: is protecting Canada’s borders a serious justifiable issue? Most people would probably agree that it is. As for (iii), where else could the matter be brought? If the politicians won’t fix it, then what remedies are available?

“If as the Plaintiff repeatedly asserts”…. Okay, is letting people simply bypass border controls because of the wording NOT a loophole?

Not a serious issue worth the court’s time, apparently.

Interesting how the court both claims:
(a) Material facts were not plead; and
(b) These are personal opinions are bare assertions

Yes, crossing the border illegally to get benefits one is not entitled to is unjust enrichment.

However, nice strawman. The “it’s not about money” line referred to stating this matter was not brought for personal enrichment. it was not that there was not money at stake paying for these fake refugees. This is being taken completely out of context.

This was addressed in a previous post. Currently, there are 3 cases in the Toronto Branch of Federal Court. These cases involve people trying to overturn the Safe 3rd Country Agreement altogether. It seems absurd that the Government can tell a Toronto Court that the S3CA is necessary, but tell a Vancouver Court that there is no need to close any loopholes.

There are the 3 cases.
They can be found online.
And yes, these files were cited in the appeal motion.

Court File: #IMM-775-17

Court File: #IMM-2229-17

Court File: #IMM-2977-17

Yet, Prothonotaries have broad discretion to rule things “opinion” even before evidence is allowed to be heard. The Court can simply “choose” to not hear certain matters, no matter how meritorious.

3. So, What Happens Now?

This ruling by Justice Crampton is nonsensical, and not something that can be ignored.

Guess the next step is Federal Court of Appeals.

Canadian Parliament Discusses Work Permits That Are Issued For Illegals

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for 42nd Parliament on illegals entering Canada.
CLICKI HERE, for September 28, 2017 meeting evidence.
CLICK HERE, for October 3, 2017 meeting evidence.
CLICK HERE, for the October 5, 2017 meeting evidence.
CLICK HERE, for the May 3, 2018 meeting evidence.
CLICK HERE, for the May 29, 2018 meeting evidence.
CLICK HERE, for a 2001 StatsCan longitudinal study.

Previously On Canuck Law
CLICK HERE, for the hypocrisy in Federal Court cases.
CLICK HERE, for abuse in Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for a small amnesty-for-illegals program in Toronto.
CLICK HERE, for a critique against sanctuary cities.
CLICK HERE, for 22M+ illegals in US, amnesties.

2. Context For This Piece

Canadians want secure borders. They don't want people just strolling in an staying on obviously bogus refugee/asylum claims. Understandably, they also want to know what their Parliament is doing about this issue.

And while our politicians, particularly "conservatives" repeatedly claim to be taking the issue very seriously, the records speak otherwise. So let's take a look at what exactly has been going on.

3. Witnesses And Meetings

May 29, 2018 (Meeting 112)
Canada Border Services Agency
Jacques Cloutier, Vice-President, Operations Branch

Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Mike MacDonald, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Government Operations Centre, Emergency Management and Programs Branch

House of Commons
Hon. Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Hon. Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Commr Brenda Lucki

May 3, 2018 (Meeting 108)
Canada Border Services Agency
Jacques Cloutier, Vice-President, Operations Branch

Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Louis Dumas, Director General, Domestic Network, Operations
Mike MacDonald, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Government Operations Centre, Emergency Management and Programs Branch

Immigration and Refugee Board
Greg Kipling, Director General, Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs Branch
Shereen Benzvy Miller, Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Protection Division

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Gilles Michaud, Deputy Commissioner, Federal Policing
Jamie Solesme, Superintendent, Federal Policing, Criminal Operations

October 5, 2017 (Meeting 73)
Canada Border Services Agency
Jacques Cloutier, Acting Vice-President, Operations

Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Michael MacDonald, Director General, Operations Sector
Paul MacKinnon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Niall Cronin, Director, North America Advocacy

Department of National Defence
BGen Lise Bourgon, Director General Operations, Strategic Joint Staff

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Government Operations Centre, Emergency Management and Programs Branch

House of Commons
Hon. Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Hon. Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Joanne Crampton, Assistant Commissioner, Federal Policing Criminal Operations

October 3, 2017 (Meeting 72)
Department of Citizenship and Immigration
André Baril, Director, Asylum Policy
Michael MacDonald, Director General, Operations Sector
Paul MacKinnon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Greg Kipling, Director General, Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs Branch
Shereen Benzvy Miller, Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Protection Division

September 28, 2017 (Meeting 71)
Canada Border Services Agency
Jacques Cloutier, Acting Vice-President, Operations

Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Louis Dumas, Director General, Domestic Network, Operations
Michael MacDonald, Director General, Operations Sector
Paul MacKinnon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Patrick Tanguy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Government Operations Centre, Emergency Management and Programs Branch

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Joanne Crampton, Assistant Commissioner, Federal Policing Criminal Operations

4. Sept 28, 2017 "Evidence"

Here are some quotes from the meeting. The topic of open work permits will be mentioned many times in these 5 meetings.

Through these measures, we are working to reduce the wait times for eligibility interviews from a few months to a few weeks, after which eligible claims are referred to the IRB.
This timely scheduling of eligibility interviews is crucial because in order to apply for an open work permit, an asylum seeker must first have their initial eligibility interview, have their claim referred to the IRB, and undergo an immigration medical examination.
To also help ease pressures, IRCC has begun to fast-track all work permit applications across Canada from asylum claimants with a commitment to process these within 30 days. In most cases, asylum claimants become eligible for interim federal health program, IFHP, coverage only after an officer has determined that their claim is eligible to be heard before the IRB. IFHP coverage is now available to asylum seekers who enter Canada between ports of entry in Lacolle, and are being processed on or after June 1, for those who have not yet had an eligibility interview.
To date, more than 5,600 persons have been issued this interim federal health program coverage under this special provision.
In closing, Chairs, IRCC, with the CBSA and all other partners in the federal family, continue to address irregular migration in accordance with Canadian and international law and in keeping with our values of an open and welcoming country.

A/Commr Joanne Crampton:
In terms of someone crossing the border between the ports of entry, the RCMP would intercept the person or persons. We then advise them that they are breaking the law under the Customs Act by crossing the border between ports of entry. The persons are then detained. Their possessions are searched to ensure there is no contraband or other illegal items. Their person is searched, because they are under arrest under the Customs Act. We then verify their identification. We do background checks and local indices checks, as well as international indices checks. If there is no noted criminality or concerns for national security and, once we have interviewed them and had a lengthy discussion as to where they came from and what their intentions are, if nothing negative comes as a result of that, we pass the individual over to Canada Border Services for further processing.

Mr. Jacques Cloutier:
At this point, for the CBSA, we receive the individual from the RCMP, as well as the information collected by the RCMP. We proceed with fingerprinting, taking of biometric information, and a cursory interview to elicit additional information. We verify identity. In those cases where we are satisfied that there are no immigration-related issues from an admissibility perspective, these individuals would be released on the terms and conditions and given an appointment to complete their eligibility interview. In cases where issues are discovered, several actions are taken immediately, including completing the interview for eligibility in its entirety, or proceeding with detention if the person is deemed to pose a risk to the public.

To be clear, the police are not detaining people illegally crossing the border for any length of time. Once identity (or who they allege to be) is determined, then they are released into Canada on a promise to appear.

Ms. Jenny Kwan:
If I may interrupt, I'll ask if you can share this information with the committee then. Has the federal government provided any additional resources to provinces with these asylum seekers, not just for the housing component but also to support the asylum seekers as they wait for their claims to be processed?
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
The federal government does not provide direct support to provinces for asylum seekers awaiting their claims. The support comes at the permanent resident granting determination process, afterwards. That being said, we have taken various measures to help the provinces and to help asylum seekers by expediting across Canada all work permit applications and trying to—
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
If I may interrupt then, how many work permit applications have been processed and approved?
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
About six or seven weeks ago, we had over 6,000 work permit applications for all asylum seekers across Canada in our inventory. That is now almost eliminated, and we are processing in under 30 days any new asylum seeker's work permit that is coming in from across Canada. We are doing those in well under 30 days. The idea is to help people get into the work force quicker.

Exactly, Very few if them will ever be forced to leave Canada. This is about putting them to work as cheap labour. Funny how the "conservatives" seem less apprehensive about illegals in this context.

Mr. Michael MacDonald:
The key to this from our perspective is allowing all asylum claimants to get their work permit faster and be able to enter the workforce if they have to.
At the same time, we work with community organizations as part of our regular outreach, and we do that across Canada so partnerships and getting that work permit is the key.

5. October 3, 2017 "Evidence"

After a claim is made, individuals may also apply for social assistance, which is the responsibility of provinces and territories. To help ease pressure on the social assistance budgets of provincial governments, IRCC has been fast-tracking work permit applications for all asylum claimants across Canada with a 30-day service standard.
In recent weeks, the government has also taken a number of steps to inform people in Canada and the United States of the facts regarding the asylum process here in Canada and to dispel false information. We are spreading the word that temporary protected status in the United States does not automatically entitle anyone to any status in our country. Some asylum claimants have believed this.

This is a bit of a review from the last meeting.

Two, many of the claimants who appear before the board are vulnerable and suffer from mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, as a result of the trauma suffered in their homeland. So far in 2017, 93% of claimants required the assistance of an interpreter. We have the capacity to provide this service in 240 languages and dialects.
Three, in addition, the RPD members must be up to date on the developments of the law and must be experts on the country conditions of 126 countries so far in 2017, most of which are constantly in flux.

Wow, 93% of those coming in have such a poor grasp of English and French that they need an interpreter. Sure, we'll be able to put them to work in no time.

It is in that context that the Refugee Protection Division developed its approach to respond to the influx of refugee claimants crossing the Quebec border. The fact that many of those refugee claimants are living in temporary tents and do not have work permits has created a number of problems, both for the refugee claimants and for the Refugee Protection Division's processing of refugee claims.
First, since a large number of those refugee claimants were in a very precarious situation in Canada, fairness required that the Refugee Protection Division use all means available to process the refugee claims quickly. That means we have to prioritize the processing of as many cases as possible, to the extent that our resources permit, while meeting our overall mandate. Therefore, on August 11, we immediately created a response team, which will be active from September until the end of November.

Mr. Marwan Tabbara (Kitchener South—Hespeler, Lib.):
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today.
I want to talk about the work permits. You were here before to testify, Mr. MacDonald, and you discussed work permit applications as one of the measures that the government is taking to respond to the influx of asylum seekers in Quebec. I just want to read out something to you. The Canadian workers to retiree ratio today is 4:1, and by 2035 it will be 2:1.
Can you say that there's a correlation, knowing that we have an aging population, with our admitting a lot of work permits, because this is great for our economy and we need this to fuel our economy? We know the numbers of our aging population and we want to fill those gaps.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
I suspect there will be in a downstream effort if one were to draw that comparison. However, the most important point of the asylum seekers' experience at this stage, their journey towards possibly being accepted and then into settlement, is to get them as established as quickly as possible to help their settlement into Canadian society. That is the real goal of the work permit for today, in the present.

Here we get some more blunt honesty. The real reason we are letting so many people in with bogus "asylum" claims is because we are looking for a replacement work force. And while the overwhelming majority of these cases are fake, certainly we will be able to accommodate these new "Canadians".

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Surrey Centre, Lib.):
Thank you.
This question is to IRCC.
How many work permits have been issued to foreign national claimants who arrived at irregular points of entry this year?
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
The data I have is not quite broken down like that, but I will give you some data that is very helpful nonetheless. Prior to August 24, which was when the minister made the decision to issue work permits, we had issued 5,913 of those permits. Since August 24, we have issued 3,902. Further along, I think a very important point, which again references what I mentioned last week, is that we committed to process work permits, post-August 24, in under 30 days. Our average processing time is 13 days.
Mr. Randeep Sarai:
Can you describe how many or what percentage of refugee claimants are finding gainful employment? Are you tracking that? Are you able to track that with this particular cohort versus the other refugees who come through ports of entry?
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
No, we don't track finding gainful employment. They're open work permits, so people can obviously find employment and then move to other employment. The natural course of people in their settlement process is finding employment and going forward.
Mr. Randeep Sarai:
I can rephrase that. How many are you finding who are getting employment versus going on social assistance? That's probably what I'm trying to get at.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
Unfortunately, our department does not track that level of detail more or less at the municipal level, people finding employment in their home communities.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
There are two parts to my response.
First, you are correct in your statement that the government-assisted refugee overseas selection has nothing to do with this and the work permits that are processed. We do know for the Lacolle movement that the Government of Quebec is very quickly moving to help people get their social assistance cheques while many of them are still in the interim lodging sites. If you don't have a work permit, one would assume in the Lacolle movement you're on social assistance and vice versa.

Serious question here: is issuing these open work permits a way of relieving the financial burden, or was this always the goal (let fake refugees in as a form of cheap labour)?

6. October 5, 2017 "Evidence"

We figured out a way to fast-track work permit applications from asylum claimants across Canada in order to alleviate the pressure on the social assistance budgets of provincial governments. This is an issue that was raised by the Government of Quebec, and we moved quickly to establish a new 30-day service standard for work permit applications so that asylum seekers may support themselves and become self-sufficient while they await the final decision on their claims. This minimizes the impact they have on provincial social assistance programs.
Similarly, we have built in flexibility to ensure that asylum seekers are covered under the interim federal health program immediately after background checks are completed, but while they are awaiting their initial hearing. This is important because we want to ensure that public health is protected, that asylum seekers have access to basic care, and that there is no undue burden on hospital emergency rooms and provincial health care budgets.

Sure, people who have no secure status in Canada (93% speak limited English of French), and no real means or skills will suddenly go find jobs. And who will support such precarious employees?

7. May 3, 2018, 2017 "Evidence"

Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Thank you.
Mr. MacDonald, you just mentioned that we would welcome the DACA cohort through an economic immigration stream, as they are skilled. Who is “we”?
Mr. Mike MacDonald:
I think Canada overall and the labour market needs within Canada is the “we” when you look at a high-skilled labour market that could be there, which would benefit the country.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Have you or has anybody in your department brought up a proposal for an economic stream regarding the DACA migration class to the minister?
Mr. Mike MacDonald:
I'm not aware of any analysis specifically on the DACA cohort, other than what you see in the media.

8. May 29, 2018, 2017 "Evidence"

Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
Thank you very much.
My visit to Nigeria was very productive. I visited the capital city of Abuja, as well as the commercial capital city of Lagos. In Abuja I met the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Interior, and on the same day I met the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Nigeria. I was able to indicate to both officials what we were facing. I made it very clear that, overall, the number of Nigerians coming regularly to Canada is actually high. There are a lot of visitors and tourists as well as international students and people who come through the express entry system, as well as the provincial nominee program.
In fact, the number that is coming irregularly is smaller than the regular numbers. However, it is an issue, and I emphasized to them the need for that government to co-operate closely with Canada on the issue of reiterating the message that we are always making, which is that we welcome newcomers, but we want people to come through regular migration.
The second request I had of the Nigerian government was that they should work closely with us to expedite the issuing of travel documents for Nigerian nationals who have exhausted the procedures and are set to be removed from Canada. On both of those requests, the Nigerian government officials I met, including the foreign minister, were clearly supportive and indicated very clearly that they will work with us on both those issues.
Very quickly, I also met representatives of various media outlets in Nigeria to, again, make the point that we value the contributions that Nigerian Canadians have made to our country, but that irregular migration is an issue. I also met civil society organizations who were very kind to let me know some of the challenges, some of the misinformation that was being fed to some of these officials.

So why exactly are we allowing Nigerian "refugee claimants" into Canada? They clearly aren't in danger, so this is all a total scam.

Hon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC):
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On May 23, in the Stanstead Journal, the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie was quoted as saying, “We had [a lot of] calls from local businesses last year telling us they would gladly go pick them up there and hire them,” since Canada is short on manpower and the influx of people entering illegally through Roxham Road is welcomed by a lot of people.
Do the ministers share the opinion of their colleague?
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
The fact of the matter is that the issue of issuing work permits to asylum seekers was something that was brought to us through the intergovernmental task force on irregular migration. It was brought forward by the Province of Quebec. They felt that it was important for the federal government to help the Province of Quebec and other provinces expedite the issuing of work permits so that asylum seekers can support themselves as opposed to relying on provincial social services, and we've done that.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
The sentiment the Minister of International Development expressed is that it's a good thing that people are illegally entering the country, and that this was a way to meet Canada's labour needs. Is that now Canada's policy?
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
The provinces have indicated their preference for asylum seekers to support themselves while they await their hearings, to work, and for us to assist them in expediting the issuing of work permits, which we have done, from three months to three weeks—

Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Just in the interest of time, I'd like a yes or no answer. Does the minister want to stop the vast influx of people illegally crossing the border at Roxham Road from the United States?
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:

Rempel seems to have done a 180. Now she seems to have a problem with people entering illegally, even if they are of economic value. And how valuable can they be, if 93% of people need an interpreter when they arrived in Canada?

9. Is Cheap Labour The Real Goal?

139. Immigration by Temporary Workers The Conservative Party recognizes that temporary workers can be a valuable source of potential immigrants because of their work experience in Canada. We believe the government should:
i. continue development of pilot projects designed to address serious skills shortages in specific sectors and regions of the country, and that attract temporary workers to Canada;
ii. examine ways to facilitate the transition of foreign workers from temporary to permanent status; and

AS has been shown before, Article 139 of the CPC Policy Declaration is to create new immigration pilot programs, and, to transition TEMPORARY workers into PERMANENT residents.

10. How Many Are Really Working?

Consider this StatsCan report from 2001. Table 4 includes employment rates. Just 21% of "refugees" in the 15-24 year group were employed years later. The 25-44 group was marginally better, at 25%.

So, a lot of welfare cases, bringing their foreign cultures and often incompatible views with them. But hey, diversity is our strength.