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)
https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-9-other-accounts-worth-following/

Links On Trafficking/Smuggling
CLICK HERE, for UN Review On Smuggling Migrants.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention On Transnational Crime.
http://archive.is/q0XqK
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol Against Human Trafficking.
http://archive.is/cjnJt
CLICK HERE, for UN Opt. Protocol On Rights Of The Child.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for UN Global Initiative To Fight Trafficking.
http://archive.is/Fjuv6
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol To Prevent/Punish Trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for UN Rights Of The Child, Sale, Prostitution, Porn.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for Eliminate Worst Forms Of Child Labour.
http://archive.is/OZQM
CLICK HERE, for the Rome Statute, Int’l Criminal Court.
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t Of Canada On Trafficking.
http://archive.is/RQVYA

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

This international agreement is the “CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION AND IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE WORST FORMS OF CHILD LABOUR ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE AT ITS EIGHTY-SEVENTH SESSION, GENEVA, 17 JUNE 1999”.

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:
Yes.

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.

MOHAMMAD MAJD MAHER HOMSI ET AL v. MCI ET AL
Court File: #IMM-775-17

NEDIRA JEMAL MUSTEFA v. MIRC ET AL
Court File: #IMM-2229-17

THE CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES ET AL v. MIRC ET AL
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.

What’s Really In U.S. Defense Bill S.1790

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Senate Bill S1790, signed Dec 21, 2019.
http://archive.is/81Hbp
CLICK HERE, for the PDF version.

2. Context For This Article

Donald Trump campaigned to become U.S. President in 2015 and 2016. He ran on an openly “America FIRST” platform. That sounded great, but is he living up to that promise?

Well, importing a replacement work force to put your own people out of their jobs isn’t really “America first”. However, it does provide lots of cheap labour, driving down wages.

That aside, what about defense spending? Donald Trump’s recent defense spending bill may provide some insight into how (if at all) that pledge is being kept.

3. Section 214: Affirmative Action Edu Research

SEC. 214. RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FOR HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND MINORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.
Section 2362 of title 10, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (e) and (f), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection
(c) the following new subsection: ‘‘
(d) INCENTIVES.—The Secretary of Defense may develop incentives to encourage research and educational collaborations between covered educational institutions and other institutions of higher education.’’.

Focusing on pandering to a group, instead of choosing the best people. Affirmative action is a failed concept, and we should be honest about it. Also see section 262 for mandating a study about it.

4. Section 223: Climate Change Policies

SEC. 223. DIRECT AIR CAPTURE AND BLUE CARBON REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
(a) PROGRAM REQUIRED.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Energy, and the heads of such other Federal agencies as the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate, shall carry out a program on research, development, testing, evaluation, study, and demonstration of technologies related to blue carbon capture and direct air capture. (2) PROGRAM GOALS.—The goals of the program established under paragraph (1) are as follows:
(A) To develop technologies that capture carbon dioxide from seawater and the air to turn such carbon dioxide into clean fuels to enhance fuel and energy security.
(B) To develop and demonstrate technologies that capture carbon dioxide from seawater and the air to reuse such carbon dioxide to create products for military uses.
(C) To develop direct air capture technologies for use—
(i) at military installations or facilities of the Department of Defense; or
(ii) in modes of transportation by the Navy or the Coast Guard.

Spoiler, but Carbon Dioxide is not pollution.

5. Section 229: Racial/Gender Diversity

SEC. 229. DIVERSIFICATION OF THE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING WORKFORCE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, shall conduct an assessment of critical skillsets required across, and the diversity of, the research and engineering workforce of the Department of Defense, including the science and technology reinvention laboratories, to support emerging and future warfighter technologies.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The assessment required by paragraph
(1) shall include analysis of the following:
(A) The percentage of women and minorities employed in the research and engineering workforce of the Department of Defense as of the date of the assessment.
(B) Of the individuals hired into the research and engineering workforce of the Department in the five years preceding the date of the assessment, the percentage of such individuals who are women and minorities

Who cares about the melanin and chromosomes of the engineers involved? Simply hire the best and most qualified people to begin with. There shouldn’t be any such considerations.

6. Section 529: Strategy For More Diversity

SEC. 529. STRATEGIC PLAN FOR DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION.
(a) PLAN REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall design and implement a five-year strategic plan for diversity and inclusion in the Department of Defense.
(b) ELEMENTS.—The strategic plan under this section—
(1) shall incorporate existing efforts to promote diversity and inclusion within the Department; and
(2) may not conflict with the objectives of the 2018 National Military Strategy.
(c) DEADLINE.—The Secretary shall implement the strategic plan under this section not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Whatever happened to simply selecting qualified people?

7. Section 540I: Race & Gender Crime Stats

SEC. 540I. ASSESSMENT OF RACIAL, ETHNIC, AND GENDER DISPARITIES IN THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall provide for the carrying out of the activities described in subsections (b) and (c) in order to improve the ability of the Department of Defense to detect and address racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in the military justice system.
(b) SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES.—The activities described in this subsection are the following, to be commenced or carried out (as applicable) by not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act:
(1) For each court-martial conducted by an Armed Force after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall require the head of the Armed Force concerned—
(A) to record the race, ethnicity, and gender of the victim and the accused, and such other demographic information about the victim and the accused as the Secretary considers appropriate;
(B) to include data based on the information described in subparagraph (A) in the annual military justice reports of the Armed Force.

Here’s a spoiler: 13% do 50%.
That’s according to the FBI.
Probably a true principle here as well.

8. Section 1123: Criminal Record Disclosure

Sure, let’s remove the mandatory advance disclosure about criminal records.

9. Section 1205: Gender Perspectives Req.

SEC. 1205. GENDER PERSPECTIVES AND PARTICIPATION BY WOMEN IN SECURITY COOPERATION ACTIVITIES.
Consistent with the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 (Public Law 115–68), the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, should seek to incorporate gender perspectives and participation by women in security cooperation activities to the maximum extent practicable.

At least Trudeau is open that he promotes this sort of thing. Here, it is slipped into a defense bill that is thousands of pages long.

10. Section 1215: Special Visa Reporting Req.

SEC. 1215. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM REPORTING REQUIREMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the Department of State shall submit a report, which may contain a classified annex, to—
(1) the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
(b) CONTENTS.—The report submitted under subsection
(a) shall evaluate the obstacles to effective protection of Afghan and Iraqi allies through the special immigrant visa programs and suggestions for improvements in future programs, including information relating to—
(1) the hiring of locally employed staff and contractors;
(2) documenting the identity and employment of locally employed staff and contractors of the United States Government, including the possibility of establishing a central database of employees of the United States Government and its contractors;
(3) the protection and safety of employees of locally employed staff and contractors;
(4) means of expediting processing at all stages of the process for applicants, including consideration of reducing required forms; (5) appropriate staffing levels for expedited processing domestically and abroad;
(6) the effect of uncertainty of visa availability on visa processing;
(7) the cost and availability of medical examinations; and
(8) means to reduce delays in interagency processing and security checks.

Serious question: will there be a pathway to citizenship for these visa holders?

11. Section 1219: Extending Afghan Visas

SEC. 1219. MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF THE AFGHAN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM.
(a) PRINCIPAL ALIENS.—Subclause
(I) of section 602(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended to read as follows: ‘‘(I) by, or on behalf of, the United States Government; or’’.
(b) EXTENSION OF AFGHAN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT PROGRAM.— Section 602(b)(3)(F) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended—
(1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘2015, 2016, AND 2017’’ and inserting ‘‘2015 THROUGH 2020’’;
(2) in the matter preceding clause
(i), by striking ‘‘18,500’’ and inserting ‘‘22,500’’;
(3) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘December 31, 2020’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2021’’; and
(4) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘December 31, 2020’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2021’’.

Interesting. This defense spending bill includes extending visas for Afghans, and issuing more of them. One might think this would be an immigration matter.

12. Section 1260I: Huawei Not Entirely Banned

SEC. 1260I. LIMITATION ON REMOVAL OF HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD. FROM ENTITY LIST OF BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Commerce may not remove Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. or any of its affiliates (in this section collectively referred to as ‘‘Huawei’’) from the entity list unless and until the Secretary certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that—
(1) Huawei has sufficiently resolved or settled the charges that were the basis for the addition of Huawei to the entity list in a manner that is consistent with the standards for the removal of an entity from the entity list under the Export Administration Regulations;
(2) Huawei has sufficiently resolved or settled any other charges that Huawei violated sanctions imposed by the United States;
(3) regulations have been implemented that sufficiently restrict exporting to, and importing from, the United States items that would pose a national security threat to telecommunications systems in the United States; and
(4) the Department of Commerce has mitigated, to the maximum extent possible, other threats to the national security of the United States posed by Huawei.

Why not just ban them outright? You do know that China uses it to spy on you and gather intel. Business interests should not override national security concerns.

13. Section 1749: Ban On Confederate Names

SEC. 1749. PROHIBITION ON NAMES RELATED TO THE CONFEDERACY.
(a) PROHIBITION ON NAMES RELATED TO THE CONFEDERACY.— In naming a new asset or renaming an existing asset, the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military department may not give a name to an asset that refers to, or includes a term referring to, the Confederate States of America (commonly referred to as the ‘‘Confederacy’’), including any name referring to—
(1) a person who served or held leadership within the Confederacy; or
(2) a Confederate battlefield victory.
(b) ASSET DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘asset’’ includes any base, installation, facility, aircraft, ship, equipment, or any other property owned or controlled by the Department of Defense or a military department.
(c) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section may be construed as requiring a Secretary concerned to initiate a review of previously named assets.

Way to erase a part of American history.

14. Section 5321: Climate Change Concerns

SEC. 5321. ESTABLISHMENT OF CLIMATE SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Title I of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3021 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section: ‘‘SEC. 120. CLIMATE SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL. ‘‘
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director of National Intelligence shall establish a Climate Security Advisory Council for the purpose of— ‘‘
(1) assisting intelligence analysts of various elements of the intelligence community with respect to analysis of climate security and its impact on the areas of focus of such analysts; ‘‘
(2) facilitating coordination between the elements of the intelligence community and elements of the Federal Government that are not elements of the intelligence community in collecting data on, and conducting analysis of, climate change and climate security; and ‘‘(3) ensuring that the intelligence community is adequately prioritizing climate change in carrying out its activities.

Yes, the military, which is in charge of keeping the nation safe will also have to factor climate change or “climate security” into everything that they do.

15. Section 5712: Chinese Infiltration?

SEC. 5712. REPORT ON BEST PRACTICES TO PROTECT PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF CHINESE AMERICANS.
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the People’s Republic of China appears to be specifically targeting the Chinese-American community for intelligence purposes;
(2) such targeting carries a substantial risk that the loyalty of such Americans may be generally questioned and lead to unacceptable stereotyping, targeting, and racial profiling;
(3) the United States Government has a duty to warn and protect all Americans including those of Chinese descent from these intelligence efforts by the People’s Republic of China;
(4) the broad stereotyping, targeting, and racial profiling of Americans of Chinese descent is contrary to the values of the United States and reinforces the flawed narrative perpetuated by the People’s Republic of China that ethnically Chinese individuals worldwide have a duty to support the People’s Republic of China; and
(5) the United States efforts to combat the People’s Republic of China’s intelligence activities should actively safeguard and promote the constitutional rights of all Chinese Americans.

I’m not convinced this is just a stereotype. China does send spies under pretenses of being students or being temporary workers. It is not paranoid or discriminatory to wonder about this. Ethnic ties ARE generally much stronger than civil ties.

16. Section 5713: Infiltration In Academia?!

SEC. 5713. OVERSIGHT OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE IN ACADEMIA.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) COVERED INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The term ‘‘covered institution of higher education’’ means an institution described in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002) that receives Federal funds in any amount and for any purpose.
(2) SENSITIVE RESEARCH SUBJECT.—The term ‘‘sensitive research subject’’ means a subject of research that is carried out at a covered institution of higher education that receives funds that were appropriated for—
(A) the National Intelligence Program; or
(B) any Federal agency the Director of National Intelligence deems appropriate.
(b) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and not less frequently than once each year thereafter, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with such elements of the intelligence community as the Director considers appropriate and consistent with the privacy protections afforded to United States persons, shall submit to congressional intelligence committees a report on risks to sensitive research subjects posed by foreign entities in order to provide Congress and covered institutions of higher education with more complete information on these risks and to help ensure academic freedom.
(c) CONTENTS.—The report required by subsection
(b) shall include the following:
(1) A list of sensitive research subjects that could affect national security.
(2) A list of foreign entities, including governments, corporations, nonprofit organizations and for-profit organizations, and any subsidiary or affiliate of such an entity, that the Director determines pose a counterintelligence, espionage (including economic espionage), or other national security threat with respect to sensitive research subjects.
(3) A list of any known or suspected attempts by foreign entities to exert pressure on covered institutions of higher education, including attempts to limit freedom of speech, propagate misinformation or disinformation, or to influence professors, researchers, or students.
(4) Recommendations for collaboration between covered institutions of higher education and the intelligence community to mitigate threats to sensitive research subjects associated with foreign influence in academia, including any necessary legislative or administrative action.

I don’t suppose any of those hordes of foreign students may be complicit in all of this? Foreign students, foreign funding, and U.S. taxpayers pick up the rest of the tab. What could possibly go wrong?

17. Section 6746: “Might” Allow Spies In?

SEC. 6746. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CONSIDERATION OF ESPIONAGE ACTIVITIES WHEN CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT TO PROVIDE VISAS TO FOREIGN INDIVIDUALS TO BE ACCREDITED TO A UNITED NATIONS MISSION IN THE UNITED STATES.
It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State, in considering whether or not to provide a visa to a foreign individual to be accredited to a United Nations mission in the United States, should consider—
(1) known and suspected intelligence activities, espionage activities, including activities constituting precursors to espionage, carried out by the individual against the United States, foreign allies of the United States, or foreign partners of the United States; and
(2) the status of an individual as a known or suspected intelligence officer for a foreign adversary.

Right. Don’t outright block and prohibit the people known or suspected to be involved in espionage. Instead, it should be “considered”.

18. Section 7438: Sunset Clause

SEC. 7438. SUNSET.
This title shall cease to be effective on the date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Okay, it expires in 5 years.

19. Section 7611: Liberian Refugees

SEC. 7611. LIBERIAN REFUGEE IMMIGRATION FAIRNESS.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise specifically provided, any term used in this Act that is used in the immigration laws shall have the meaning given the term in the immigration laws.
(2) IMMIGRATION LAWS.—The term ‘‘immigration laws’’ has the meaning given the term in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)).
(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (3), the Secretary shall adjust the status of an alien described in subsection (c) to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien—
(A) applies for adjustment not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act; (B) is otherwise eligible to receive an immigrant visa; and (C) subject to paragraph
(2), is admissible to the United States for permanent residence.

Why is an amnesty for Liberians slipped into this “defense spending” bill? How does it have anything to do with defense spending, or military capabilities?

20. Final Thoughts

Yes, there is some money for the wall (or rather, replacing sections of fencing). There’s also a ton of money for various weapons and toys.

But an awful lot of garbage that doesn’t need to be in there. There doesn’t seem to be any sign that Trump is ending, or even scaling down existing U.S. wars and military ventures.

How will all of this be paid for? Just put it on the national credit card of course. Annual deficits, or overall debts, no longer seem to matter to Federal politicians. All of this isn’t really “America first!”

Canadian Parliament Discusses Work Permits That Are Issued For Illegals

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for 42nd Parliament on illegals entering Canada.
http://archive.is/elDlW
CLICKI HERE, for September 28, 2017 meeting evidence.
http://archive.is/uxtIR
CLICK HERE, for October 3, 2017 meeting evidence.
http://archive.is/cAsj9
CLICK HERE, for the October 5, 2017 meeting evidence.
http://archive.is/H7uM7
CLICK HERE, for the May 3, 2018 meeting evidence.
http://archive.is/GBRrl
CLICK HERE, for the May 29, 2018 meeting evidence.
http://archive.is/zIFLn
CLICK HERE, for a 2001 StatsCan longitudinal study.

Previously On Canuck Law
https://canucklaw.ca/facts-figures-the-ugly-truth-about-replacement-migration-in-canada/
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.

[Translation]
.
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.
[English]
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:
Yes.

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.

Public Policy #9: The Case For A Moratorium On Immigration

It is easy to target illegal entries into the country. Without borders, and enforcement of those borders, the nation ceases to exist. Everyone should be against illegal entries, sanctuary cities, voting rights and access to social services for those in the country illegally.

That being said, the mass LEGAL immigration is actually a much larger problem.

People excluded from Canada for various reasons (such as criminality, serious criminality, organized criminality, non-compliance, terrorism or human rights violations) should stay excluded. Global News reported on a program which brought in 3,000 people since 2010 under Rule 25.1 of IRPA, but omitted another 186,000 “inadmissibles” allowed in under Rule 24(1) of IRPA from 2002 to 2017. Considering we don’t even track people leaving the country, it’s hard to say where they are.

In recent years, we have been taking in a million people LEGALLY into Canada. In 2017, for instance, we had 950,000 people enter through regular immigration channels, refugee claims, and various temporary programs. This does not include visitors or illegals.

To start off with: our governments lie about the total number of people entering annually. Categories such as student visas (students and their families), temporary foreign workers, & International Mobility Program bring in hordes of people — are not temporary. These groups generally have access to a permanent residency pathway, and other ways to stay longer. There are several pilot programs underway on top of these, including a small amnesty-for-illegals program in Toronto. Heck, we even expedite work permits for fake refugees sneaking in from the U.S.

Even if these temporary workers were to go home (and many don’t), there is the topic of remittances. According to the World Bank, hundreds of billions of dollars are sent from the West annually. How does it help our economy when money is pulled from it?

Perhaps we can replace the money lost via remittances with money from selling investor visas, regardless of how well the business does.

Bringing in large numbers of people as cheap labour results in our own citizens having to compete against foreign, often subsidized labour. It does a huge disservice to those who really need the help.

Importing students at this scale means that Canadian graduates are forced to compete against others for a limited number of jobs. This is includes professional and skilled programs. How does it benefit Canadian graduates to have their prospects cut out like that? Does the downward pressure on wages help? How does it benefit other nations when their talent leaves is a sort of brain-drain?

It doesn’t seem to matter if the “students” are really students.

Considering all the fuss about environmentalism and climate change, answer one question. How does mass immigration remove or minimize stresses to the eco-system? How does clearing new areas for farming and housing avert this climate emergency that we are supposedly in?

The overwhelming majority of immigration coming into Canada over the last several decades is of 3rd World, non-European migrants (80 to 90%). A quick glance at the top 10 “source” countries tells the same story year after year: (a) China; (b) India; (c) the Philippines; and (d) an awful lot of Muslims. Multicultis and Civic Nationalists — which are the same thing — tell us that people who have nothing in common with each other can form a cohesive society based on abstract “values”. It’s nonsense. While other groups want to retain their identity, why are Europeans considered bigots for attempting the same?

The result is predictable: enclaves forming in the major cities, such as Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. In reality, multiculturalism is a lie that never works out as planned. Balkanization is not diversity. Furthermore, it is not a lack of screening, but the deliberate efforts to forcibly remake Canada.

The breakdown of social cohesion is obvious. And anyone who has read Robert Putnam’s study will see why.

At the heart of this is the replacement agenda going on in Western nations. Canada, for example, was 96% European, according to the 1971 census. It was 72% based on the 2016 census, and still falling. Europeans will be a minority in the next decade unless something drastic happens.

This is about preserving the foundation of European nations and ones formed in that image. Replacing the population replaces the culture and the history. It doesn’t matter to me whether it is replacement by Muslims, or by high IQ, high skill Asians. I still don’t want it, and nor should others. Call it tribalism, but Westerners should be allowed to protect their identities too.

We also now have a program for survivors of domestic abuse to apply for temporary, or even permanent residence. Guess that’s what happens with importing violent cultures.

It never seems to dawn on “conservatives” that bringing in large numbers of people from left-leaning nations means political suicide. Demographic shifts will make their ideology completely unelectable. Their only concerns seem to be: (a) come legally; (b) be economically productive; and (c) don’t be a terrorist. But beyond that, conservatives have no will to preserve their people, culture, heritage, and traditions.

While the solution may seem to be to import more Europeans, they cannot be spared as THEY are being replaced in their homelands as well. Europe is being flooded with Middle Eastern and African “refugees” and migrants. We cannot help ourselves at the Europeans’ expense. Still, we must resist the replacement here.

For these reasons, and other facts and figures, I support a moratorium on immigration into Canada. With a more complete picture of the actual situation in Canada, many more people should agree.

Canadian HoC Foreign Affairs Committee Endorses UN Parliament In 1993, And Again In 2007

(Canada’s House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee approved the idea of a UN Parliament in 1993, and again in 2007)

1. Important Links

https://canucklaw.ca/un-parliamentary-assembly-proposed-a-k-a-global-government/

CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia listings on topic.
http://archive.is/mslRy
CLICK HERE, for archive of 1993, 8th Report, Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, House of Commons, Parliament of Canada, Spring 1993, chaired by Hon. Jon Bosley. (archive)
CLICK HERE, for February 1996 for UN Parliament.
http://archive.is/e9IMH
CLICK HERE, for the 2007 FAC Standing Report, Democratic Development.
CLICK HERE, for “conservative” Senator Douglas Roche.

CLICK HERE, for the actual link to the proposal.
http://archive.is/GMgwO
CLICK HERE, for supposed research data.
http://archive.is/KpIqW
CLICK HERE, for Canadian politicians who support this.
http://archive.is/P7ZS9

CLICK HERE, for First UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2007
http://archive.is/NKaj8
http://archive.is/kRdVJ
CLICK HERE, for Second UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2008
http://archive.is/z1jUo
http://archive.is/tNX9Z
CLICK HERE, for Third UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2009.
http://archive.is/5lMyX
http://archive.is/dXbo6
CLICK HERE, for Fourth UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2010.
http://archive.is/dXbo6
CLICK HERE, for Fifth UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2013.
http://archive.is/xloAX
http://archive.is/I4Mtb

2. Context For This Article

While the story of the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) is still in the news, it is still a theory, at least for now.

However, Canada’s globalist politicians have been at it since well before 2007. In fact, Brian Mulroney’s Government originally approved the idea in 1993.

Why should Canadians care? Well, if you think getting fair and adequate representation from Ottawa is difficult, try getting it from a global government.

3. Timeline For UN Parliament

  • Spring 1993 – CDA HoC Foreign Affairs Comm endorses UNPA
  • July 1995 – Brian Mulroney replaced by Campbell as PM
  • October 1993 – Jean Chretien elected as PM
  • 1996 – Support in Chretien’s Gov’t for UNPA
  • 2002 – Sen. Douglas Roche endorses UNPA
  • January 2006 – Harper replaces Martin as PM
  • July 2007 – CDA HoC Foreign Affairs Comm endorses UNPA
  • August 2007 – Bernier replaces MacKay as FA Minister
  • November 2007 – First UNPA Int’l Meeting, Switzerland
  • November 2008 – Second UNPA Int’l Meeting, Belgium
  • October 2009 – Third UNPA International Meeting, USA
  • July 2010 – Trudeau endorses UNPA as an MP
  • October 2010 – Fourth UNPA Int’l Meeting, Argentina
  • October 2013 – Fifth UNPA Int’l Meeting, Belgium
  • September 2015 – Harper signs Agenda 2030
  • October 2015 – Trudeau replaces Harper as PM
  • 4. Quotes From 1993 Standing Comm Report

    The decline in Canadian support for things international – and the decline is palpable – is explained more by loss of self-confidence among Canadians than by lack of caring. There is no more important task before us than to recover some of that confidence and no more important means of doing so than through the empowerment of the United Nations. People must see that the centre can hold and that they have a role to play in making it so.

    By way of building the public and political constituency for the United Nations, the Committee recommends that Canada support the development of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (21) and that we offer to host the preparatory meeting of the Assembly in the Parliament Buildings as the centrepiece in our celebration of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in 1995. We would further recommend that the Government work closely with the national organizing committee for the 50th anniversary and encourage the active participation of non-governmental organizations in the planning and holding of the Assembly.

    Conclusion
    .
    In closing this long letter the Committee wishes to commend the Government for being one of the few that has contributed energetically to keeping An Agenda for Peace alive. But alive is not good enough. Much more needs to be done. The proposals of the Secretary General should be the beginning of a vital international process of reform and renewal of the United Nations system. Canada should work hard to help make it so. The Committee intends to keep the empowerment of the UN high on its agenda and to hold additional hearings in the new session of Parliament. We would ask that the Minister respond in writing to this letter by early May.

    This is what it sounds like. The Mulroney Government, which calls itself “conservative”, has the Foreign Affairs Committee approve in principle participation in a United Nations Parliament.

    Note: Mulroney had a huge majority at that time, so there was no real need to get opposition approval on this. So no one can say he was pressured into doing it.

    5. Approval Of UNPA In 1996

    In recent years the demands on the United Nations have increased. In response, the organization has been given more autonomous powers and responsibilities. At the same time, it is necessary that the UN maintain support for its actions and decisions of the world’s citizens and governments. Creation of a UN Parliamentary Assembly is a vital first step in this process of democratizing the United Nations and ensuring its legitimacy in the eyes of world public opinion.

    The European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), demonstrate the important contributions that supranational parliamentary bodies can make to the work of international institutions. The history of both of these supranational parliaments also demonstrates the important, indeed essential, role in their creation to be undertaken by committed national parliamentarians.

    Under Andrº Ouellet, Canadian foreign policy was distinguished primarily by its emphasis on international trade issues. Trade promotion overshadowed some other progressive initiatives taken by Canada, notably Canada’s work at the UN on creation of an International Criminal Court, and the Canadian peacekeeping proposal (entitled Toward a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations) which was presented at last Fall’s session of the UN General Assembly.

    As Foreign Affairs critic when the Liberals were in opposition, Lloyd Axworthy was a strong proponent of arms control and human rights issues and is a strong advocate of improved multilateral institutions. Many analysts expect that under Mr. Axworthy these international law and ‘world order’ issues will become a greater priority.

    In the Spring of 1993, the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade (SCEAIT) brought forward a report on Canada’s role in the United Nations. One of the Committee’s three recommendations called for Canada to support creation of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA), and for Canada to host the preparatory meeting of the Assembly in the Canadian Parliament Buildings. Following release of the SCEAIT Report, an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians and non-governmental representatives was established to build political support for a UNPA. Lloyd Axworthy was among a handful of Liberals who participated in the ad hoc Committee’s two meetings. Unfortunately, very little was accomplished before the 1993 general election was called and the 1993 session of the House of Commons ended.

    The New Liberal Chretien Government shares the globalist appetite and ideas that the previous Mulroney Government did. More support for creating of the actual world government.

    6. Senator Douglas Roche & UNPA, 2002

    The arguments below contain these assumptions in their essence. However, it is understood (perhaps reluctantly) that world federalism and the end of the state system is not in the mainstream political agenda for a contemporary UN. The objectives of UN reform and addressing issues of international governance are reasonable and feasible in contemporary politics. Implications for a Kantian vision of world federalism can be bruited, but at this point not much more.1 A UNPA would not be a world parliament, although some supporters and detractors of a UNPA think of it as a step towards a form of world government or global federalism.

    World government is not a necessary criterion in discussing a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. World government is not the case here. What is at issue is governance, by which is commonly understood to be the regulation of an increasingly complex and interconnected world comprising States, societies, corporations, individuals and epistemic communities.

    The question of a UNPA, then, becomes one relating to a UNPA within the UN system and a UNPA within both the growing interconnectedness of trans-national politics and existing networks of global governance. Governance, transparency, democracy, diplomacy and international norms of behaviour – how states behave when their affairs are so intertwined – these are the issues in the background when discussing the formation of a UNPA.4 Specifically discussed below are those aspects of these phenomena that today seem to drive the argument for a UNPA.

    Some nice double speak here. Senator Roche is trying to argue that a United Nations Parliament would not actually amount to a world government. Okay.

    7. Quotes From 2007 Standing Comm Report

    CHAPTER 8 CANADA’S ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND MULTILATERAL APPROACHES TO DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT
    [W]e need democracy as a basis of a safer world, we need democracy as the basis for a just system of international relations …
    Her Excellency Nino Burjandze, Speaker of the Parliament of Georgia

    The Committee has already made reference in previous chapters to Canada’s welcomed multilateralist approach to democratic development and to its valued contribution to multilateral bodies. We believe that should be continued, and enhanced where most effective, as part of the evaluation of all Canadian support for international democratic development that we have recommended.
    The Committee observes as well that international organizations are increasingly expanding their work into all areas of democratic development and governance. For example, in our meeting at the Commonwealth Secretariat, its Secretary General told the Committee that the Secretariat is trying to work both at the cultural level and with parliaments and political parties on understanding the role of the opposition and on introducing accountability measures. Mr. Christopher Child, Advisor and Head of the Democracy Section, commented that “we’d like to do much more party training.” Strengthening party systems has also become an important area of work for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Systems (IDEA). The role of political parties in democracy-building was the subject of the Council of Europe Forum for the Future of Democracy which took place in Moscow in October 2006 with the involvement of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to which Canada sends observers.

    The World Bank, to which Canada is an important contributor through the Department of Finance, is not allowed by its Charter to take into account the nature of the political regime, hence its role in “political development is obviously constrained,” as Sanjay Pradhan, Sector Director in the Public Sector Governance Unit told the Committee in Washington, D.C. However, within a broader conception of good governance that is linked to democratic development: “We are doing a lot in terms of accountability of the state to its citizens.” So the Bank works on things that might be considered “building blocks” of democracy. Mr. Pradhan distributed a paper “How Ongoing Operations of the World Bank Currently Strengthen Participation and Accountability,” which lists six major program areas for Bank interventions. One of these includes “parliamentary capacity development.”

    Mr. Steen Lau Jorgensen, Director of the Bank’s Sustainable Development Network, elaborated that the Bank has programs directly involving local communities in development decisions, thereby increasing the effectiveness of projects. In the Bank’s experience, more open countries do much better in achieving their development goals. The Bank therefore has an interest in building the capacity of civil society and it now even gets close to election-related processes, as in Ivory Coast where it is helping with the compiling of a national registration list. In this case, the Bank is working with the EU and the UN and through the country’s prime minister’s office. Registration is not just about elections but about establishing citizen’s eligibility for social services.

    As Mr. Jorgensen put it, there has been a “fundamental change in mindset” towards seeing poor people as citizens having rights and responsibilities. The Bank’s consequent shift away from major infrastructure projects since the late 1980s has been approved by its Board. The Bank sees this as linked to development effectiveness, which incorporates a good governance and anti-corruption agenda. For example, in the public procurement process, the Bank has established oversight through a “Procurement Watch” mechanism, and it now has a “zero tolerance” policy on corruption in World Bank-supported projects. Mention was also made of a “Global Integrity Alliance” as part of an anti-corruption strategy involving leaders in the recipient countries.

    The role of a major international financial institution like the World Bank is noteworthy in another sense, since many believe that these powerful international organizations are not themselves sufficiently democratically accountable to the publics in the countries which make up their memberships. Several of the Committee’s witnesses addressed the issue of the need to advance democratization processes from the local and national levels of governance, to the dimension of global governance. For example, John Foster of the North-South Institute referred to the Finnish-supported “Helsinki Process” which produced a 2005 Report, Governing Globalization-Globalizing Governance, that made recommendations for democratizing oversight of the global economy and strengthening the role of parliamentarians and civil society in that regard. He also made reference to the work of the Forum International de Montreal — which gets most of its funding from non-Canadian sources — and to the Spanish-based “World Forum of Civil Society Networks and its Campaign for an In-Depth Reform of the System of International Institutions…”

    The presentation to the Committee by the World Federalist Movement — Canada also devoted a lot of attention to advancing democratization at the level of international institutions, in particular in the context of United Nations reforms. Indeed it noted that this Committee in 1993 had supported the concept of a parliamentary assembly at the UN, and it went on to state:
    In April 2007, the Committee for a democratic UN (an NGO organizing network working with parliamentarians) will present publicly the “International Appeal for the Establishment of a United National Parliamentary Assembly, at press conferences around the world. Following the Appeal launch in April, an international parliamentary conference is planned for October 2007 in Geneva.

    The World Federalist representatives urged the Committee to give favourable consideration to this international appeal. We note as well that the European Parliament has supported the establishment of UN Parliamentary Assembly as part of overall UN reform, most recently in a resolution of June 9, 2005.

    In terms of working through international organizations, the biggest of all is of course the UN system. Most of the UN funding related to democratic development and governance goes through the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Indeed, when the Committee met with the UNDP’s Pippa Norris, Director of the Democratic Governance Group, Bureau of Development Policy, and other senior staff (many of them Canadians) at the UN in New York, it was noted that this group is the largest within the UNDP.

    Ms. Norris shared with the Committee the group’s Strategic Plan, 2008-2011, and explained that its mandate in the area of democratic governance comes from various UN sources including the Millennium Declaration and a General Assembly resolution in 2000, the 2002 statement Democratic Governance Practice in UNDP, and a recent high-level panel report Delivering As One. Documents provided to the Committee included the UNDP’s Global Programme on Parliamentary Strengthening, on Support for Arab Parliaments, on Strengthening the Role of Parliaments in Reconstruction and the Prevention of Conflicts, and the annual report of its Democratic Governance Thematic Trust Fund. There was also a briefing note on CIDA-UNDP collaboration in Afghanistan. On gender issues, the Committee was told that an international knowledge network on women and politics was to be launched in February 2007, centred on an on-line tool to help education in this area. In addition, the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) does a lot of work on civic education for women. On electoral assistance, it was noted that collaboration between Elections Canada and UNDP goes back as far as Cambodia in 1993. However, another Canadian staff member Elissar Sarrouh (Policy Advisor, Public Administration Reform) — who formerly worked at the Parliamentary Centre — added that Elections Canada is always short of resources. So when countries express interest in having Canadian expertise, sometimes the resources are not there.

    On the UN’s work on election processes, the Committee also met with Craig Jenness (again, a Canadian), Director of the Electoral Assistance Division within the Department for Political Affairs, who explained that this takes the form both of direct electoral support, and work on electoral best practices. Rather than election observation, the UN focuses either on providing assistance to electoral offices in host countries, or on assisting with electoral operations as part of peacekeeping missions in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Haiti. The budget is relatively small, with a dozen people at headquarters, although a large roster of people — including many Canadians — work around the world. Also, there is a small trust fund to allow the quick deployment of people when necessary to places like Nepal. Some 102 UN member states — and four non-member states have requested electoral assistance since 1992, and over 30 countries are now receiving or have requested such assistance — most of them in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

    One important reason UN help is requested is that this helps legitimate the result and get it accepted — for example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The UN does not work with countries unless asked by the host government or there is a Security Council mandate. The UN tries to not run elections themselves, but to assist the host government in setting up the necessary structures to do so. In post-conflict situations, a problem that often comes up is that everyone wants to win an election, but it is often difficult to convince the losers that there is a real role for oppositions. According to Mr. Jenness, “parliamentarians can help” with that since they can talk to colleagues in other countries on a peer-to-peer basis.

    Before turning to UN’s innovation of a “Democracy Fund” in 2005, and Canada’s potential role in that, it is important to recognize that notwithstanding all of this work, many questions still surround the UN’s involvement in democratic development, as well as that of international organizations such as the Community of Democracies or alternatives, which can be more explicit than the UN about their pro-democracy aims since their memberships are limited to at least nominally democratic states.

    In observing that “the UN has often been in a situation where it has been an advocate of democracy”, Jane Boulden, Canada Research Chair in International Relations and Security Studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, told the Committee:
    There are a number of member states that are not happy about the fact that the UN should play a role in advocating democracy, even when it comes to post-conflict situations where parties have agreed to democracy as part of the peace agreement.
    This relates partly to the ongoing questions about sovereignty. With the responsibility to protect, for example, there’s been an increasing acceptance that sovereignty is not sacrosanct, and for those who are resistant to these ideas, the idea that democratization or democracy is an important universal value is seen as yet another hook that western states can use as a criterion for intervention in states.

    If democracy is to be put forward as a universal value, we need to be able to make that case more effectively than we are now. That’s a factor the United Nations is grappling with, but I think it goes across the board for states as well. On this point, the questions of perceptions relate as well to the image or the perception in a number of states that the UN engages in a number of double standards. Why do we, through the United Nations, react to some conflicts and by extension then deal with some post-conflict scenarios with resources and commitment, and not others? When we feed that into the broader question about whether democracy is a western value or not, you can see how the whole package becomes an issue.

    Scepticism about UN multilateralism combined with the need to engage the United States multilaterally has led to various alternatives being suggested. For example, two prominent U.S. scholars have recently made a detailed proposal for the establishment of a 60-member “Concert of Democracies.”

    Yet to get around the fact that the UN includes many non-democracies, there has already been the creation of the Community of Democracies in 2000, with Canada as a founding member, and which met for the first time at the UN in 2004 as a UN “Democracy Caucus”. The Committee was told during our New York meetings in February 2007 that the 100-member “Caucus” is currently chaired by Mali, which is also an active member of the Group of New and Restored Democracies. His Excellency, Cheick Sidi Diarra, Ambassador and Permament Representative to the UN of Mali, was among a group of UN ambassadors and permanent representatives with whom the Committee met. We have already referred in Chapter 4 to Canada’s participation in the Community of Democracies (CD). One of our Canadian witnesses, Jeffrey Kopstein argued that, given the UN’s weaknesses and limitations, the CD should be bolstered. In Washington, where we met with Richard Rowson, President of the CD’s Council, Theodore Piccone, Director of the Democracy Coalition Project (and representative of the Club of Madrid in Washington) argued that “Canada should be a member of the [CD] Convening Group,” and that notwithstanding our multi-lateralist reputation, Canada “has been mostly at the margins in this regard.”
    Others were less convinced of the CD’s effectiveness. Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Committee that the CD defines its democracy membership criteria too broadly and is too large to be a meaningful actor. Thomas Melia, Deputy Director of Freedom House told the Committee in Washington that the Convening Group of the CD represents in part the strategic interests of the member governments. For example, Morocco is a member although it does not meet the democracy criteria. Mr. Melia also had some cautionary words on trying for global coordination, stating that “a lot of effort can be diverted into coordination.” Instead he saw the need for “complementarity,” and “the way to pursue that is to build one’s niche.”
    Gareth Evans, President of the International Crisis Group, has also cautioned:

    Don’t pin too many hopes on Democracy Caucuses and similar grand international strategies. While in principle an attractive idea, there are simply too many institutional and interest differences between democratic countries for a united front to be sustained on anything very much, and it is not at all clear that the tentative moves to create such mechanisms have so far placed any useful pressure on non-democracies, or generated any net positive returns.

    At the same time, Mr. Evans, who remains a strong believer in a strengthened and reformed UN system, points out that individual democratic countries, notably those with great-power interests such as the U.S., are often not the best placed to promote democratic development. Even if, as several U.S. witnesses told the Committee, Canada is sometimes able to do things that the U.S. cannot, Canada cannot go it alone in this field either. Mr. Evans argues that: “One way to have an impact without such visible badging [association with Western big-power interests] is working through collaboration with multilateral coordinating mechanisms in the UN and elsewhere — the new UN Democracy Fund now getting off the ground will hopefully prove of real utility in this respect.”

    The Committee shares that hope. Indeed, there is no substitute for action by the UN, for all its faults, since it is the only truly global body. We, too, want to see it reformed and made into a more credible instrument for advancing democratic development. With respect to the UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF) set up as a result of the September 2005 UN Summit, it is supported through voluntary donations not assessed contributions. The largest donor by far is the U.S., and the second largest donor has been India, the world’s most populous democracy, with a contribution of US$10 million. That amount was matched by Japan in early March 2007, adding to UNDEF’s funding capacity of about US$ 65 million, and making it the Fund’s 28th donor country. So far Canada is not among these.

    When the Committee met with UNDEF representatives, Acting Executive Director Magdy Martinez-Soliman and Senior programme Officer Randi Davis (a Canadian) in New York in February 2007, Mr. Martinez-Soliman observed that the Fund is the first UN organization to use the word “democracy” in its title.377 Moreover, parliaments have been one of the better allies of the new fund; UNDEF staff having met with delegations from India, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States and others, now including Canada. The visit of the Committee was prominently noted on UNDEF’s web site (http://www.un.org/democracyfund/). It was made clear to the Committee that Canada’s involvement would be welcomed, especially as Canada’s democracy is looked upon favourably by many countries in the world.

    The idea for UNDEF was explained as a U.S. initiative proposed as part of the UN reform debate along with priorities such as human rights, management reform and a Peacebuilding Commission. (The Committee also met separately with Canadian Carolyn McAskie, UN Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Peacebuilding Support Office.379) UNDEF currently works mostly through civil society organizations as well as partnerships with other UN organizations, including peacekeeping missions. Its first funding tranche in August 2006 involved some 70 NGOs, including in Canada the Parliamentary Centre and a journalists group in Toronto. Importantly, UNDEF funding also comes from the South; it is not in the “import-export” business in terms of democracy, and does not offer a democratic model for others to copy. Significantly, too, UNDEF does not require host government permission when it decides on funding projects. It operates with the support and legitimization of the Secretary-General and the states that make up its board, composed of the six largest contributors. UNDEF is also one of the earliest examples of the “One UN” model proposed by the report of a recent High Level UN Panel on Coherence, Delivering as One,380 that was also referred to in the Committee’s meeting at the UNDP.

    UNDEF is still a fledgling organization with only six staff (as of February 2007), and has just starting work on the ground, although it already has some 125 projects in 110 states and territories. Its regional priority is Africa (37% of project funding), followed by least developed countries outside of Africa. Project decisions are made on the basis of detailed proposals after consultation with the UN’s Department of Political Affairs and other UN organizations active in each country, following which a short list is made and presented to the board, which makes an even shorter list for presentation to the Secretary-General. With no formal advertising, UNDEF received over 1,300 applications in its first two weeks of operation — although about 700 of these did not meet its criteria. (Even when UNDEF did not fund projects, however, it has shared its database of proposals with other UN bodies, so these projects may get funding from elsewhere.)

    The UNDEF governance structure is bi-level: one composed of UN member states, and one of NGOs, respecting geographic balance, and with an advisory board that includes international democracy experts such as Guillermo O’Donnell cited by the Committee in Chapter 1. Asked why UNDEF has accepted funding from states such as Qatar that are not fully democratic, Mr. Martinez-Soliman responded that UNDEF does not judge the degree to which its donors are democratic, but poses the larger questions of: Do the citizens within a state think it is democratic, and do other states think so?

    Mr. Martinez-Soliman added that UNDEF has about 15 projects that work directly with political parties in countries such as Bolivia, Serbia and Peru. There are obviously sensitivities involved in such work. Observing that some countries have tightened their legislation on the transfer of foreign money to NGOs, in order to prevent these countries from shutting the door, UNDEF specifies that NGOs must be recognized either nationally or internationally. UNDEF also works in partnership with global and regional interparliamentary forums — for example, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), particularly on the issue of support for increasing the number of women parliamentarians, and including the Assemblée parlementaire de la francophonie.

    The Committee was told, by our Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations John McNee, that Canada’s official position on UNDEF remains one of “wait and see.” We agree that UNDEF is a work in progress. But at the same time, it is part of UN reform and a global UN effort to take democratic development seriously. Surely that goal merits Canadian support. We note as well that among UNDEF’s donors are five of Canada’s G7 partners and its Commonwealth partner, Australia. Accordingly, we believe that Canada should consider whether to become a UNDEF donor.

    Finally, there is a recurring theme that has struck the Committee during its meetings with international organizations supported by Canada that are involved in democratic development: namely, the impressive number of Canadians who are working in these organizations, often at senior levels. This is a great pool of expertise and experience upon which to draw. While some of these Canadians may be attracted back to Canada by the new Canada foundation for international democratic development that we proposed in Recommendation 12, it is also a good to have Canadians in positions of influence inside the multilateral organizations that Canada funds.

    The Committee believes that a greater effort should be made to tap into the knowledge accumulated by Canadians working in multilateral organizations. This could enrich Canada’s own approach to democratic development as it is elaborated through an enlarged Democracy Council and through the independent Canada foundation that we have proposed.

    The Foreign Affairs Committee of Stephen Harper’s Government also approved the idea of participating in a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly in July 2007. It seems that all of these successive administrations are globalists.

    8. Recommendations From 2007 Report

    Recommendation 19
    The independent evaluation of all Canadian support for democratic development that we have recommended should also assess the effectiveness of multilateral channels to which Canada provides funding. That evaluation should guide appropriate funding levels.

    Recommendation 20
    Recognizing that the future challenges of democratization processes involve governance at the level of international organizations, as well as in national and local settings, the Canada foundation for international democratic development should include these dimensions within its mandate, and should consider related proposals for support from Canadian non-governmental bodies and civil-society groups working in this area.

    Recommendation 21
    As part of the essential role of a reformed and strengthened United Nations in global democratic development, the Parliament of Canada should give favourable consideration to the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly.

    Recommendation 22
    In light of the establishment of the United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF) as part of UN reform proposals in 2005, Canada should consider whether to become a donor to UNDEF.

    Recommendation 23
    Taking into account the expertise and experience on democratic development that has been accumulated by Canadians working in this field through multilateral organizations, Canada should make an effort to tap into this pool of knowledge in furthering its own approach to democratic development.

    Exactly what it sounds like: create and participate in a United Nations Parliament.

    9. Trudeau Endorses UN Parliament

    Our current Prime Minister endorsed the concept back in 2010. It seems doubtful that he has changed his mind since.

    Interestingly, Green Party leader Elizabeth May (who also sits on the Trudeau Foundation) has endorsed this as well.

    10. CDA Globalist Gov’ts All In Support

    Successive Canadian Governments all support being part of a UN Parliament if it ever became a reality. Canada is pretty screwed.

    Guest Post: CdnSpotlight Researching Corruption Within Canada’s Ranks

    Another researcher getting into the muck and filth that is the Canadian Government and administration. Here is some of the work unearthed and exposed. Worth a good long read, for anyone who is truly concerned about the future of the nation. Here are just a few of the postings. Go check out more.

    CLICK HERE, for the Gab account where this research can be found.

    1. Dominic Barton

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE
    What began with a negative news article about Dominic Barton becoming our new ambassador to China in Sept. got me curious so I started digging.

    And what I’ve been finding is alarming.
    It is much, much larger than just lowly ol’ Barton as the pic shows.
    The tentacles are far-reaching and the Canadian players involved are so intertwined that it’ll cause some ‘splodey heads like mine.
    So please bear with me as I try to explain this in my series/threads.

    So let me start with the article that started it all:
    Terence Corcoran: Dominic Barton could be the right man for China … if he remembers what makes Canada work:
    Barton’s admiration and support of China’s statist economic ideas, and his frequently stated disdain for market capitalism, certainly give one reason to pause – Sept. 2019

    CLICK HERE for an article on the subject.

    Read every word of that article, it briefly describes Barton’s “philosophy” & ideology

    “China as the world’s leading practitioner of state corporatism. Barton thinks the Communist Party of China has developed some fantastic economic models that might even be exportable to the rest of the world, including Canada.

    Barton and McKinsey, for example, have been enthusiastic backers of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a massive global infrastructure scheme

    the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) infrastructure initiative, the project was described by Barton in 2015 as “inspiring” and a model for “long-term thinking” with infrastructure spending as the foundation for economic growth.

    China’s Belt/Road model, suggests Barton, is the way of the future. “The Chinese saying ‘build a road first if you want to get rich’ is spot on — data suggests that for every $1 billion in infrastructure investment, 30,000 to 80,000 jobs are created, generating $2.5 billion in new GDP.”

    In my humble opinion, this is where Canada’s headed…

    2. CPPIB, Blackrock, Mark Wiseman

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE Part 2
    Now that ambassador Dominic Barton has been identified as the architect, let’s look at some of his buddies and their connections with BlackRock and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB)

    Born in Niagara Falls Ontario, Mark Wiseman became a Senior Managing Director at BlackRock NYC in 2016 as Global Head of Active Equities for BlackRock and Chairman of BlackRock Alternative Investors. He also serves as Chairman of the firm’s Global Investment Committee and on its Global Executive Committee.

    He was President and CEO of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) 2012-2016 after starting there in 2005 as Senior Vice-President, Private Investments.

    Prior to joining CPPIB, Mark was responsible for the private equity fund and co-investment program at the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. He has worked at Harrowston Inc., a publicly traded Canadian merchant bank, and as a lawyer with Sullivan & Cromwell, where he practiced in New York and Paris.

    He also served as a law clerk to Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin at the Supreme Court of Canada – ring a bell? During the Justice Committee hearings with Jody Wilson-Raybould about the SNC-Lavalin Scandal, Buttsputin & Clerk of the Privy Council had insisted Jody talk with her for “advice”.

    But the BlackRock ties don’t stop there.

    BlackRock Canada CEO is Marcia Moffat since 2015– who just happens to be Mark Wiseman’s wife – based in Toronto. Mark returns home to Toronto on weekends from New York. She was formerly with RBC under Janice Fukakusa (see pic)

    Wiseman is also the Chairman of FCLTGlobal (formerly Focusing Capital on the Long Term), an organization that encourages longer-term approaches in business and investing, which was set up by BlackRock, CPPIB, Dow, McKinsey & Company and Tata in 2016.

    Mark is also a member of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, which advises Finance Minister MORNEAU on economic policies to achieve long-term, sustainable growth. Mark serves on the boards of several non-profit organizations, including Sinai Health Services in Toronto, the Capital Markets Institute and the Dean’s Advisory Board at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

    At CPPIB, Wiseman made a name for himself by opening offices and pursuing investments abroad, particularly in South America and South Asia.

    CPP investment chief Mark Wiseman to make surprise exit after nearly four years at helm.

    While the one source characterized his departure as amicable, another source familiar with CPPIB’s inner workings said there was friction on leadership issues.

    “…some questioned whether it was only the CPP’s interests that were being promoted” His years as CEO at CPPIB have been marked by a stream of deals, ranging from a lucrative early investment in Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba.

    In 2015 – Why the head of Canada’s biggest pension fund is bullish on energy.

    Mark Wiseman says CPPIB is looking at a range of investments from buying equity and partnering on acquisitions to outright takeovers
    Mark Wiseman, who runs Canada’s biggest pension fund, offered the Davos crowd last week a two-pronged argument on why he’s bullish on energy assets after the recent plunge in oil prices.

    Wiseman said that simple supply and demand perspective all but guarantees oil prices will be higher 10 years down the road, offering investment opportunities now for the $234 billion fund. “I’ll take that bet” on oil’s rebound, he said in an interview Tuesday at Bloomberg’s Toronto office.

    “We see a lot of value in the Western Canadian basin,” he said, noting that oil sands projects are on his radar.
    “WE LIKE COMPANIES THAT HAVE GOOD UNDERLYING ASSETS AND BAD BALANCE SHEETS. That’s the perfect scenario for us.”
    –> premonition?

    He encouraged the Canadian federal and provincial governments to look to jurisdictions like Australia, where state governments are given incentives to invest in infrastructure and court outside funding.

    In the meantime, Canada Pension is looking to places like China, India and Brazil.

    3. Willy Porneau’s Advisory Council

    Let’s take a look at how quickly the Liberals put Deep State into play.

    Willy Porno (Morneau) and his new Dream Team – the Advisory Council on Economic Growth.

    Less than 2 months after the 2015 federal election, Willy Porno announces the new Advisory Council in his speech to the Toronto Region Board of Trade.

    This was obviously planned long before the election.

    CPAC December 14, 2015 – Bill Morneau – Keynote Speech
    Finance Minister Bill Morneau addresses the Toronto Region Board of Trade, discussing the government’s strategy for supporting the middle class and long-term economic growth in Canada, including a plan to create an advisory council for economic growth. Following his speech, Morneau responds to questions from the board.

    You should see this, and also see this.

    A month later, the Crime Minister is at the World Economic Forum in Davos, with Dominic Barton:
    “I would bet that almost all of you have Canadians in leadership positions in your companies—you may not know it because we don’t often shout it from the rooftops, some clichés about Canadians are true. In fact, at least half of you have hired Dominic Barton at one point or another.”

    While in Davos, PMJT met with many high rollers – Microsoft CEO Natya Nadella, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg,

    and billionaire George Soros, whose interests include combating climate change.

    Then on Feb.22, 2016 Willy Porno announced Barton as Chair of the Council:
    This article references the earlier ties Barton had to Wiseman by creating Focusing Capital on the Long Term (FCLT) Global in 2013 – board of directors include Larry Fink CEO BlackRock NYC – Wiseman’s future boss in 3 short years.
    McKinsey executive to head new federal economic council.

    4. Canada Infrastructure Bank

    Canada’s Deep State Part 4 – Canada Infrastructure Bank
    The Canada infrastructure Bank (CIB) has been steeped in controversy since it was first proposed.

    The Liberal’s 2015 election promise was to provide low-cost financing to municipalities for infrastructure projects, as a vehicle for Ottawa to use its strong credit rating and lending authority to help municipalities reduce their cost of borrowing.

    The Liberal plans evolved considerably since the party first promised an infrastructure bank during that election campaign – there was no mention of attracting private capital. The role of the proposed Canadian Infrastructure Development Bank was to attract financing from institutional investors to fund projects over the next 10 years as a Crown corporation.

    Dominic Barton and Michael Sabia sketched out the infrastructure bank idea at the Public Policy Forum summit in Oct. 2016, a more ambitious plan in which the bank would gather and prioritize large projects that could earn revenue, such as electrical networks, and that attract billions in added international investment.

    Sounds an awful lot like McKinsey’s “for-profit public-sector work” and advising governments.

    The proposal to entice global pension funds into major Canadian investments goes far beyond anything promised to date by the federal Liberals, but Finance Minister Bill Morneau – who worked directly with the panel over the past several months – signalled a strong openness to the recommendations announced Thursday.

    However, the panel’s 14 members include leaders of some of those institutional investors, including Mark Wiseman, senior managing director of BlackRock Inc., and Michael Sabia, CEO of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec pension fund.

    Examples of potential projects listed… include toll highways and bridges, high-speed rail, port and airport expansions, city infrastructure, national broadband infrastructure, power transmission and natural resource infrastructure.

    PM hopes to attract billions in private capital for infrastructure
    Trudeau takes his foreign-investment agenda to investors, two weeks after announcing an infrastructure bank.

    He will be accompanied by nine members of cabinet, including Finance Minister Bill Morneau, Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi, Transport Minister Marc Garneau, and Health Minister Jane Philpott. Trudeau and four of the ministers also are set to make their pitch to about a dozen Canadian investors — insurance companies and big pension funds like the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board — in the morning before meeting with the international investors in the afternoon.

    Attracting billions in private-sector capital for “transformative” infrastructure projects is key to the Liberal government’s long-term strategy to boost Canada’s sluggish economic growth.

    5. Century Initiative

    Canada’s Deep State – Part 5 Century Initiative

    When I first started digging about Canada’s new ambassador to China Dominic Barton, he popped up in a group called Century Initiative – a “non-profit” Canadian “registered charity”

    Century Initiative’s 6 Founding Members – Dom, his buddy Mark & some new players
    Dominic Barton, new Ambassador to China, prev. Global Managing Partner McKinsey & Co
    Mark D. Wiseman, BlackRock NYC, former CEO Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
    Goldy Hyder, Business Council of Canada president and CEO
    – Future post to come on Hyder
    Willa Black, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs – Cisco Canada
    Tom Milroy, Managing Director, Generation Capital Limited
    Andrew Pickersgill, also McKinsey & Co

    Registered in Jan.2016, a few short months after the 2015 election, a month after Willy Porno announces the Canada Infrastructure Bank at the Toronto Region Board of Trade and while Dom & PMJT are schmoozing at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

    Now what would 6 capitalists be doing with a charity? Is this Barton’s belief that “corporations should be vehicles for social responsibility, not profits, and they should act for the welfare of all stakeholders, not just shareholders”?

    This charitable status is a huge concern – if I’m not mistaken, there is no reporting or accountability of charities – no records of donors. A perfect vehicle for money-laundering & off-shore investments, likely thru the CIB, and tax write-offs for donors – the prefect storm for the elite 1%. I also believe the recent changes to charities in Bill C-86 was an “indirect” benefit to them.

    Seems odd that Dom would set up a charity because in the past decade, McKinsey made a major push into FOR-PROFIT PUBLIC-SECTOR WORK, advising governments around the world.

    Possible links to 21st Century Initiative by the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) & Obama??? Anons???

    From Jan. to Sept. 2016, there doesn’t appear to be much about Century Initiative in the news. Of course Dom & Wiseman are busy with the Canada Investment Bank. But their buddies at Century Initiative were busy busy setting up, writing reports & hiring Shari Austin as CEO, previously VP of Corporate Citizenship and Executive Director of the RBC Foundation – not sure of her connection with Gordon Nixon, Janice Fukakusa or Wiseman’s wife Marcia Moffat at RBC but you can bet there is one.

    In Oct. 2016, press releases & new articles start exploding on the scene

    Hidden behind the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s “mandate” is Century Initiative, a “registered charity”
    Finance Minister’s key advisers want 100M Canadians by 2100

    Barton sees a dovetail between some of the ideas behind the Century Initiative and the growth council (Advisory Council), but he says they are separate.

    In fact, behind the closed doors of the growth council meetings, Barton said the Century Initiative’s 100-million goal didn’t come up.

    He did acknowledge that he and Wiseman were among the biggest proponents behind the immigration-boosting idea that the group presented to Morneau.

    “Probably because Mark and I have been in (Century Initiative) we’re obviously more naturally bullish towards it,” said Barton, who also noted that there was a lot of debate on the scope of the immigration proposal.

    6. Go Follow CdnSpotlight

    The above is only a small sample of what has been posted on the Gab account by CdnSpotlight. Lots of dirt, and much of it very unpleasant. However, Canadians concerned about their country should take a look into this.

    The rot and corruption runs deep throughout the Canadian political systems. Unfortunately, most people just don’t want to know about it.

    Municipal Nominee Program — Expanding On Provincial NP, But Quebec Exempt?

    (CBC article, QC exempt from new program)

    (Liberal pledge to create Municipal Nominee Program)


    1. Important Links

    https://canucklaw.ca/facts-figures-the-ugly-truth-about-replacement-migration-in-canada/

    CLICK HERE, for CBC article promoting Municipal Nominee Program.
    http://archive.is/Jhy8k
    CLICK HERE, for Liberal plan: Municipal Nominee Program.
    http://archive.is/okGXj
    CLICK HERE, for Liberal plan to “modernize” Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
    http://archive.is/sN34r
    CLICK HERE, for a Liberal pledge to make citizenship free.
    http://archive.is/qrMrN

    Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament
    (a) 2004 Annual Report to Parliament
    (b) 2005 Annual Report to Parliament
    (c) 2006 Annual Report to Parliament
    (d) 2007 Annual Report to Parliament
    (e) 2008 Annual Report to Parliament
    (f) 2009 Annual Report to Parliament
    (g) 2010 Annual Report to Parliament
    (h) 2011 Annual Report to Parliament
    (i) 2012 Annual Report to Parliament
    (j) 2013 Annual Report to Parliament
    (k) 2014 Annual Report to Parliament
    (l) 2015 Annual Report to Parliament
    (m) 2016 Annual Report to Parliament
    (n) 2017 Annual Report to Parliament
    (o) 2018 Annual Report to Parliament
    (p) Archived listings of Reports

    2. Context For This Piece

    For years there have been agreements between the Federal and Provincial Governments. In essence, the Provinces write up what they think they will need for immigration, and the Feds try to accommodate that. Theoretically, these agreements act as a form of partnership which Ottawa oversees.

    And covered in other articles, there is little to no attention paid to the culture clash or demographic shift that can take place, nor of the added foreign competition that locals will face. There is little mention of wages being driven down, or of added burdens to social services. Nor much talk about the environmental impact of having to develop more housing, or expand the size of towns. Instead, the focus is always on the ECONOMIC benefits of immigration, though the connection is fuzzy at best. But hey, diversity is our strength.

    Now a new program is about to be launched which will expand on the idea: allowing not just provinces, but cities to have a say in selecting their immigration numbers. Of course, the above mentioned issues will still apply.

    And it needs to be stressed: that Quebec will be exempt from having to participate in this program. That means that the Prime Minister’s home Province won’t be experiencing the benefits of added immigration. Strange how that is.

    3. Media Coverage Of Announcement

    In Saint-Georges, there are “we’re hiring” signs everywhere — they’re stuck in storefront windows and to the sides of buildings. Morin says it is the most pressing problem facing the region.

    The Liberal Party of Canada has made a promise to help small, rural municipalities like Saint-Georges access more immigrants. But because the provincial government pledged to curb immigration, the program may never come to Quebec even if the federal Liberals are elected.
    .
    The new program would be called the “municipal nominee program.” It would mirror a similar provincial program.

    The municipal nominee problem could be a tool to help mitigate that challenge.
    The party platform doesn’t offer many details, saying only that it would create a minimum of 5,000 spaces for such a program. That’s a drop in the bucket of Canada’s overall immigration numbers. Canada is set to see more than 330,000 immigrants in 2019.

    The promise is short on details, but was a promise the Federal Liberals made. While Liberals are prone to lying, continuing to flood cities and make them unrecognizable is a promise they are likely to keep.

    And it also needs to be said, that 310,000 is not an accurate number. As addressed repeatedly here, Canada lets hundreds of thousands of “temporary” workers and students in, all of whom have a pathway to permanent residence, or to extending their stay.

    4. No Citizenship Fee

    Worth mentioning is this gem, where Trudeau promises to make citizenship applications free of charge to anyone who applies. Get ready for a deluge of applications if this promise is ever kept.

    Students And Temporary Workers: How Many Actually Stay?

    (StatsCan on % int’l students becoming permanent residents)

    (StatsCan findings: close to 30% eventually become PR)

    (StatsCan: latest cohort TFW/IMP transitioning at higher rates)

    (StatsCan on int’l students, earnings growth)

    (Federal Gov’t education strategy 2019-2024)

    (Status of “Temporary” Foreign Workers transitioning to PR)

    (Program launched in July 2019: PR-Path for illegals)

    1. Important Links

    https://canucklaw.ca/facts-figures-the-ugly-truth-about-replacement-migration-in-canada/

    CLICK HERE, for StatsCan, info on Int’l students ==> PR.
    http://archive.is/wip/B1ikY
    CLICK HERE, for StatsCan, immigration, earnings.
    http://archive.is/wip/s4x6I
    CLICK HERE, for Federal education strategy 2019-2024.
    http://archive.is/wip/NbQof
    CLICK HERE, for StatsCan: status when obtaining PR.
    http://archive.is/wip/O8GB0
    CLICK HERE, for StatsCan, more on transition rates.
    http://archive.is/wip/oc9vW

    CLICK HERE, for CTV, Gov’t to start collecting exit info.
    http://archive.is/wip/feDOA
    CLICK HERE, for CBSA policies on exiting Canada.
    http://archive.is/wip/krWR3
    CLICK HERE, for CBSA cancelling old arrest warrants.
    http://archive.is/4jQA9
    CLICK HERE, for amnesty for illegals announced.
    http://archive.is/e6OYZ
    CLICK HERE, for Canadian Labour Congress on illegals.
    http://archive.is/s3pq6
    CLICK HERE, for 41,000 illegals gone missing.
    http://archive.is/bayYs
    CLICK HERE, for an estimate of total illegals.
    http://archive.is/wip/Xk9l4

    Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament
    (a) 2004 Annual Report to Parliament
    (b) 2005 Annual Report to Parliament
    (c) 2006 Annual Report to Parliament
    (d) 2007 Annual Report to Parliament
    (e) 2008 Annual Report to Parliament
    (f) 2009 Annual Report to Parliament
    (g) 2010 Annual Report to Parliament
    (h) 2011 Annual Report to Parliament
    (i) 2012 Annual Report to Parliament
    (j) 2013 Annual Report to Parliament
    (k) 2014 Annual Report to Parliament
    (l) 2015 Annual Report to Parliament
    (m) 2016 Annual Report to Parliament
    (n) 2017 Annual Report to Parliament
    (o) 2018 Annual Report to Parliament
    (p) Archived listings of Reports

    2. Context For This Article

    The topic of “temporary” mass migration to Canada is discussed here a lot. This is partly because of their size, and partly because various “temporary” programs actually lead to Permanent Resident status.

    Three groups which receive regular attention are these:
    (a) Temporary Foreign Worker Program;
    (b) International Mobility Program;
    (c) Student Visas

    Now, it has been asked several times: how many of these people actually do stay? Of course, this is a logical follow-up question. Obviously, not everyone will stay after their work of schooling ends.

    However, it’s not so easy to answer. Yes, we have data suggesting that approximately one quarter or more (25-30%) do attain PR status. That is pretty straightforward information to get a hold of.

    But after that, things are much less clear. Until 2016, Canada did not track people leaving the country (only entering). Even today it does not cover everyone. This is unlike nearly every other developed nation, which tracks both entry and exits across borders. Also, the Federal Government does not make easily available (if it even knows), how many people apply for other visas or programs. Worse, it has been discovered that the CBSA deletes older arrest warrants. Additionally, there is little reliable information accessible on how many people are working illegally, or receiving public benefits illegally.

    Back to the question of: “How many people stay?”
    My answer: At least 25-30%. Probably a lot more.

    3. People Leaving Canada Aren’t Tracked

    In 2016, the Federal Government announced plans to start collecting exit information from people leaving the country. This really is common sense. While we (theoretically) know how many people, who, and when, are ENTERING Canada, until now they Government doesn’t track who is LEAVING. Perhaps we just take it on face that everyone leaves when they should.

    And one of the major benefits stated is to help reduce immigration fraud. If a person is “counting time” towards living in Canada, but doesn’t actually live here, then the Immigration Ministry should know about it.

    When this does get implemented, then a gaping hole in Canadian border security should be fixed, right? Maybe not.

    Canada collects basic biographic information on travellers who enter and leave the country by land to ensure complete travel history information is available, thereby strengthening the management of our border.

    Biographic entry information is routinely collected directly from all travellers entering Canada upon presentation to a CBSA officer at a port of entry as part of the primary inspection process. Canada also collects exit information in the land mode. Canada receives biographic entry information from the United States (U.S.) on all travellers who enter the U.S. through a land border crossing, thereby enabling the creation of a Canadian exit record.

    Regulatory amendments for the air mode are expected to come into force in Summer 2020. Once fully implemented in the air mode, Canada will collect basic exit information directly from air carriers through passenger manifests. Exit information collected in the air mode will not be shared with the U.S.

    The collection of exit information enhances the CBSA’s ability to manage border security by closing the loop on an individual’s travel history. This allows the CBSA to focus efforts and resources towards unknown or higher risk travellers.

    This still isn’t fully implemented, and won’t be until at least 2020. That’s right, these changes were announced in 2016, and over three years later, are not fully implemented. Guess the potential fraud and security risks aren’t that great.

    Right now, departures by air are not recorded by CBSA. Unless someone is travelling to the United States, (and even then not always) he/she is flying in a plane. Boating isn’t really a practical solution for international travel to and from Canada.

    4. CBSA Cancels Old Arrest Warrants

    Currently, there are more than 48,000 active arrest warrants in Canada for people wanted on immigration violations. According to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the “vast majority” of these cases involve people wanted for deportation.
    But these figures may not tell the whole story.

    Global News has learned the CBSA cancels arrest warrants for failed refugee claimants and other people wanted for removal who it cannot find, even in cases where it is not clear whether a person has left Canada.

    What’s more, the CBSA does not track how many warrants it cancels in cases where a person’s whereabouts are unknown.
    .
    Because the CBSA only recently started tracking people when they exit the country by land — and still doesn’t track people who leave by air — there’s no way for the government or CBSA to say for sure how many people have overstayed their welcome.

    Back in the early 2000s, when he worked at the agency that would later become the CBSA, Sundberg says he was assigned to a team in Lethbridge, Alta., tasked with “culling” old warrants for people facing deportation whose cases had been in the system for at least five years.

    The protocol for cancelling a warrant, Sundberg said, involved calling known associates of the wanted person, doing internet searches and checking criminal and entry records in other countries to see if someone wanted for arrest had left Canada voluntarily.

    The Canada Border Services Agency apparently cancels warrants for people wanted for immigration violations, if the warrants are old.

    Moreover, there appears to be no tracking of how many warrants get cancelled either. Just a hunch, but it probably looks bad in the CBSA’s eyes if they have a lot of outstanding warrants. Makes them look slow and unproductive. Alternatively, this could be a deliberate attempt to make sure that people in the country illegally and/or committing other crimes won’t be deported.

    5. Scale Of Illegal Aliens Unknown

    The Toronto Star reported in 2008 that 41,000 illegals in Canada had been lost track of.

    The Toronto Sun reported in 2017 that there somewhere between 200,000 to 500,000 illegal workers in Canada. Not illegals altogether, just illegals working.

    Although the focus of this article is not on illegals, or people overstaying their visas, there is an important point to be made here: we don’t really have a clue how many people do stay.

    6. Amnesty Program Started July 2019

    Ottawa, July 5, 2019 – Canada has launched a new temporary initiative to create a pathway to permanent residency for up to 500 out-of-status workers in the construction industry in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). These construction workers have come to Canada and made contributions to its economy and currently have limited means to regularize their status.

    Over many years, even decades, some workers who have come to Canada with valid temporary resident status, and who have filled labour shortages in the construction industry, have fallen out of status. Previous changes, such as “four in, four out”, have resulted in some workers losing their status. These workers have continued to address significant labour shortages in the construction industry, while also contributing to the economy and their communities. Without valid immigration status, these workers and their families have lived in fear and been left feeling very vulnerable. The presence of out-of-status workers in a significant industry leads to depressed wages for Canadians and makes workers vulnerable to employer exploitation and abuse.

    The Canadian Government announced in July 2019 a pilot program to give 500 illegals (and their families) a pathway to permanent residence in Canada if they were to work in construction. Yes, we are talking about an actual amnesty program that will lead to PR, and eventual citizenship.

    The Canadian Labour Congress supports this initiative. Why wouldn’t they? It will result in an inflation of workers, and allow employers to push down wages. It really is about more cheap labour.

    This program is stated to target 500 people (and their immediate family members). But we should not be naïve. Once this is launched, the next question will be how to upscale it.

    7. Government Making Illegal Entries Easier

    This article isn’t really about illegal entry into Canada (see the Federal Court cases for more). Nonetheless, a major act of hypocrisy must be pointed out.

    The Federal Government makes the absurd statements that the Canada/U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement is necessary to protect Canadian borders, but also claims that citizens have no standing to make a claim to close the loophole.

    Yes, the agreement must be enforced at all border crossings, but if someone were to GO AROUND those checkpoints, then it is direct entry into Canada.

    To summarize where we are right now in the article:
    (a) About 25% of students/temps become permanent residents, and
    (b) Canada doesn’t track people exiting the country
    (c) CBSA cancels old arrest warrants
    (d) Number of illegals in Canada is unknown
    (e) Amnesty for illegals is starting up
    (f) The Canadian Government wants to keep S3CA loophole open

    Now that we have covered how the Canadian borders are at best dysfunctional, let’s take a dive into the research into just how many people are staying in Canada (legally). At least this will be considerably more definitive

    8. Annual Reports To Parliament

    Unlike permanent residents, temporary residents are in Canada for a limited time. This group consists of students, foreign workers and visitors, including tourists. Temporary residents contribute to Canada’s economic growth and to the vitality of our educational institutions.

    Before coming to Canada, applicants must obtain a temporary resident visa, unless they are coming from a country that is exempt under the IRP Regulations. Visa officers consider a number of factors when evaluating temporary residents’ visa applications. For example, they can verify whether the visitor is in good health, has a criminal record, is a security threat to Canada, holds a valid passport or travel document, has enough money to live on while in Canada, and will leave voluntarily at the end of his or her stay in Canada. The visa officer evaluates the situation before deciding whether the applicant is a genuine visitor or if he or she might stay in Canada illegally. To that end, the visa officer studies the applicant’s reason for the visit, his or her employment, family situation, and the general economic and political stability of his or her country of origin.

    (Page 22 of 2004 Report to Parliament)

    Foreign Students
    In recognition of the social and economic benefits that foreign students bring to Canada, the federal government has committed to making our country a destination of choice for talented foreign students. To obtain a study permit, candidates must submit an application to study in Canada. Applications must be submitted to and approved by a visa office outside Canada. The permit indicates the level of study and the intended duration of the visit. In general, foreign students must present an acceptance letter from the institution they want to attend, prove that they have sufficient money to pay their tuition fees and living expenses, satisfy the visa officer that they intend to return to their country of origin at the end of their studies and undergo a medical examination.

    (Page 23 of 2004 Report to Parliament)

    Worth noting that for “temporary” workers and students, the reports emphasize that these are to be temporary, and that the resident is expected to return to the home country afterwards. Remaining in Canada is not to be the goal.

    One other point is that the 2004 report makes no mention of any temporary worker or student/graduate transitioning to permanent resident.

    The 2005 report (page 29) reiterates that these temporary workers and students are expected to leave once their designated time is up. It is also stated that changes were made so student visas would be for the full duration of the program.

    Pilot projects initiated in 2003 (in Alberta, New Brunswick and Manitoba) to test these program changes proved to be highly popular with international students, educational stakeholders and provinces. In 2004–2005, CIC signed agreements with Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador to allow international students to work in Canada for a second year after graduation. An agreement was also reached with Quebec to allow students outside Montréal and Québec City to work off campus.

    The 2005 report (page 31) talks about a rule change that allows some graduate to work in Canada for 2 years now after graduation. I’m confused. I thought the point was that these students were to return home after graduation, not work in Canada afterwards.

    On April 18, 2005, the Minister announced initiatives to address some key issues facing international students. These included the expansion of the pilot projects mentioned previously that aim to better attract, integrate and retain international students in regions of the country in partnership with the provinces and educational institutions. The first pilot project will allow international students at public post-secondary institutions to work off campus while completing their studies so that they can experience the Canadian labour market and gain a greater understanding of Canadian society. The second pilot project will allow students to work in Canada for two years after their graduation, rather than one year. To help spread the benefits of immigration to more of Canada’s regions, this second initiative will apply outside Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver. The Government of Canada is investing $10 million a year for five years to support these new initiatives.

    These students are supposed to be in Canada “temporarily”, but the Government makes rule changes so they can work in Canada afterwards. Almost like they can become permanent residents.

    The limit on the number of provincial nominations was removed to give Saskatchewan greater flexibility in operating its immigration program.

    The 2006 report (page 10) explains how Saskatchewan took off the cap of its Provincial Nominee Program.

    CIC also launched a national initiative in April 2006 that allows foreign students enrolled full-time in post-secondary programs to seek employment off-campus.

    The 2006 report (page 11) states that students enrolled full time in college or university programs are now allowed to work off campus.

    Foreign Students
    Foreign students bring with them new ideas and cultures that enrich the learning environment within Canadian educational institutions. Foreign students who enter Canada on temporary visas may also be an important source of future immigrants in the skilled worker category since they are well prepared for the Canadian labour market.

    The 2006 report (page 23) states that students can be a valuable source of future immigrants. But I thought these “temporary” residents were going home after graduation.

    Working with Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC), Service Canada, and the provinces and territories, we implemented a series of administrative improvements to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. As announced in Budget 2007, we are developing ways to make it easier, faster and less costly for employers to access the workers that they need, while also introducing measures to ensure that employers comply with program terms and conditions. We are also developing the Canadian Experience Class, a new avenue to immigration that will, under certain conditions, permit foreign students with Canadian credentials and work experience, as well as skilled temporary foreign workers who are already in Canada, to apply for permanent residence.

    The 2007 report (page 4) states 2 things.
    First: new measures will be enacted to bring in cheap, foreign labour even faster and more cheaply.
    Second: we’ll make temporary workers and students eligible for permanent residence.

    As well, the Plan includes the introduction of the Canadian Experience Class, a new avenue to immigration that will permit, under certain conditions, temporary workers and foreign students with a Canadian credential to apply for permanent residence.

    The 2007 report (page 9) reiterates the plan to make students and temporary workers eligible for permanent residence.

    First-ever framework agreements were signed with Alberta on May 4, 2007, and with Nova Scotia on September 19, 2007. To meet the growing demand for labour, the limit on the number of immigrants that can be nominated through the PNP was removed, and the intention to develop annexes to facilitate the entry of temporary foreign workers was announced. In addition, a renewed PNP agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador, which came into force in November 2006, removed the limit on the number of provincial nominees.

    The 2007 report (page 10) tells how Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador had their Provincial Nominee Program caps removed. Saskatchewan did so the year earlier.

    Other initiatives in 2006 included policy and planning work to develop options for facilitating the transition from temporary to permanent status. This culminated in the announcement in Budget 2007 of a proposed new avenue to immigration by permitting, under certain conditions, foreign students with Canadian credentials and skilled work experience, and skilled temporary foreign workers who are already in Canada to apply for permanent residence. This will allow qualified individuals with Canadian skilled work experience, or with a combination of Canadian work and studies, to make the transition to permanent status. The program is expected to lead to improved economic outcomes for newcomers in this class.

    The 2007 report (page 13) repeats the intention to make students and temporary workers eligible for permanent residence. It’s a common misperception that they will be going home afterwards.

    We introduced the Canadian Experience Class, which offers qualifying temporary foreign workers and international students with Canadian work experience the possibility to stay in Canada permanently. This program will make our immigration system more responsive to Canada’s labour market by helping retain those temporary foreign workers and international students who have demonstrated their ability to succeed in Canada.

    The 2008 report (page 5) repeats the pledge from the last report to make it easier for temporary foreign workers and students to transition into permanent residents.

    As well, the Post-Graduation Work Permit Program was significantly improved by extending work permits from one to up to two years for international students who have graduated from public post-secondary institutions and certain private institutions located in regions outside of Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver. The aim is to help spread the benefits of immigration to more of Canada’s regions. During 2006–2007, a total of 1,388 students received two-year work permits. More broadly, the total number of students who received post-graduation work permits increased from 7,354 in 2005–2006 to 9,121 in 2006–2007. In 2007–2008, the number of post-graduation work permits issued increased to 10,933.

    The 2008 report (page 28) talks of expanding the Post Graduate Work Permit Program from 1 year to 2, and of issuing more permits altogether. The goal is to “spread the benefits of immigration” as they call it.

    There are many other passages in these reports obviously, that support the claim that “temporary” workers and students aren’t really temporary. However, the point has been made, so let’s move on to how many temps and students are transitioning to permanent residents. In these first 5 reports, there is no mention of any of it.

    9. Transitioning To Permanent Residents

    Intake of: (a) TFWP; (b) Int’l Mobility; (c) Students from 2015 to 2017

    Transitions from Temporary Foreign Worker or International Student Status to Permanent Residence (from 2018 report, covering 2015 to 2017)

    Not only are the numbers of students and “temporary” workers increasing, but they are obtaining permanent resident status in higher numbers.

    The Provincial Nominee Program, which grants permanent residence, is a very common choice among post secondary school graduates.

    Now, all of the above data comes from the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, and covers the years 2015 through 2017. But what about the longer term implications? In the big picture, how many students and temps are getting PR?

    10. StatsCan Research On Transitioning Rates

    Transition to permanent resident status
    International students likely come to Canada for various reasons. Some may intend to return to their home country once they have acquired their Canadian qualifications, while others may intend to remain in Canada for a period of time to obtain work experience in an advanced economy. Still others may hope to become landed immigrants and remain in Canada permanently.

    It is possible to estimate the proportion of international students who become permanent residents by calculating a cumulative transition rate. The cumulative rate, which can be calculated for any cohort, is the share of international students who become landed immigrants a number of years after obtaining their first study permit.

    For example, among international students who obtained their first study permit between 1995 and 1999, about 15% became permanent residents in the five years that followed. When the period of observation is extended to the first 10 years after the study permit was received, that proportion rises to 20%, and then to 22% by the fifteenth year (Chart 1).

    Of the international students in the early 1990s (1990 to 1994), late 1990s (1995 to 1999) and early 2000s (2000 to 2004) cohorts, those in the early 1990s cohort were the most likely to subsequently become permanent residents in Canada. Over the 10 years after they received their first student permit, 27% of the early 1990s cohort became permanent residents, while this was the case for 20% and 25% of individuals in the late 1990s and early 2000s cohorts, respectively. The transition rates of international students in the late 2000s cohorts looked like those of the early 2000s cohorts over the first 5 years after receiving a study permit, but additional data must be accumulated to see whether this trajectory continues over the longer term.

    In addition to varying across cohorts, rates of transition into permanent residence also vary across sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, age, level of study and source country. Again, transition rates by characteristic are examined at the tenth year after the first study permit is received (Table 2).

    India and China are the top 2 source nations for student visas to Canada. This should be obvious to anyone who visits a college or university.

    The research conducted by Yuqian Lu and Feng Hou is too lengthy to go over entirely here, but it is very interesting. Long term, is suggests that roughly a quart of international students will eventually become permanent residents of Canada.

    An interesting fact noted: 49% of people who obtained a post-graduate degree (a Master’s) obtained PR status. It has to do with the added points in the immigrtion system.

    11. When Exactly Did This Start?

    But wait a minute. The above research by Yuqian Lu and Feng Hou cover international students that have transitioned to permanent residents since 1990. However, the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration spoke of this new option in 2006/2007. (See below)

    That is a screenshot from the 2007 report. It refers to this transition to permanent residence as something to happen in the future.

    The transitions to PR have been happening under the Provincial Nominee Programs primarily. The announcement in the annual reports must have just been to boost the numbers, by adding other categories.

    12. Transition Rates Increasing For Temps

    The 2005-2009 cohort, is the most recent one available from this StatsCan research, and could easily hit 25-30%, if the same pattern is demonstrated. This graphing attempts to demonstrate collect trends of transitioning to permanent residence after a given time.

    Bear in mind, that new programs are available can boost this and future cohorts higher.

    13. Most “Temp” Workers Had Current Status

    Another StatsCan research piece documents the status of so-called “temporary” workers who held visas at or before the time that they transitioned to permanent residence.

    It is broken into two periods: 1990 to 1999, and 2000 to 2009. Although it does not give the totals, as a percentage, around 87% of people who transitioned to permanent residence had current status.

    Although the International Mobility Program existed well before the 2013 TFW scandal, participants were still able to become PR.

    14. Students/Temps: 25-30% Will Get PR

    Based on the information provided by StatsCan, it is safe to say that 25-30% of students and temporary workers will eventually get their Permanent Resident status. Transitions do start out at a fast rate, and understandably peter out. This is based on research done by some StatsCan researchers.

    Now, a few caveats must be talked about here to make the picture more complete. This is not the end of the story.

    First, rule changes by successive Federal Governments have expanded the number of programs, and eased the restrictions and numbers available. It stands to reason that rates will increase from what has been shown before. The information given about previous years may be obsolete.

    Second, this information does not take into account people who have remained in the country but not transitioned to Permanent Resident status. While the common belief is that students will return home after their schooling is done, or workers will return home after their work term ends, that is simply not the case. Even StatsCan admits that people from lower GDP countries are more likely to stay given the higher standard of living in Canada.

    Third, these findings do not consider people now living illegally in Canada. Inexplicably, we still have no real exit tracking system. As such, the Federal Government, or at least the Immigration Ministry, doesn’t know who is leaving Canada and when.

    Fourth, this is all predicated on the assumption that the Government puts out truthful and accurate findings. This type of “backdoor immigration” system is not popular with the public, so minimizing the scale of it isn’t much of a stretch.

    In short, 25-30% of temporary workers and students (officially) will stay in Canada. But take that conclusion with a grain of salt. It may be much, much higher.

    Demographic Changes Are Causing Voting Changes, Not Just In America

    (Vincent James on immigration turning Texas blue)

    (Vincent James on demographics causing hate speech push)

    1. Important Links

    https://canucklaw.ca/facts-figures-the-ugly-truth-about-replacement-migration-in-canada/

    CLICK HERE, for Pew Research on US 2018 elections.
    http://archive.is/lfmVW
    CLICK HERE, for Pew Research, Latino voting in 2018 election.
    http://archive.is/OQ7Qn
    CLICK HERE, for Pew Research, more on Hispanics.
    http://archive.is/wip/CcQzE
    CLICK HERE, for Brookings, whites to be minority in 2045.
    http://archive.is/Z3Kio
    CLICK HERE, for 1965 Hart Cellar Immigration Act
    http://archive.is/wip/XDpVh
    CLICK HERE, for NY giving $250,000 fines for calling names.
    http://archive.is/Tim4b
    CLICK HERE, for US electoral districts impacted by immigration.
    http://archive.is/wip/E4WnR
    CLICK HERE, for Bill C-26, to add new seats.
    http://archive.is/wip/LrCMy
    CLICK HERE, for adding 30 seats to House of Commons.
    http://archive.is/wip/JVZqM
    CLICK HERE, for demographics/voting in Canada.
    http://archive.is/slmup

    2. Why Canadians Should Care

    Demographic changes in the U.S., both from legal “and” illegal immigration are changing voting trends. Specifically, most first generation immigrants vote for Democrats, and by a large margin.

    This is not lost on Democrats. The party is pushing for:
    (a) More immigration;
    (b) More amnesty programs for illegals already here
    (c) Voting rights for illegal aliens
    (d) Abolishing the Electoral College
    (e) Getting felons the right to vote in more states
    (f) Getting younger people to vote
    (g) Voting without photo I.D.

    The reason behind this is not idealistic or moral. The idea is to effectively rig elections by getting more people to vote, if they are part of groups that vote for them by large margins.

    As demographics change, voting patterns change. Once solidly conservative states are “turning blue”, as demographics now favour Democrats in more and more places. At one time unthinkable, Virginia turned blue, and Colorado, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Texas and others are close to turning blue.

    This issue is important to Canadians because the same thing is happening here. Demographic changes are turning more and more ridings liberal and socialist. It is making conservatism an unelectable ideology. While it is nice to say that demographics don’t matter, the fact is they do.

    Look at the recent Canadian election. The Greater Toronto Area is now solidly Liberal, despite Trudeau’s horrible job as Prime Minister. This population change is irreversible, and will never support conservative candidates again.

    Interestingly, it was Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney who flooded the GTA from 2006 to 2015, making those ridings uncompetitive. And when the next riding redistributions go ahead, there will be more and more liberal/socialist ridings created.

    3. Data From 2018 U.S. Midterms

    In U.S. congressional races nationwide, an estimated 69% of Latinos voted for the Democratic candidate and 29% backed the Republican candidate, a more than two-to-one advantage for Democrats, according to National Election Pool exit poll data

    Blacks voted overwhelmingly (90%) for the Democratic candidate, including comparable shares of black men (88%) and black women (92%).

    Overall, 41% of voters said whites in the country today are favored over minorities; 19% said that minorities are favored over whites, while 33% said that no group is favored. Attitudes on this question were strongly correlated with vote choice. Among those who said whites are favored in the U.S., 87% voted for Democrats. By contrast, large majorities of those who said minorities are favored (85%) or that no group is favored (69%) voted for Republican candidates.

    Among voters who said this was the first midterm in which they voted, 62% favored the Democrat and just 36% supported the Republican.

    The data from Pew Research makes it pretty clear: minorities vote by very large margins for Democrats. 90% of blacks, and 70% of Hispanics support them, margins that have remained fairly constant for decades.

    Why do Democrats push for more and more immigration? Amnesty for illegals? Voting rights for children? Voting rights restored for felons? Because they want more voters.

    Demographics are destiny, and these changes are permanently altering Western nations.

    4. Whites To Become A Minority

    The Brookings Institute that in 2045, whites will stop being an overall majority in the United States, and will drop below 50% completely. From there the percentage of whites will continue to fall.

    Of course, if more amnesties are granted for illegal aliens, that switch could happen a lot sooner than 2045. As stated before, Democrats are pushing for amnesty, as they know the (net) vote addition will go very well in their favour.

    New census population projections confirm the importance of racial minorities as the primary demographic engine of the nation’s future growth, countering an aging, slow-growing and soon to be declining white population. The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.7 percent of the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1 percent for blacks, 7.9 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for multiracial populations

    Why this drastic shift? Well, it could be the 1965 Hart Cellar Act, which changed U.S. immigration laws that favoured Europeans and capped the number. Despite claims that there would be no drastic change in the makeup of the United States, that has proven to be false.

    But don’t worry, these changes won’t lead, to people being arrested or fined for hate speech. Oh wait, yes they will.

    5. Changes To Lead To Seat Redistribution

    High Immigration Causes Political Redistribution.
    If immigrants were evenly spread throughout the country, they would have no impact on the distribution of House seats. Historically, immigrants have always been concentrated in some areas, and that is still true today. Of course, immigrants do tend to become more dispersed over time, but it is a very gradual process. In 1990, the top six states of immigrant settlement accounted for 73 percent of the total foreign-born population, while in 2000 these same six states accounted for 69 percent of the total foreign-born population. In 2020, the top six states will account for 63 percent of all immigrants, but only 40 percent of the nation’s total population. Although immigrants will almost certainly continue to move into new parts of the country, for decades to come there will continue to be states with very large immigrant populations, while other states have only a modest number. In 2020, there will still be 11 states with fewer than 100,000 immigrants, while five states will have more than two million.

    The redistributive effects of immigration are not just a result of its concentration, but also partly depend on immigrants’ share of the total population. A very large immigrant population, even if it becomes more dispersed, can still have a significant impact on the distribution of House seats and Electoral College votes. As long as the number of immigrants (legal and illegal) entering the country remains very high, immigration will continue to redistribute political power in Washington. (While not examined in this report, the same dynamic applies within states, in drawing districts for the state legislatures.)

    Representing Non-Citizens in Congress.
    Although the political stakes for low-immigration states from continued high levels of immigration are clearly very significant, the related question of creating districts because of the presence of non-citizens is equally important to consider. While there is a consensus that naturalized citizens should be represented in Congress just like any other American, awarding congressional seats to states on the basis of their non-citizen populations raises important questions about political representation. This is especially true when one considers that these districts are created by taking representation away from states comprised of American citizens.

    Consider the case of Ohio, the biggest loser from immigration-induced reapportionment. In 2020, there will be 292,000 non-citizens in Ohio, accounting for just 2 percent of the state’s population; California will be home to nearly 4.8 million non-citizens, accounting for 12 percent of the state’s population. Non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections, serve on juries, or work for the federal government in most cases. Many non-citizens, including foreign students, guestworkers, and illegal immigrants also may not make campaign contributions. Thus, it may seem odd that they are “represented” in Congress. This is especially true because the majority of non-citizens in the country are either illegal immigrants or temporary visitors such as foreign students or guestworkers. While one can at least argue that legal permanent residents who have not naturalized are entitled to representation in Congress because they are future Americans, illegal aliens and temporary visitors can make no such claim.

    It is predicted that a few dozen seats will go towards Democrats in the 2020 election. This is because that immigration and population shifts will result in more seats that Democrats can win. This is about shifting political power.

    Why Republicans support mass migration when it continuously dilutes their own base and voting bloc is a bit of a mystery. Is the cheap labour they import really worth it?

    6. Canadian Parliament Seat Redistribution

    The 2011 Fair Representation Act added 30 seats to the Canadian Parliament, (or about 10%) bringing the total to 338. It gave Ontario 15 more seats, BC 6 more, Alberta and Quebec 3 each. As a result, areas with most growth, such as high immigration, get more political power.

    Although the Parliament has a limited number of seats, shifts will continue to mean high concentrations of immigrant communities will gain more power. Consequently, the original beliefs and values of the founding stock will continue to be replaced.

    Well, according to this graph from Global News, most ridings with the highest immigrant population tend to vote Liberal.

    7. About Those Students, Temp Workers

    Not only is there the “official” population replacement going on in Canada, but there is the unofficial replacement as well. Specifically, hundreds of thousands of international students and temporary workers are coming to Canada. As has been covered here repeatedly, there are almost all eligible for some option of remaining in Canada long after their visa runs out.

    How will Canada’s electoral map look after the next seat distribution? How many more safe Liberal ridings will there be as a result.

    Whites are expected to become a minority in Canada soon. What will elections and voting results look like then?