CV #25(F): Ottawa Launching Vaccine Passports At Instigation Of WHO-IHR, 7th Meeting

This is a sequel to the last article. Vaccine passports are coming to Canada, but where did the order come from?

On June 4, 2021, the World Health Organization handed down instructions on proceeding with vaccine passports. On June 7, (yesterday), the Federal Government posted an invitation to bid on the creation of a biometric tracking system, which would most likely include a form of vaccine passport.

For some context of the situation: (a) the International Health Regulations are legally binding; (b) the 2005 Quarantine Act came from WHO; (c) WHO manages the “pandemic”; and (d) PHAC was created in 2004 at the instigation of the WHO.

Now, about the report itself:

Given this recommendation from the IHR Emergency Committee meeting, the Smart Vaccination Certificate Secretariat has expanded the scope of the initiative to develop guidance that includes SARS-CoV-2 testing and COVID-19 recovery status. Accordingly, the Smart Vaccination Certificate specification will be renamed as the “Digital Documentation of COVID-19 Certificates (DDCC)” specification. The resulting guidance will be published in a series of three separate documents, which will guide Member States on how to digitally document COVID-19 vaccination status, SARS-CoV-2 test results, and COVID-19 recovery status. These guidance documents will include critical components such as the minimum datasets, expected functionality of digital systems, and preferred terminology code systems. They will also include a section on national digital architecture, recognizing that Member States are still expected to decide how they want to implement these systems. The DDCC specifications will include an HL7 FHIR Implementation Guide (IG), including example software implementations.

This page from the IHR Emergency Committee lays out in broad strokes what shall be contained in these vaccine passports. However, the implementation will be left to individual countries.

Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister announced new “privileges” for people who have taken the “vaccine”. See 15:00 in video. Keep in mind, these are experimental, not approved by Health Canada, and manufacturers are exempt from liability.

Rebel News published a portion of Manitoba’s “top doctor” saying that the Province is introducing their own version of the vaccine passport. Nothing nefarious, he claimed. It was just in case it was needed. Now, why did Brent Roussin say there was no specified purpose?

These guidance documents will make no reference to the specific circumstances under which these certificates should be used. Such guidance will be made available in separate guidance documents published by WHO (e.g. DG temporary recommendations to States Parties after IHR Emergency Committees; WHO’s interim guidance documents on considerations for the implementation of public health and social measures; WHO’s interim guidance documents on considerations for a risk-based approach to international travel in the context of COVID-19; etc.).

It could be because all parties were INSTRUCTED to say that there was no specific purpose for these vaccine certificates. That’s what it sounds like. Countries were instructed to develop these “digital systems” but not specify what they were to be used for.

Additionally, in line with the change in scope, WHO DDCC specifications will not include a section on global architecture for a Global Health Trust Framework. At point in this time, WHO does not intend to implement a Global Health Trust Framework to store the digital public keys of members states, to facilitate the validation and verification of digitally signed COVID-19 certificates (e.g., vaccination certificates, SARS-CoV-2 test certificates, and COVID-19 recovery status certificates) across borders.

WHO states that it does not intend to establish a global system to track vaccination status, for now. The key words are “at this point in time”. That could very easily change later. And no, this isn’t just something they are pondering.

WHO is soliciting proposals for experts to inform the definition of specifications and standards related to interoperability, governance, and design for a personal digital vaccination certificate, in preparation for COVID-19 vaccine availability. Please follow instructions, detailed below, to nominate experts, by 17:00 CET on December 14, 2020.

Furthermore, as detailed in the International Health Regulations (2005), WHO has the mandate to coordinate among member states to provide a public health response to the international spread of diseases. Currently, yellow fever is the only disease expressly listed in the International Health Regulations for which countries can require proof of vaccination from travellers as a condition of entry into a country. WHO has a mandate to take a coordinating role to ensure that member states are equipped and ready for the anticipated global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. For effective implementation of COVID-19 vaccines, global coordination of relevant data management principles and processes is needed to account for and facilitate coherent implementation of transmission prevention and control by all member states.

The Smart Vaccination Certificate consortium will bring together experts to focus on defining specifications and standards for a digital vaccination certificate that would serve current and future requirements, toward the dual purpose of (1) facilitating monitoring of national COVID-19 vaccination programs as well as (2) supporting cross-border uses architected for a potential future in which the COVID-19 vaccine would be included in an updated version of the International Health Regulations.

Late last year, WHO put out an offer for bids on establishing digital vaccine certificates. WHO also admits that vaccination will be included in the next edition of the International Health Regulations, which again, are legally binding.

In April 2021, WHO released a paper opening discussing the pros and cons of mandatory vaccination. In March, 23 countries agreed in principle with establishing a global order to address outbreaks in the future.

Remember last Spring, when the idea of mandatory vaccines and vaccine passports were dismissed as crazy conspiracy theories?

(1) https://www.who.int/news/item/04-06-2021-revised-scope-and-direction-for-the-smart-vaccination-certificate-and-who-s-role-in-the-global-health-trust-framework
(2) https://www.who.int/news/item/19-04-2021-statement-on-the-seventh-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(3) https://www.who.int/news/item/30-10-2020-statement-on-the-fifth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(4) https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/world-health-organization-open-call-for-nomination-of-experts-to-contribute-to-the-smart-vaccination-certificate-technical-specifications-and-standards-application-deadline-14-december-2020
(5) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340841/WHO-2019-nCoV-Policy-brief-Mandatory-vaccination-2021.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(6) https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/op-ed—covid-19-shows-why-united-action-is-needed-for-more-robust-international-health-architecture
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62-who-legally-binding-international-health-regulations-ihr/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62b-canadas-actions-were-dictated-by-whos-legally-binding-international-health-regulations/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62c-the-2005-quarantine-act-bill-c-12-was-actually-written-by-who/
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62f-international-or-global-treaty-for-pandemic-preparedness-and-response-proposed/
(11) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62g-public-health-agency-of-canada-created-as-branch-of-who-bill-c-12-phac-act/

CV #25(E): Canadian Government Seeking Bids For “Biometric Vaccine Passports” System Creation

Where it started: Vaccine passports are just a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Stop with the tin foil hat nonsense.
Where it’s going: We need a company to develop vaccine passport system, and an authority to manage it.

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has an urgent need to secure the services of a global organization (the “Contractor”) with knowledge of and expertise in biometrics. The Agency requires this organization to assist with the immediate establishment of an Office of Biometrics and Identity Management and to work with the Agency in researching, planning for and rapidly developing a strategy and roadmap related to the use of Digital solutions enabled by supporting technologies in biometrics, in response to the COVID 19 situation and other operational priorities. The Contractor will bring knowledge, capabilities, and experience to support CBSA’s urgent need to establish a biometric strategy, biometric foundation and ultimately a Biometrics Authority (Centre of Excellence). Specifically, the “contractor” will assist the CBSA with the development of a comprehensive approach and plan to manage, evolve and adapt in using biometrics to deliver the mission of the agency while considering our interrelationship and joint ventures with other federal government departments and agencies and our international partners.

Also, what is the “Office of Biometrics and Identity Management” that this refers to? Who will run it? Who will have access to this data? Will the information be used for commercial or research purposes. There are of course similar questions concerning this “Biometrics Authority”.

Come to think of it: the Privacy Commissioners’ joint statement doesn’t exactly discourage the creation of vaccine passports.

At its essence, a vaccine passport presumes that individuals will be required or requested to disclose personal health information – their vaccine/immunity status – in exchange for goods, services and/or access to certain premises or locations. While this may offer substantial public benefit, it is an encroachment on civil liberties that should be taken only after careful consideration. This statement focuses on the privacy considerations.

Vaccine passports must be developed and implemented in compliance with applicable privacy laws. They should also incorporate privacy best practices in order to achieve the highest level of privacy protection commensurate with the sensitivity of the personal health information that will be collected, used or disclosed.

For businesses and other entities that are subject to private sector privacy laws and are considering some form of vaccine passport, the clearest authority under which to proceed would be a newly enacted public health order or law requiring the presentation of a vaccine passport to enter a premises or receive a service. Absent such order or law, i.e. relying on existing privacy legislation, consent may provide sufficient authority if it meets all of the following conditions, which must be applied contextually given the specifics of the vaccine passport and its implementation:

Can we now expect some new order or law to give businesses the power to refuse people entry based on not sharing this information? And what guarantees do we have that this will not be abused or shared anyway? There are safeguards (on paper at least), but what are those actually worth?

The Vaccine Credential Initiative, which includes Microsoft, seems poised to push such a global version. This should surprise no one at this point. A cynic might wonder if the whole thing was planned.

(1) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-21-00958775
(2) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2021/06/07/c375d34f163718ff11b06433e7b68d71/1000357607_-_npp_eng.pdf
(3) Vaccine Passport Notice Of Proposed Procurement
(4) https://priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/speeches/2021/s-d_20210519/
(5) https://vci.org/

B.C. Liberals Are Complicit In Propping Up Horgan/Henry Tyranny (Just The Audio)

This is a shorter piece that just focuses on the audio. Readers familiar with the “pandemic” subject will instantly know what is bein talked about. This is MLA Milobar. He doesn’t even pretend to oppose the tyranny imposed by John Horgan, Adrian Dix, Mike Farnworth, or Bonnie Henry.

The expanded version is here. So is earlier coverage of the October 2020 election, and trolling Sadie Hunter afterwards. Notice, no mention in the platform that they object to any of this. Does it look like people in this Province have any legitimate political options? Are there options anywhere?

In fairness, the B.C. Green Party doesn’t get a pass. They signed onto this with the previous NDP-Green Coalition Government.

A serious question to readers: has anyone else gotten this kind of spin, even of you live in another Province? If so, please share your story, and a tape (if you have one).

CV #10(D): Nova Scotia Pharma Lobbying; MOH Robert Strang An Anti-Democratic Tyrant

Just to get it out of the way, it’s disturbing how someone who looks this unhealthy could be a Medical Officer of Health, as he is for the Province of Nova Scotia. Supposedly he was a rugby player, although it’s hard to tell. For some inexplicable reason, the media treats people like this as rock stars.

Anyhow, Strang is a huge proponent of endless lockdowns, and pushing the big pharma agenda. However, even when the consequences of this are becoming obvious, he won’t admit any responsibility. See the above video, and the following quote:

Nova Scotia will pause the use of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine as the first dose effective today, May 12.
.
The decision is based on an abundance of caution due to an observed increase in the rare blood clotting condition linked to this vaccine and because Nova Scotia has enough mRNA vaccine to immunize people age 40 and older.
.
Anyone who is scheduled to receive their first dose of AstraZeneca vaccine will receive an email canceling that appointment and asking them to book a new appointment for either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.
.
A decision on second doses will be made once more information is received from the National Advisory Committee on Immunization. Nova Scotia’s vaccine plan will be adjusted based on this guidance.
.
The AstraZeneca vaccine has been linked to vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, or VITT, in other provinces.
.
Anyone with any of the following symptoms after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine should seek medical help right away or call 911 and say they have received the vaccine:
.
-shortness of breath
-chest pain
-stomach pain that will not go away
-leg swelling
-a sudden and severe headache
-a headache that will not go away and is getting worse
-blurred vision
-skin bruising (other than the area vaccinated), reddish or purplish spots, or blood blisters under the skin
.
The above symptoms are most likely to occur between days four and 14 after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Have to love the mental gymnastics here. Even as Robert Strang tells Nova Scotia that getting the vaccines was the right decision, it’s pulled from use (probably forever), and people are urged to seek medical attention for a variety of symptoms.

The message is touted nationally as well. Even though this “vaccine” is being pulled for health reasons, Canadians should take pride in the decision to get a first (or second) dose. It’s mind blowing that people could actually take this seriously.

Strang has taken it upon himself to decide what’s true and what’s not, and to condemn “misinformation“.

Interesting side note: Strang took some flak for opting out of AstraZeneca himself. Perhaps he doesn’t really believe what he preaches.

So, why is Nova Scotia so hesitant (pardon the pun) to completely throw AstraZeneca under the bus?

Wild idea, but perhaps AstraZeneca having 15 people currently registered (as in right now) as lobbyists with the Nova Scotia Government played some role in not completely bashing their product. And no, this is not limited to a single company.

The Canadian Medical Association, which is on record as supporting Ontario’s stay-at-home order (or 24 hour curfew) also has plenty of lobbyists registered with Nova Scotia.

The Doctors of Nova Scotia doesn’t seem to raise too many red flags. However, having a lobbyist from GlaxSmithKline is an interesting bit. Likewise with Innovative Medicines, Merck, and the Pharmacy Association of Canada. It’s almost as if there was some pattern to the types of organization that are lobbying in Nova Scotia.

Keep in mind, these are only the registrations that are documented. It’s quite likely that other things have gone on behind the scene for which records aren’t posted.

Strang worked with Theresa Tam on the Special Advisory Committee on the Epidemic of Opioid Overdoses Regarding Updated Data on Canada’s Opioid Crisis in 2018. Interesting. Now he pushes for Nova Scotians to take “vaccines” that are not approved, but only have interim authorization, based on low standards.

On Wednesday May 12, 2021, an application for injunction was filed in Nova Scotia Supreme Court. It was granted on Friday based on 2 Affidavits, one from Robert Strang. This was done “ex parte”, meaning that there was no opposing side to challenge it.

At a minimum, it would have been nice to see what was in those Affidavits.

The result is that public gatherings, including gatherings to these illegal measures have been effectively banned. The ban (unless thrown out) would remain in place as long as the Government decides there is a public health emergency.

In participating in this, Strang demonstrated himself to be nothing more than a thug. He convinced a judge to strip away Nova Scotia’s right to assemble, something that could never have been accomplished legislatively.

(1) https://twitter.com/Doctors_NS
(2) https://twitter.com/nsgov/status/1393286842737434626
(3) https://novascotia.ca/news/release/?id=20210512006
(4) https://globalnews.ca/news/6716932/coronavirus-canada-medical-officers/
(5) https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/astrazeneca-vaccine-provinces-pause-regrets-1.6024004
(6) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/covid-19-nova-scotia-march-31-2020-1.5516108
(7) https://novascotia.ca/sns/Lobbyist/organization/confirmation.asp
(8) https://novascotia.ca/sns/Lobbyist/undertaking/undertaking_VD.asp?key=748&a=view
(9) https://www.cma.ca/
(10) https://doctorsns.com/
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-strang-9044ab43/
(12) https://www.pharmiweb.com/press-release/2018-09-18/statement-from-the-co-chairs-of-the-special-advisory-committee-on-the-epidemic-of-opioid-overdoses-r
(13) https://novascotia.ca/coronavirus/docs/court-of-nova-scotia-injunction-order-14-may-2021.pdf
(14) Nova Scotia Supreme Court Protest Injunction May 14

Conservatives Whine About Sexual Assault During Quarantine, Not The Forced Quarantines Themselves

This is a new level of moral relativity. Apparently, authorities detaining people for 14 days under the false pretense of public safety is okay. The forcible confinement is not the issue. Nor is the nasal rape that comes in the form of PCR tests. However, the entire experience is suddenly a human rights violation if a sexual assault is committed during that time.

1. Rempel Supports House Arrest In Principle

https://twitter.com/GregMcLeanYYC/status/1358115105683066881

This is from February 6, 2021. At the 28 second mark, Michelle Rempel-Garner explicitly states that everyone (presuming her party included), supports the idea of forcing people into their homes for 14 days at a time.

In her usual “Canada last” ways, she does ask for exemptions for Temporary Foreign Workers from quarantine, at a time when unemployment in Canada is still extremely high.

To reiterate, the “Official Opposition” doesn’t have a problem with imprisoning people. Their complaints are limited to some of the details of implementing such policies.

2. Fake Outrage Over Assault In Quarantine

https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1365032919866118147

On February 25, Rempel pretended to be outraged that people coming into Canada were being forced into quarantine against their will, and not knowing where they are going. Keep in mind, on February 6, she was okay with this, according to her own statement.

Does any of this mean that Conservatives now have a problem with this sort of confinement? Keep in mind, it would be illegal in any other circumstances. No. Instead, all that is asked is for a review, and to do a better job of vetting the guards holding them prisoner.

“The Liberal government must take action now. We call for the Liberals to suspend the hotel quarantine requirement until they have put measures in place to ensure the safety of Canadians and institute a system for verifying at-home quarantine that doesn’t involve security agents who have not been properly vetted. During this necessary pause, the federal government should continue with on-arrival testing and the 14-day at-home quarantine for all international travelers to protect the public health of Canadians.”

Even in her statement, there is no principled objection to the quarantine camps themselves (or internment camps). There is no objection to forcing people into house arrest. In fact, they seem content to re-establish these detention centers once better screening methods are in place.

The National Post mentioned that there was a call to suspend the program, which is not the same thing as cancelling it altogether.

3. Vaccine Agenda: They’re All In It Together

(See 1:30 mark in this, or original video). Trudeau claims that “normalcy will not return without a vaccine that is widely available, and that could be a very long way off”.

https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1356966419934683138

This is Erin O’Toole, the leader of the so-called “Conservative” Party of Canada, which claims to be the main opposition to Trudeau. Problem is: they don’t actually oppose anything ideologically. They whine about vaccines and tests not arriving fast enough, but don’t object on moral or ethical grounds.

There’s no way to describe this other than as a dog and pony show. These “leaders” are just going through the motions.

TSCE #7(G): “Healthcare Worker Refugee” Program Is Backdoor Amnesty For Illegals

Canada will be giving refugee claimants, (even those who entered illegally), a pathway to permanent residence, for essential health care work. This comes in spite of layoffs at hospitals for not having enough work. Remember, “non-essential” care has been cancelled or delayed.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

3. Important Links

Ottawa, PR Pathway For “Refugee Claimants” In Health Care
Hospital Layoffs Because Of No Work
Quebec Specific Program For PR Pathyway
2020 Canada Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
Conditions For Eligibility For Program
https://archive.is/aMHri
Designated Country Of Origin (Struck in 2019)
https://archive.is/dShJ9
Employers And Social Insurance Obligations
https://archive.is/gSqeJ
Seasonal Agricultural Work Program
https://archive.is/zMOeQ

4. PR-Pathway A Backdoor Amnesty Program

Both failed and pending refugee claimants face uncertainty regarding their future status in Canada. This public policy enables the Government of Canada to recognize their significant contribution and risk to their health during the pandemic by providing them with a more secure future in Canada. In recognition that there may be refugee claimants who contracted COVID-19 and subsequently passed away, spouses and common-law partners of these individuals, who are in Canada, may also be granted permanent residence under this public policy.

As such, I hereby establish that, pursuant to my authority under section 25.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act), there are sufficient public policy considerations that justify the granting of permanent residence to foreign nationals who meet the eligibility criteria and conditions listed below.

Based on the public policy considerations, delegated officers may grant permanent residence to foreign nationals who meet the following conditions:
.
A) The foreign national:
.
[1] Is a pending refugee claimant or a failed refugee claimant, who made a refugee claim in Canada prior to March 13, 2020 and continued to reside in Canada when their application for permanent residence was made;

[5] Is not inadmissible other than for any of the following reasons: having failed to comply with conditions related to their temporary stay including having overstayed a visa, visitor record, work permit or student permit or having worked or studied without being authorized to do so under the Act (as long as it was solely as a result of losing their work authorization when a removal order against them became enforceable as specified under Condition A)2 described above); having entered Canada without the required visa or other document required under the Regulations; having entered Canada without a valid passport or travel document. However for the purpose of the granting of the permanent residence pursuant to this public policy, the foreign nationals and their family members are required by subparagraph 72(1)(e)(ii) of the Regulations to provide the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada any of the documents enumerated under subsection 50(1) of the Regulations. If the foreign national and their family members in Canada are unable to obtain any of the documents, enumerated under subsection 50(1) of the Regulations (e.g., valid passport or travel document), as required by subparagraph 72(1)(e)(ii) of the Regulations,an exemption from this requirement can be granted if these foreign nationals can provide any of the documents described in subsection 178(1) of the Regulations where such alternative document complies with the requirement of subsection 178(2) of the Regulations(specific wording of these provisions is provided in Annex B of this public policy).

[6] Is a pending refugee claimant or claimant who has received a final negative decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) and, if they have commenced an application for leave and judicial review of the negative IRB decision in Federal Court, or an appeal in relation to the underlying IRB decision at the Federal Court of Appeal, and who has complied with all other eligibility and admissibility conditions of this public policy, is required, in terms of the final condition of this public policy, to withdraw their refugee claim at the IRB or their appeal of the negative decision by the IRB at the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), Federal Court application or appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal of the underlying decision of the IRB, in order to be granted permanent residence through the public policy. Should the individual decide not to withdraw their refugee claim at the IRB, their appeal at the RAD, their application at the Federal Court or their appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal, those processes will continue to proceed but their application for permanent residence under this public policy will be refused.

What a huge bait-and-switch. While this program is sold as refugee claimants seeking protection, it’s open to people who came for a variety of reasons. In theory, you can come to Canada as a student or TFW, spend your time here, then turn around and claim asylum.

So, who’s eligible under this program for a pathway to permanent residence? Just from the information provided on this one page:

  • Pending refugee claimants
  • Failed refugee claimants
  • People who’ve exhausted all refugee pathways
  • People who’ve entered without a passport
  • People who’ve entered without an appropriate visa
  • People who’ve stayed after their visiting time had expired
  • People working without a visa
  • People working after a visa has expired
  • People studying without a visa
  • People studying after a visa has expired
  • Spouses/Common-law partners of the above
  • No mention of children, but probably

In short, pretty much anyone who is in Canada — illegally — would have some option to remain and get PR status if they were working (or provide evidence of working) in health care. Just apply for asylum.

Of course, this raises the interesting question of why health care facilities are hiring people who have no legal right to work or remain in the country anyway. It would be interesting to see what kind of proof of health care work is used in these cases.

5. People Entering Illegally Are Eligible


The Canadian Government doesn’t care about its people, and hence, has no real interest in enforcing existing border controls. Fake refugees from the U.S. are still allowed to enter, the S3CA, the Safe Third Country Agreement was struck down, and the concept of a safe country no longer exists.

To summarize, people can apply for asylum in Canada from anywhere, and it doesn’t matter if (or how many), intermediate countries they crossed through. Entering illegally from the U.S. is not important.

6. Family Members Are Eligible As Well

Conditions (eligibility requirements) applicable to Family Members
Family members of the principal applicant eligible for immigration to Canada under this public policy will be granted permanent residence, if they are also residing in Canada, are persons who meet the definition of a “family member” in subsection 1(3) of the Regulations as assessed by a delegated officer, and are not inadmissible on other grounds then those from which they are exempted via this public policy under condition 5 and if they are pending refugee claimants or claimants who have received a negative decision from the IRB, they meet condition 6 above.

It would be nice to see how many people (in total), this would cover, but that information doesn’t seem to be available.

7. Employers And Worker SIN Obligations

Ensure that any employees that have a SIN beginning with a “9” are authorized to work in Canada and that their immigration document has not expired.
-SINs beginning with a “9” are issued to temporary workers who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents. These SINs are valid only until the expiry date indicated on the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) document authorizing the person to work in Canada.
Employers must continue to see the employee’s existing immigration document authorizing them to work in Canada (e.g. work permit, study permit) and verify that the immigration document is not expired.

Employers are required not only to see that the prospective employee is legally allowed to work, but to follow up if not a Canadian or Permanent Resident. How exactly are these “refugee claimants” working in a legitimate field without this paperwork, which is obligated under the law?

If employers are willing to cover for this, would they also lie about the kind of work experience a person has been getting?

8. Open Borders For Agriculture Workers

While not directly related to the issue of PR for “refugees”, this is worth an honourable mention. At a time when we have record unemployment in Canada, one would think that a “hire Canadian” policy would be a good idea. Nope. Outsourcing of jobs continues on. Officially, the program is capped, but we’ll have to see if it’s enforced.

9. Theory: Making Amnesty More Tolerable

Just a theory, but perhaps this “health care” approach is about making a mass amnesty easier to pitch to the Canadian public. While being honest about it would cause all kinds of backlash, this can be promoted as an act of necessity.

Do we really need to be importing large numbers of healthcare workers, at a time when job cuts are going on in Canada? Does it really benefit the public to put Canadians at the back of the line? It might, if there was another agenda being pushed.

One has to wonder if these layoffs were done in order to create an artificial shortage, in order to justify this policy.