World Domination: Connecting The Dots

How do you take over the world without war, guns, and bombs? You do it incrementally, and strategically. This guide will outline some of the major steps.

1. Important Links

This section will be empty. Instead, links are interwoven in the article. Also, Part II, will address who is behind these global takeover efforts.

2. Convention On Preventing & Punishing Genocide To Be Used As “Guideline”

No two ways about it. If you are serious about world domination, then you can’t have strong groups and populations standing in your path. The population needs to go. Either it needs to be killed off, or it needs to be “phased out”. This idea was addressed in a previous article.

He are sections of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishing Genocide:

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

This applies if there are certain groups, such as racial or ethnic, that are obstacles to the plan. Yes, we can kill them, or we can just reduce their populations, by preventing births or causing mental harm to the group.

Ironically, this convention outlines some effective “non-violent” ways to erase a group, or groups.

We will get back to this later.

3. Financing The Global Domination Mission

No doubt about it: a scheme to control the world is expensive and complex. The right people have to be in place, and the organization needed is substantial. So let’s discuss a few methods to finance our agenda.

(Option A:) Get wealthy nations to borrow extensively from private banks. Most countries have their own internal banking, which means that they effectively borrow from themselves. A much better alternative is to get nations to start borrowing from private banks, but never completely pay it back. This ensures permanent interest payments. However, we must be careful to fight any and all attempts by concerned citizens to take back control of their finances.

(Option B:) Convince wealthy nations to participate in bogus scheme such as the “climate change scam”, which is based entirely on junk science. Rather than endlessly appealing to give foreign aid (which we then steal), we should be appealing to the mutual survival instinct. Doing this can raise hundreds of billions in revenue each year. Sure there will be resistance, but we can establish some controlled opposition “Conservatives” to give the illusion of fighting for the average people. These initiatives, once established, will be profitable.

(Option C:) While using the money raised from (A) and (B) immediately seems like a good idea, we must be more strategic about it. A serious option is to loan out to developing nations, huge sums of money they cannot possibly pay back. As such, once nations begin defaulting, we can either seize assets, or “forgive debt” in return for favours. Sure this is predatory lending, and the middle class will suffer, but their leaders will be put in an impossible position.

Note: the debts that we “lend” to developing nations are not actually losses we accrued. Rather they will be from the perpetual “debt repayments”, which developed nations pay us after they started taking out private loans.

(Option D:) Make globalism more profitable and have our partners contribute to the efforts. Making mass migration more profitable leads to an almost endless supply of new customers. A wide variety of groups, can get involved, ensuring a diversified portfolio for us. By linking their business interests with our ideological interests, it will ensure these organizations are vested in our survival.

(Option E:) It doesn’t just have to be foreign aid that gets transferred outside of host nations. Many national pension funds are screaming to be invested in our global development. Sure, there are criticisms that they are underfunded and unsustainable, but the potential growth will offset any risks to the funds. If seniors object, we can always subsidize their efforts to start smoking.

(Option F:) For the purposes of trade, it is antiquated to think of it as “nations” trading. Rather, if we think of them as economic zones, trade can be liberalized much more effectively. Sure there will be job losses here and there. But it’s all for the good of the “global economy”.

4. Mass Migration Is Critical To Our Success

In order to achieve the “One World Order”, individual nations must be destroyed. Sure they may keep their flags and names, but for all practical purposes, they cannot exist. There must be no true sovereignty allowed.

This aspect has unique challenges. There are plenty of nationalists and ethno-nationalists who want to keep their race, culture, language, heritage, customs, traditions, and way of life intact. There are those who reject conservatism and libertarianism, (which favour individuality over group survival), in favour of the long term stability of their nation. We need to completely replace the host populations. Being direct and honest will not work in this case. As such other approaches are required:

(Option I:) We can buy off media outlets. The rise in internet use and citizen journalists had led to an utter devastation of traditional media outlets. This presents an opportunity never thought possible: to keep certain media solvent in return for favourable coverage of our practices.

(Option II:) We can install puppet candidates and fund parties whose populist agendas are very similar to ours. With the right rhetoric, the sheeple won’t care that we lie about the true size of annual mass migration. Nor will they care that a “right-wing populist” is only proposing a 7% reduction in current rates. With the right messaging, the patriots will overlook that forced multiculturalism and diversity has never actually been successful, and only leads to balkanization. Members of the Government and Opposition should both have their campaigns contributed to. While common in the US, campaign contribution laws shall be used fully to ensure a cooperative Congress or Parliament.

(Option III:) Straight up gaslighting can and does still work, but the citizenry is getting tired of it. This technique should be used less frequently. Not saying stop entirely, but it shouldn’t be the first tool anymore.

(Option IV:) Present mass migration as “normalized” and inevitable. Yes we will need other puppets to sign the New York Declaration, and the UN Global Migration Compact. Yes, there will be many critics, and the gaslighting should be used sparingly. There are many intellectually dishonest tactics we can use without being too obvious. Our shill media — addressed earlier — will be useful in attacking border control efforts, or even the idea of border control.

(Option V:) In order to facilitate mass migration and population replacement, we should introduce “throw-away” ideas such as repatriating terrorists to home countries. If successful, we further destabilize the nation states. If unsuccessful, we at least divert their attention away from our real goals.

(Option VI:) One subset of mass migration is promoting high levels of Islamic immigration. Given their desire to take over the world, and propensity for “playing the victim”, this will be useful. Further, the drain on resources of the host nations will make it harder for them to put up resistance. Given Muslims’ very high birthrate, and violent intolerance towards others, they can help replace the populations for us.

Note: we won’t allow the Muslims to actually take over. Rather, they will do much of the leg work for us.

Naturally, the elites will need to meet annually, to ensure a smooth post-national transition takes place.

Once mass migration is sufficiently underway, we can focus on controlling the new masses, and that leads to the next topic: education.

5. Taking Control Of Education

If the agenda is to succeed, we need to take control of the next generation, and the one after that. As noted, children are to become dependent on the schools for everything from meals, to health care, to actual parenting. Yes, the financial costs will be high, but we will pay for it out of the interest payments from the loans we grant to governments. So really, it costs us nothing.

Academia has an important role to play, which is obvious. Scholarly articles, such as those written by Frank Geels and Kirsten Jenkins will add legitimacy to what we are doing.

Another important aspect is to redefine what cultural norms are. This in turn will also help reduce the host populations, which will make it easier to replace them. One such technique is encouraging people, especially young children, to have sex changes. A further technique is to keep pushing for abortion as a “human right”. Less births will of course reduce the host nation’s population. An extra benefit is that baby parts sell for huge amounts to organizations which are sympathetic to our globalist methods.

6. Making It All Come Together

Okay, this is definitely a lot to absorb. But knowing and implementing all of these steps, what have we actually accomplished? Let’s list them:

  • We have identified ways to commit genocide against nations and their host populations without the obvious evidence of guns, bombs and war
  • We have raised money by getting nations to borrow heavily from private banks, and never fully pay it back, leading to permanent interest payments
  • We raised money via bogus environmental scams
  • We loaned out to nations who cannot pay
  • We have enlisted corporate partners in our goals
  • We have invested national pensions and other assets
  • We have eliminated borders, ensuring efficient trade
  • We have bought off an obedient media
  • We have propped up puppet politicians
  • We reduced the overt gaslighting
  • We changed the narrative to mass migration being normal
  • We normalized repatriating terrorists
  • We weaponized Islamic immigration
  • We coordinated global leadership meetings
  • We have made children dependent on schools
  • We controlled the academic output
  • We replaced traditional cultural norms
  • We centralized globalization via UN
  • This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it should serve as an introduction to global domination.

    The UN, naturally, is a great way to centralize the consolidation of the global empire. But should the UN stop being a useful tool, we have backups in reserve.

    Just remember: taking over the world is a marathon, not a sprint.

    7. Who’s Behind All Of This?

    That will be addressed in part II, a post all by itself. There are simply too many players to do it justice in one article.

    S3CA: Response To Motion To Strike


    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

    ISSUES

    FACTS

    APPLICABLE LAW
    -Right to self-representation
    -Federal Court jurisdiction
    -Private & Public standing
    -Charter Provisions Engaged

    • 91 (POGG)
    • 15 (Equality)
    • 35 (Indigenous Rights)
    • 38 (Amending process)

    -Unjust enrichment
    -Unconscionability
    -High burden to strike out
    -Amending as an option
    -Defense misrepresentation

    ORDER SOUGHT


    1. Written Submissions

    2. Issues


    -Does the Plaintiff have the right to self represent in this case?
    -Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to hear the case?
    -Is there private or public interest standing in this case?
    -Are the following Constitutional provisions engaged: 91 (POGG), 15 (equality rights), 35 (Indigenous rights), 38 (amending the constitution)?
    -Does allowing fake refugees into Canada violate the doctrine of unjust enrichment?
    -Does allowing fake refugees into Canada violate the doctrine of unconscionability?
    -Does this motion meet the “very” high burden to strike out?
    -Is amending the Claim a better option?
    -Does the Government lawyer misrepresent the facts?

    3. Facts

    1. Canada the US signed the S3CA in 2002. It came into effect in 2004.

    2. Canada is recognized as a safe country, which provides protection to people seeking genuine asylum

    3. The United States is also recognized as a safe country, and offers protection to people seeking protection from persecution based on: race, religion , political beliefs, and identity

    4. Both Canada and the US receive hundreds of thousands of refugee applications annually.

    5. Although there is a loophole in the agreement (which omits crossings “between” official ports), it was never meant to be a path for illegal immigration, or fraudulent refugee claims.

    6. Crossings from the US into Canada mainly fall into 2 categories:
      (a) Those coming to the US on tourist visas, with the intent of using the US as a stopover country,
      (b) Those living in the US illegally, who have decided to “asylum shop”

    7. There are AT LEAST 40,000 illegals who have snuck into Canada, likely many more.

    8. The Plaintiff is a self-representing, Canadian citizen, concerned about the impacts of illegal immigration. She is interested both as a private citizen, a taxpayer, and as a Canadian.

    9. Preventing illegal immigration (and bogus refugee claims), is both a private interest, and a public interest.

    10. Self represented people have every right to have their cases heard in court.

    11. Illegal immigration (such as via this loophole) undermines the integrity of the immigration system, costs cities and provinces money they don’t have, and undermines the security of the country

    12. For example, the Mayor of Toronto, John Tory, has reported that illegals have taken up almost half of the available space in homeless shelters

    13. The Federal Government has had to reimburse the Provinces (mainly Quebec and Ontario), over $300 million so far due to costs these “refugee claimants” have racked up.

    14. The Federal Government has also been paying the homeowners near Roxham Road — using taxpayer money — for the damage caused to their properties.

    15. Recently, a group of illegal “refugee claimants” has announced plans to sue Quebec for subsidized daycare.

    16. The flood of fake refugees has caused a strain on the health care system, particularly in Ontario and Quebec.

    17. All of the above statements are not “mere assertions”. They are facts which can be proven in the course of the trial and via discovery.

    18. The Government makes at least 3 serious misrepresentations.

    19. First, the Government’s lawyer, Aman Owais, misrepresents the truth when claiming the loophole was “intentionally” written into the agreement. This is provably false, since even Trudeau has publicly spoken about the need to cut the illegal border crossings.

    20. Second, there is a strawman argument that this is about refugee protections. Wrong, it is about protecting the public from illegal immigration.

    21. Third, and furthermore, Aman Owais suggests that it would be better to have a refugee claimant make this claim. This is complete nonsense. A person using legal channels wouldn’t be impacted by this case. A person using illegal means to enter Canada would have no reason to pursue this, as it would be a big conflict of interest.

    4. Applicable Law

    22: Self representing litigants: From Pintea v. Johns, [2017] 1 SCR 470, 2017 SCC 23 (CanLII)

    [3] As a result, the finding of contempt cannot stand.
    [4] We would add that we endorse the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council.
    https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_other_PrinciplesStatement_2006_en.pdf
    B. PROMOTING EQUAL JUSTICE
    STATEMENT:
    Judges, the courts and other participants in the justice system have a responsibility to promote access to the justice system for all persons on an equal basis, regardless of representation.
    PRINCIPLES:
    1. Judges and court administrators should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.
    2. Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case.
    3. Where appropriate, a judge should consider engaging in such case management activities as are required to protect the rights and interests of self-represented persons. Such case management should begin as early in the court process as possible.
    4. When one or both parties are proceeding without representation, non-prejudicial and engaged case and courtroom management may be needed to protect the litigants’ equal right to be heard. Depending on the circumstances and nature of the case, the presiding judge may:
    (a) explain the process;
    (b) inquire whether both parties understand the process and the procedure;
    (c) make referrals to agencies able to assist the litigant in the preparation of the case;
    (d) provide information about the law and evidentiary requirements;
    (e) modify the traditional order of taking evidence; and
    (f) question witnesses.

    23: There is nothing in the Pintea v. Johns ruling that says self-represented people can “only” appear in certain courts or in certain types of cases

    Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear the case

    24: Consider that the test for determining if a matter is within the Federal Court’s jurisdiction is stipulated in ITO-International Terminal Operators LTD v Miida Electronics, 1986 CanLII 91 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 752 at 766 [ITO-International]:

    1. There must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by Parliament.
    2. There must be an existing body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes the statutory grant of jurisdiction.
    3. The law on which the case is based must be “a law of Canada” as the phrase is used in s. 101 of the Constitution Act.

    Furthermore, the Federal Courts Act (under Rule 25) has original jurisdiction if no other court is designated as such.
    Extraprovincial jurisdiction.

    Rule 25: The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy.

    25: Although designed for Judicial Review Applications, the Federal Court does have authority under Rule 18.1(5) of Federal Courts Act to correct errors in form or technical defects. The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.

    Defect in form or technical irregularity,
    (5) If the sole ground for relief established on an application for judicial review is a defect in form or a technical irregularity, the Federal Court may
    (a) refuse the relief if it finds that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred; and
    (b) in the case of a defect in form or a technical irregularity in a decision or an order, make an order validating the decision or order, to have effect from any time and on any terms that it considers appropriate.

    26: Immigration matters are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. And this case is essentially about illegal immigration and border security. Furthermore, if this case prevailed, it would certainly have an impact on how asylum claims were handled in the future.

    27: The Canadian Border Services Agency enforces the border, and enforces approximately 90 different acts. So there is ample Federal law to be looked at here. They are given their authority under the Customs Act.

    28: Furthermore, CBSA enforces such acts as

    Access to Information Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1]
    Aeronautics Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2]
    Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act [S.C. 1995, c. 40]
    Appropriation Acts [R.S.C. 1985, c. Z-01 ]
    Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3]
    Canada Agricultural Products Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. 20 (4th Supp.)]
    Canada Grain Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. G-10]
    Canada Post Corporation Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-10]
    Canada Shipping Act, 2001 [S.C. 2001, c. 26]
    Canada Transportation Act [S.C. 1996, c. 10]
    Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1997, c. 14]
    Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 2001, c. 28]
    Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1996, c. 33]
    Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1988, c. 65]
    Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 [S.C. 1999, c. 33]
    Canadian Wheat Board Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-24]
    Coasting Trade Act [S.C. 1992, c. 31]
    Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-38]
    Criminal Code [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46]
    Cultural Property Export and Import Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-51]
    Customs and Excise Offshore Application Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-53]
    Customs Tariff [S.C. 1997, c. 36]
    Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-9]
    Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act [S.C. 1994, c. 31]
    Department of Industry Act [S.C. 1995, c. 1]
    Energy Efficiency Act [S.C. 1992, c. 36]
    Excise Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-14]
    Excise Act, 2001 [S.C. 2002, c. 22]
    Excise Tax Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15]
    Explosives Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-17]
    Export Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-18]
    Export and Import Permits Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-19]
    Feeds Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-9]
    Fertilizers Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-10]
    Financial Administration Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11]
    Firearms Act [S.C. 1995, c. 39]
    Fish Inspection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-12]
    Fisheries Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14]
    Food and Drugs Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-27]
    Harbour Commissions Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. H-1]
    Hazardous Products Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. H-3]
    Health of Animals Act [S.C. 1990, c. 21]
    Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [S.C. 2001, c. 27]
    Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-3]
    Industrial and Regional Development Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-8]
    International Boundary Commission Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-16 ]
    Meat Inspection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. 25 (1st Supp.)]
    Motor Vehicle Safety Act [S.C. 1993, c. 16]
    National Defence Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5]
    National Energy Board Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7]
    Navigable Waters Protection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-22]
    Nuclear Safety and Control Act [S.C. 1997, c. 9]
    Pest Control Products Act [S.C. 2002, c. 28]
    Pilotage Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-14]
    Plant Breeders’ Rights Act [S.C. 1990, c. 20]
    Plant Protection Act [S.C. 1990, c. 22]
    Precious Metals Marking Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-19]
    Preclearance Act [S.C. 1999, c. 20]
    Privacy Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21]
    Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-24]
    Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act [S.C. 2000, c. 17]
    Radiation Emitting Devices Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. R-1]
    Radiocommunication Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. R-2]
    Seeds Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-8]
    Special Economic Measures Act [S.C. 1992, c. 17]
    Special Import Measures Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15]
    Statistics Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-19]
    Textile Labelling Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. T-10]
    Trade-marks Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13]
    Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 [S.C. 1992, c. 34]
    Visiting Forces Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. V-2]
    Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act [S.C. 1992, c. 52]
    Source: https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/actreg-loireg/legislation-eng.html

    29: The border clearly is being protected in accordance with Federal laws, and Acts passed by Parliament. So loopholes which make it harder for them to do their job at least conflict with Federal laws.

    30: It has also long been held that,

    The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution does not belong to the federal or provincial governments, but to Canadian citizens (Nova Scotia (AG)), and that it is a tool for dispute resolution, of which one of the most important goals is to serve well those who make use of it: Reference Re Residential Tenancies Act, 1996 CanLII 259 (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 186 at 210.

    There private & public interest standing in this case

    31: Three cases which are used to determine public interest standing are:

    (a) Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, (b) Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and (c) Minister of
    Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of
    Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

    It has been seen that when public interest standing is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects.
    First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question?
    Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity?
    Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?

    32: First: if this “interpretation” of the S3CA is as the Government claims, then effectively the Canada/US border disappears, except for a small number of official crossings. That is pretty serious. Illegal immigration cannot simply be shrugged off if it is not the government raising the issue.

    33: Second: Yes, I am effected by illegal immigration. As a taxpayer, and as a citizen who wants secure borders. Clearly I have a genuine interest here. Why else go to court to do this? It is insulting and misrepresents reality to suggest that citizens are not concerned and interested in the external security of their nation.

    34: Third, there doesn’t seem to be another reasonable or effective way to bring it to the Courts. It is the Government itself, with a majority mandate, which seems content to end-run the intent of the law.

    35: Note: Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found
    in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)

    36: Plaintiff submits that there clearly is standing to bring forward these justiciable issues on the facts pleaded. This standing is personal, but it is also public interest-based and is in line with recent jurisprudence: Canada (Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45 (CanLII); Galati, above.

    Following Constitutional provisions engaged:

    • 91(POGG),
    • 15 (equality rights),
    • 35 (Indigenous rights),
    • 38 (amending the constitution)

    Peace, Order & Good Governance (Section 91)

    37: Consider the case of R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 SCR 401, 1988 CanLII 63 (SCC).

    33. From this survey of the opinion expressed in this Court concerning the national concern doctrine of the federal peace, order and good government power I draw the following conclusions as to what now appears to be firmly established:

    1. The national concern doctrine is separate and distinct from the national emergency doctrine of the peace, order and good government power, which is chiefly distinguishable by the fact that it provides a constitutional basis for what is necessarily legislation of a temporary nature;

    2. The national concern doctrine applies to both new matters which did not exist at Confederation and to matters which, although originally matters of a local or private nature in a province, have since, in the absence of national emergency, become matters of national concern;

    3. For a matter to qualify as a matter of national concern in either sense it must have a singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility that clearly distinguishes it from matters of provincial concern and a scale of impact on provincial jurisdiction that is reconcilable with the fundamental distribution of legislative power under the Constitution;

    38: In looking this through the Peace, Order and Good Government (POGG) doctrine, it is worth asking should we allow actions that our laws seem designed to prevent?

    34(1)(b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act prohibits: engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada.

    39: Allowing fake refugees to slip in arounf official border ports in order to “jump the queue” seems hardly in keeping with the POGG principle, or Rule 34(1)(b.1). Again, it is submitted that poor wording, not intent is the cause of this loophole.

    40: The Court must also consider the national security implications of protecting the border. This should be obvious, but a nation that cannot control its border ceases to be a nation.

    41: Currently, illegal border jumpers (fleeing war zones in Minnesota and New York State), are able to illegally enter Canada. They are processed, then released into the public often within hours. There is no public interest in doing this.

    42: Given the vast amount of unscreened and unvetted fake “refuges” entering, there is no way to keep the public safe. This is not consistent with POGG in any sense.

    43: Again, the Government’s lawyer “claims” that this loophole was intentionally written into the S3CA. This is even while Justin Trudeau and other Government members profess their desire to cut illegal entries. Obviously, both statements can’t be true.

    44: As cited above, there are literally dozens of Acts which members of the CBSA are charged with enforcing. Obviously, enforcing the border is a sign of POGG. Now, how does adding a loophole to bypass some of these Acts make any sense?

    45: How does it now undermine our national security? Borders are meant to be the protected outer areas of a nation. No one, except the most disingenuous would argue that borders do not matter. However, the Government does an end run around that (violating POGG doctrine), by claiming the loophole in the S3CA was intentional.

    46: Border security “doesn’t” matter, apparently, as long as you go around the official checkpoints.

    Section 15; Equality Rights:

    47: This seems like a strange one to bring up. However, the Government of Canada’s website on Charter cases brought up an interesting argument about equality under the law.

    (a) Pre-existing disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice, or vulnerability experienced by the individual or group at issue
    Section 15 has a significant remedial component (Andrews, supra at 171). Therefore, one of the most compelling factors is the impact of the governmental action on individuals or groups who are vulnerable, the object of stereotypes, disadvantaged or members of “discrete and insular minorities” (Law, supra at paragraphs 63-68). A member of a group that historically has been more disadvantaged in Canadian society is less likely to have difficulty in demonstrating discrimination (Law, supra at paragraph 68). When considering intra-group distinctions within a larger disadvantaged group (for example, as between status and non-status Indians, as determined pursuant to the Indian Act), there is no requirement that the claimant group be the more disadvantaged; there is no “race to the bottom” (Lovelace, supra at paragraph 69). Where no such unique disadvantage is established, as distinct from the broader group which provides the basis for comparison, this factor does not play a significant role (Gosselin, supra; Martin; Laseur, supra at paragraph 88).

    48: In this case, the disadvantaged people are those who immigrate legally into Canada, and go through proper channels.
    True, Canada’s immigration system is slow, expensive, and very complex. But that is a debate for another day. Point is, hundreds of thousands of people follow proper due process every year.

    49: They are the ones who suffer as “border jumpers” push ahead of them, and get preferential treatment, and access to benefits. Furthermore, they are the ones who suffer the public backlash as Canadian get fed up with mass, illegal immigration.

    50: In short, legal applicants suffer because of the actions of criminals.

    Section 35: Indigenous Rights

    51: From the case: Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII), the issue of duty to consult to brought up.

    26 Honourable negotiation implies a duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and conclude an honourable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights. But proving rights may take time, sometimes a very long time. In the meantime, how are the interests under discussion to be treated? Underlying this question is the need to reconcile prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Is the Crown, under the aegis of its asserted sovereignty, entitled to use the resources at issue as it chooses, pending proof and resolution of the Aboriginal claim? Or must it adjust its conduct to reflect the as yet unresolved rights claimed by the Aboriginal claimants?

    27 The answer, once again, lies in the honour of the Crown. The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. It must respect these potential, but yet unproven, interests.

    52: The case of Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII), should also be considered, and for much the same principle.

    25 As discussed in Haida, what the honour of the Crown requires varies with the circumstances. It may require the Crown to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to taking decisions: R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1119; R. v. Nikal, 1996 CanLII 245 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, at para. 168. The obligation to consult does not arise only upon proof of an Aboriginal claim, in order to justify infringement. That understanding of consultation would deny the significance of the historical roots of the honour of the Crown, and deprive it of its role in the reconciliation process. Although determining the required extent of consultation and accommodation before a final settlement is challenging, it is essential to the process mandated by s. 35(1). The duty to consult arises when a Crown actor has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect them. This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.

    53: It is a serious question here: how much consultation (if any), was done before signing a document that — the Federal Government now claims — eliminates the security of the Canada/US border? Just because there isn’t a claim pending doesn’t mean there are not valid Indigenous interests to be considered

    54: No consultation process took place — EVER — which would fulfill the obligations to negotiate in good faith with Indigenous groups. The Government claims that the S3CA was “designed” to allow for entrants from the United States to make refugee claims, as long as they bypass the official border ports.

    It would be disingenuous for the Federal Government to claim that it wouldn’t be aware of any obligation to consult prior to “erasing” the US/Canada border.

    55: The Government breached is S35 obligations if, by this defense, the S3CA was drawn up with the loophole “intentionally” left in.

    Substantial Consent required (section 38)

    56: If the Government truly believes that POGG, and other obligations can be circumvented by intentional poor wording, then we need to amend the constitution to change what POGG means.

    57: This was decided regarding the issue of changing the Senate rules (Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38). The Court cited the amending procedure.

    [34] The process set out in s. 38 is the general rule for amendments to the Constitution of Canada. It reflects the principle that substantial provincial consent must be obtained for constitutional change that engages provincial interests. Section 38 codifies what is colloquially referred to as the “7/50” procedure — amendments to the Constitution of Canada must be authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons, and legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces whose population represents, in the aggregate, at least half of the current population of all the provinces. Additionally, it grants to the provinces the right to “opt out” of constitutional amendments that derogate from “the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province”.

    58: If what the Government says is true, then the doctrine of Peace, Order and Good Government (POGG) has been distorted to such a degree that a Constitutional amendment should be required.

    59: These constitutional arguments are not exhaustive, and will be expanded on more fully as the case progresses. The point here, is that the case at hand (the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement), engages the same Charter rights as what is cited here.

    Doctrine of unjust enrichment

    60: The Court must also consider how allowing illegal immigration and fake refugees to gain priority over legal immigrant violates the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

    61: Citing from 3 cases:
    Kerr v. Baranow, [2011] S.C.J.
    Kerr v. Baranow, 2009 BCCA 111
    Vanasse v. Seguin, 2009 ONCA 595

    62: These cases set the standard for unjust enrichment. (a) the person received a benefit, (b) the claimant suffered a loss corresponding in some way to the benefit, and (c) there was no juristic reason for the benefit and the loss.

    63: As stated in the facts, these so-called “refugees” have been accessing public services. This costs money, and takes away from actual citizens.

    64: And forget the money factor for a moment. Isn’t Canadian residence or citizenship a thing of value itself? If we consider that being Canadian is something to be valued, then doesn’t obtaining it (or Permanent Residence, or Protected Status) under false pretenses count as illegally obtaining a benefit?

    Doctrine of unconscionability

    65: From the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, trying to circumvent proper immigration channels should not be rewarded.

    34(1)(b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

    66: If the loophole in S3CA was written in such a way as to circumvent very legitimate national security and immigration concerns, then how valid and enforceable is it?

    67: Remember, Aman Owais, (the Government’s lawyer) has pleaded the intent of the agreement was “not” to apply the proper screening rules as long as self-identified “refugees” bypass official border ports. This is claimed to be intentional, not accidental.

    68: Notwithstanding that no reasonable person could view it that way, and notwithstanding the Canadian Government has made announcements to cut down on these crossings, how valid are these provisions?

    Does this motion meet the “very” high burden to strike out

    69: Even if there are deficiencies in the Statement of Claim, they can usually be cured by filing an “amended” Statement of Claim. That must always be considered when asked to strike out. This is settled by a great many cases.

    In terms of the general principles that ought to be applied on a motion to strike, the Plaintiffs assert that the facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle, above; Hunt v Carey Canada Inc 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 959 [Hunt]; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault].

    The Plaintiffs echo the test referenced by the Defendants, asserting that a claim can be struck only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument: Nelles, above, at para 3. The Court has provided further guidance in Dumont, above, that an outcome should be “plain and obvious” or “beyond doubt” before striking can be invoked (at para 2). Striking cannot be justified by a claim that raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law”: Hunt,

    The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Therefore, on a motion to strike, it is not determinative that the law has not yet recognized the particular claim.

    70: This case DOES raise an important point of law, one the Defendant pretends doesn’t exist. Can the Court close a plain and obvious loophole in the S3CA?

    71: Can a clearly frivilious, fraudulent, abusive and vexxing defense filed by the Crown be overcome?

    72: Note: this does not amount to a rejection of the agreement as a whole. For the most part, it is a fine document.

    Amending the Claim a better option

    73: The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.

    The novelty of the Amended Claim is not reason in and of itself to strike it: Nash, above, at para 11; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); Adams-Smith v Christian Horizons (1997), 3 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Additionally, matters that are not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be disposed of on a motion to strike: RD Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). In order for the Defendants to succeed, the Plaintiffs state that a case from the same jurisdiction that squarely deals with, and rejects, the very same issue must be presented: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 19 OR (3d) 215 (CA). The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).

    74: The facts as laid out in the above section are not bare assertions. They can be proven in court, going through the discovery and document production phases. It is not at all plain and obvious that the Claim is baseless.

    75: Any flaws in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim could be cured by amending.

    Government lawyer misrepresents the facts

    76: The Government claims, without any basis, that the S3CA was negotiated with the “loophole” deliberately written in. In essence, they are arguing that although the Canada/US border stretches for thousands of miles, only the few dozen “legal” entry ports should be considered. Anywhere else, people are free to walk across and claim asylum. If this were actually true, it would effectively erase the Canadian border.

    77: Bald assertions, without supporting facts, are not sufficient to satisfy the rules of pleading. See Rule 174 and accompanying jurisprudence. This should also applies to motions to strike.

    78: Bald assertions, without facts, are baseless. If any part of the claim is “plainly and obviously” without merit, it is the defense raised by the Government.

    79: The claim that the S3CA was “intended” to allow illegal border crossings is fraudulent, and an attempt to mislead and deceive the court by Aman Owais. This is plain and obvious given that members of the Government, including Justin Trudeau himself, have publicly stated the need to stop illegal border crossings. The false defense violates Rule 221, as a frivilous, vexous, and abusive misuse of Court procedure.

    80: This can and will be proven in a trial.

    81: Also worth noting: according to Rule 221, “inconsistent pleadings” can be struck out. So if the Government ever tries to put another spin on this, it will automatically qualify for striking.

    82: And to reiterate: the “remedy” suggested makes no sense. A person entering Canada legally would have no interest in the case, since it only covers illegal entry. A person entering Canada illegally would have no reason to pursue the case, as it would be a conflict of interest. This absurd solution wastes court resources.

    83: The government also appears to distort the purpose of the case. It is about protecting the Canadian public from illegal immigration, not making things easier for people to cross the border.

    84: To add insult, Aman Owais also implies that I have no business attempting this case since I am not a lawyer. Arrogance. Pintea v Johns (2017, SCC) enshrines protections for “all” self-representing litigants. It doesn’t limit it to certain types of cases, or certain Courts.

    85: Will closing this loophole have an impact on current and future cases? Hopefully. Otherwise, what would be the point of going to Court?

    4. Summary

    86: Plaintiff has a right to self represent

    87: Federal Court has jurisdiction

    88: Plaintiff has both a private interest, and qualifies for public interest standing

    89: Constitutional provisions engaged: 91(POGG), 15 (equality rights), 35 (Indigenous rights), 38 (amending the constitution)

    90: Allowing fake refugees into Canada violates the doctrine of unjust enrichment & unconscionability

    91: Motion doesn’t meet the “very” high burden to strike out

    92: Amending the Claim a better option than striking without leave.

    93: Note: This is not an attempt to get to court to make a final ruling on the case. Rather, it is to show that there is merit to the case

    94: The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution does not belong to the federal or provincial governments, but to Canadian citizens (Nova Scotia (AG))

    95: The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson

    96: The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).

    5. Order Sought

    (a) Dismiss the motion; or
    (b) Allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the statement of claim.

    Dodgeball Is A Tool Of Oppression (Satire)

    CLICK HERE, for the actual article.

    The moral problem is that dodgeball encourages students to aggressively single others out for dominance, and to enjoy that dominance as a victory

    The problem is actually much worse. In white majority countries, it should be noted that the majority of successful teams include mostly white players. Research has indicated that there is a correlation between whiteness and white supremacy.

    The games children play in schoolyards are famously horrible, if you stop and think about them.

    Tag, for example, singles out one poor participant, often the slowest child, as the dehumanized “It,” who runs vainly in pursuit of the quicker ones. Capture the Flag is nakedly militaristic. British Bulldog has obvious jingoistic colonial themes. Red Ass, known in America as Butts Up, involves deliberate imposition of corporal punishment on losers.

    This is absolutely true. Every children’s game in the Western World is about preparing our youth for war, and for ways to oppress marginalized people. These are specific examples that need to be exposed and stamped out.

    Contrast with the above photos #2 and #3. This shows tolerant Muslims and the richness that diversity brings us.

    But none rouse the passions of reform-minded educational progressives quite like dodgeball, the team sport in which players throw balls at each other, trying to hit their competitors and banish them to the sidelines of shame.

    Not only is this traumatizing for the children, but rarely, if ever, do dodgeball competitions hand out “participation trophies”. How will the children cope with that?

    When the Canadian Society for the Study of Education meets in Vancouver at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, a trio of education theorists will argue that dodgeball is not only problematic, in the modern sense of displaying hierarchies of privilege based on athletic skill, but that it is outright “miseducative.”

    Naïve parents will argue that kids are just kids, and they are just releasing their excess energy. But this completely misses the point. Most serial killers and rapists have played dodgeball at some point in their lives. Are we breeding the next generation?

    Experts agree, that we need to replace the Canadian population as an immediate measure to mitigate the effects anti-social behaviour as caused by dodgeball.

    Dodgeball is not just unhelpful to the development of kind and gentle children who will become decent citizens of a liberal democracy. It is actively harmful to this process, they say.

    These citizens also need to be aware that playing dodgeball is physical activity. Physical activity leads to heavy breathing, which leads to increased CO2 output. HELLO! We signed the Paris Accord for a reason. Do you want the Earth to heat up just so Little Johnny can get first place?

    As Butler’s abstract describes it, those “faces” are “marginalization, powerlessness, and helplessness of those perceived as weaker individuals through the exercise of violence and dominance by those who are considered more powerful.” Young’s list of these fundamental types of oppression also includes exploitation and cultural domination.

    Nations like Canada have demonstrated themselves to be an extremely welcoming place. And we shouldn’t jeopardize that just so some 11 year old can go “goose-stepping” and throw balls at other children.

    For teachers trying to foster the virtues of caring and inclusion, on this view, dodgeball is counterproductive. Sport can teach ethical behaviour and give students the chance to practise it and, in this sense, it is important training for citizens in a democracy.

    Of course this is true. Being part of the global democracy, is vital for all citizens of the planet.

    Fun for fun’s sake is good, Burns said, but when a teacher is formally telling students rules for a game, fun can also reinforce behavioural patterns, for good or ill. The moral problem with dodgeball, he said, is that it encourages students to aggressively single others out for dominance, and to enjoy that exclusion and dominance as a victory.

    One day they are throwing rubber balls at each other. The next they are perpetuating the next Holocaust. The connection is plain and obvious.

    What’s next? Pepe memes?

    Defense Motion To Stike: Safe 3rd Country Agreement Loophole

    On Thursday, the Federal Government filed a motion to strike out (throw out) challenge to closing the loophole in the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

    Here are the main points:

    (1) I’m not a lawyer, so it is a waste of the court’s time to hear from someone who isn’t professionally trained.

    That is irrelevant. Self-reps are allowed to do their own work, and the Court must give them fair consideration as per the Supreme Court ruling (Pintea v. Johns, 2017)

    (2) I have no standing, either privately or publicly, to challenge this matter.

    Sure, protecting the integrity of your borders and immigration systems are not at all a public or private interest.

    (3) I have no genuine interest in the matter.

    Obviously not, I just filed the case for fun (sarcasm).

    (4) Challenge would be better off coming from someone directly effected by the S3CA loophole, such as an actual refugee claimant.

    Even if this were true, it would be a huge conflict of interest. Why would a refugee claimant file a challenge to make rules harder for him/herself?

    (5) Hearing this case is a waste of court resources

    No, letting tens of thousands of illegals in at taxpayer expense is a waste of resources. This is just to stop it.

    (6) Federal Court not the place to bring challenges to immigration law

    Immigration is a Federal jurisdiction. The Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review (when immigration and refugee claims are denied). They should also have the ability to decide what is proper procedure.

    (7) This would involve making a ruling that would impact other “refugee claimants'” hearings and claims.

    That is the point.

    (8) Orginal document not worded clearly or specificly enough.

    Thank you for the head’s up.

    Of course, this is an overly simplified response. The real one will be coming soon enough.

    Mass Migration Summit in Ottawa: May 8-9

    IMPORTANT LINKS


    CLICK HERE, for Conference Board main page.
    CLICK HERE, to learn more about the summit.
    CLICK HERE, for CBC promoting replacement migration.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2018 UN Global Migration Compact.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2016 New York Declaration.
    CLICK HERE, for “replacement migration” conferences, going back to 1974.

    SOME BACKGROUND

    Canadian Immigration Summit 2019 will convene immigration leaders and practitioners from across Canada as they discuss and share insights on how to ensure a strong immigration system for Canada’s future.

    Through both plenary and concurrent sessions, delegates from the public and private sectors will explore the most pressing immigration issues facing Canada today. Major stakeholders from government, business, immigration law and consulting, education, and immigrant-serving organizations will feature prominently in the Summit program and will share their expert views in support of a stronger immigration system.

    The Summit will provide delegates with ample opportunities to network, find partners, access expert advice, and share their views.

    Join us in Ottawa, May 8-9, 2019, to:

    • network with potential partners and collaborators
    • learn from leading international and Canadian experts about domestic and global immigration issues, best practices, and innovative solutions
    • gain unique insights from the latest immigration research and programs
    • access new tools and techniques that will allow you to help empower immigrants and better leverage their skills, talents and connections
    • shape recommendations to help guide the future of the immigration system

    Just a hunch, but probably none of these speakers will advocate or call for “less immigration”. Indeed, the tone seems to be that migration is good, and we need more of it. There doesn’t seem to be aby balance in the issue at all.

    SUMMIT OVERVIEW

    Summit Overview
    How can we plan for tomorrow, today?
    The purpose of the 2019 Summit is to explore how Canada can respond proactively to emerging immigration issues in a rapidly changing world.

    We tend to dwell on the past to tackle today’s challenges and anticipate the ones we will experience tomorrow. Moreover, we are often focused on the short-term, with too little of our time and energy devoted to thinking about how we can plan for the future. However, the world is not standing still, and Canada is no exception. Changes at home and abroad will disrupt Canada’s future immigration system in ways we cannot currently fathom. For example, how many of us five years ago imagined that a wave of populism would take the world by storm?

    Populism is bad, apparently.
    People “don’t” want to be replaced in their homelands? Racists.
    “Now” they need to make long term plans?

    Who is even surprised anymore?

    Response To: Motion To Strike Challenge To UN Parliament


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    Below is a “cut-and-paste” of what was sent to the Federal Court of Canada (Case: T-476-19). Pardon any formatting issues that may arise in converting this.

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Cover Page
    Table of Contents
    Written Representations
    Part I:
    Part II: Facts
    Part III: Law and Cases
    Part IV: Order Sought
    Part V: Authorities Cited
    Draft Order

    Part I: Issues

    (1) Four issues for the Federal Court to consider:
    (a) Does the Applicant have a legitimate ground to bring application?
    (b) Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to hear the matter?
    (c) Would the proposed UN Parliament, if it ever became a reality, violate constitutional rights? With its “legally binding decisions”?
    (d) Does the Respondent have a legitimate right to sign on to such an agreement without the consent of the public?

    (2) Applicant submits the answers as follows: (1) YES; (2) YES; (3) YES; (4) NO.

    Part II: Facts

    (3)The Applicant is a Canadian citizen. She is seeking an injunction against Canada participating in such a UN Parliament/World Government (UNPA) if ever being enacted.

    (4) Although such a World Government/UN Parliament is not yet a reality, dozens of current Members of Parliament and Senators have endorsed the idea in writing. This includes the Prime Minister. This has been formally discussed since 2007, and informally
    for long before that. The UNPA explicitly states it want to make “legally binding decisions”.

    (5) The Respondent makes a “straw-man argument” claiming that endorsements are not violations of a person’s rights. While this is true, they should be seen as intent and interest to do so. No one ever claimed endorsements alone were violations.

    (6) In the motion, the Government raised a “justification” defense, (prerogative power). As such, it is reasonable to also ask for a writ of quo warranto, to demand a full and complete defense be raised as to the legality and constitutionality of such an action

    (7) It is submitted that she has public-interest standing, aka “the Standing trilogy”: Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and Minister of Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of
    Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

    (8) Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)

    (9) The Federal Court has jurisdiction under 18(1) of the Federal Courts Act to issue an injunction or writ of quo warranto. Furthermore, the Federal Court (under Rule 25) has original jurisdiction if no other court is designated as such. Since no person can be named (under 302 of Federal Court Rules), the Attorney General of Canada shall be named.

    (10) The Federal Court also has jurisdiction (under Rule 18.4(2)), to treat the application as an action.

    (11) The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.

    (12) The Applicant raises several sections of the Constitution and Charter (2, 3, 32, 35, 38, 52, 91 and 92) as grounds for an injunction, or alternatively, a writ of quo warranto. Quite simply, these provisions are protection for myself and all Canadians.

    (13) Our fundamental freedoms (section 2), and right to participate in our democracy (section 3), are rights Canadians take for granted. They must be protected. However, if Canada were to become part of a UN Parliament/World Government, how would we
    ensure the protection of those rights? Could they not be watered down under a “global consensus”?

    (14) Section 35 refers to protection of Aboriginal rights. Yes, “Canada” has ensured to protect them. But how would we do so if Canada ceases to be a nation, and became a province of the UN?

    (15) Sections 91 and 92 lay out Federal v.s. Provincial jurisdictions. This is important as it holds our governments accountable. If governments do things which are in violation (Ultra vires), or against Canadians’ wishes, we can vote them out. We can hold our politicians accountable as a nation. How would we as part of the UN Parliament/World Government?

    (16) Section 52 (paramountcy) gives Canadians protection as it ensures that the Canadian Constitution is supreme law. We will not be subjected to just any laws. And Section 38 (amending), ensures stability by requiring substantial consent in order to amend. This is
    another safeguard for Canadians. Would these safeguards still exist under a UN Parliament/World Government?

    (17) The Government claims that no argument was ever raised to support or justify the claims. This is disingenuous, since only the Notice of Application had been sent.

    (18) The Government raises “prerogative power” as a justification to implement such a policy, calling it a “treaty”. It dismisses the need for the safeguards and protections listed above. Furthermore, the Government says that since such a UN Parliament/World
    Government is not here yet, there is no need for the Court to entertain the matter.

    (19) The Applicant submits that prerogative power does not apply here, and that there is a public interest concern in hearing the matter well in advance of any signing. This is especially true, with the “legally-binding decisions” format of it.

    (20) As an analogous case, the Applicant suggests that the European Union (EU) and the British Exit from it (Brexit) should be considered.

    Part III: Law and Cases

    (21) The Applicant has standing to make just an application under the “Public-Interest Standing” doctrine.

    Public interest standing
    The Supreme Court of Canada developed the concept of public interest standing in three constitutional cases commonly called “the Standing trilogy”: Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and Minister of Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

    It has been seen that when public interest standing is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects. First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question? Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity? Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?
    Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in
    Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)

    First, yes, there are serious issues raised as the invalidity (see below)
    Second, yes, as a Canadian citizen, my rights would directly be influenced by the UNPA,
    and certainly I have a genuine interest.
    Third, no, there doesn’t seem to be another effective or reasonable way to bring the issue
    before the court.

    Substantial Consent required (section 38)
    (22) This was decided regarding the issue of changing the Senate rules (Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38). The Court cited the amending procedure.

    (a) The General Amending Procedure Section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides: 38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces. (2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1). (3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment. (4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.

    [34] The process set out in s. 38 is the general rule for amendments to the Constitution of Canada. It reflects the principle that substantial provincial consent must be obtained for constitutional change that engages provincial interests. Section 38 codifies what is colloquially referred to as the “7/50” procedure — amendments to the Constitution of Canada must be authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons, and legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces whose population represents, in the aggregate, at least half of the current population of all the provinces. Additionally, it grants to the provinces the right to “opt out” of constitutional amendments that derogate from “the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province”.

    (23) What this means is that to make a huge decision and alter the constitution, there must be substantial consent. This means at least 7 of 10 provinces, whose combined populations make up at least 50% of the population.

    (24) While this is relevant to Senate reform (ie. Term limits and direct elections), it would certainly be more so in creating an extra layer of government, which would be able – in theory at least – to override Federal rulings.

    The Constitution is Canada’s Supreme Law (Section 52)
    (25) From (Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA))

    They include the political reality that it is the people of Canada, expressing their political will through the joint constitutional authority of the Parliament of Canada and the elected legislative assemblies of the provinces, who are sovereign in the delineation of federal-provincial power-sharing under the Constitution of Canada. Beyond that no segment of the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is paramount to other segments, or indeed the balance, of the Constitution. The Constitution “as a whole” is Canada’s supreme law.

    [7] Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides: 52(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. (2) The Constitution of Canada includes (a) the Canada Act, 1982, including this Act; (b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and (c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b). (3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.

    [8] Section 52 espouses the equality of its components including amendments. Charter scrutiny could not have been reserved by its drafters: Reference re an Act to Amend the Education Act (Ontario) (1987), 1987 CanLII 65 (SCC), 40 D.L.R. (4th) 18, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148, 77 N.R. 241.

    [9] The Constitution Act, 1982, also provides: Application of Charter 32(1) This Charter applies (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

    (26) Section 52 of the Constitution enshrines the Constitution as the Supreme law of Canada. Section 38 does have an “amending” process, though it is a high burden to meet. These protection are important, as they ensure that we, as Canadians will actually be
    protected by the Constitution.

    (27) If we became part of a UN Parliament, then how (or will) the Constitution be able to protect the rights of Canadians?

    Restricting Fundamental Freedoms (Section 2)
    (28) From Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC)

    C.The Second Step: Was the Purpose or Effect of the Government Action to Restrict Freedom of Expression? Having found that the plaintiff’s activity does fall within the scope of guaranteed free expression, it must next be determined whether the purpose or effect of the impugned governmental action was to control attempts to convey meaning through that activity. The importance of focussing at this stage on the purpose and effect of the legislation is nowhere more clearly stated than in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at pp. 331-32 where Dickson J. (as he then was), speaking for the majority, observed:

    In my view, both purpose and effect are relevant in determining constitutionality; either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate legislation. All legislation is animated by an object the legislature intends to achieve. This object is realized through the impact produced by the operation and application of the legislation. Purpose and effect respectively, in the sense of the legislation’s object and its ultimate impact, are clearly linked, if not indivisible. Intended and actual effects have often been looked to for guidance in assessing the legislation’s object and thus, its validity.

    Moreover, consideration of the object of legislation is vital if rights are to be fully protected. The assessment by the courts of legislative purpose focuses scrutiny upon the aims and objectives of the legislature and ensures they are consonant with the guarantees enshrined in the Charter. The declaration that certain objects lie outside the legislature’s power checks governmental action at the first stage of unconstitutional conduct. Further, it will provide more ready and more vigorous protection of constitutional rights by obviating the individual litigant’s need to prove effects violative of Charter rights. It will also allow courts to dispose of cases where the object is clearly improper, without inquiring into the legislation’s actual impact.

    (29) How can we ensure that Canadians’ fundamental freedoms are protected? Canada ensures its citizens some of the most expansive civil rights of any nation. But if Canada becomes just 1 of 193 member states, how can we guarantee those rights will be protected?
    What safeguards will be put in place?

    (30) Rather than shrugging it off as “covered by prerogative power”, the Government should be answering these vitally important questions.

    Ensuring the Right to Participate in Democracy (Section 3)
    (31) (Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912), this principle was affirmed conclusively.

    27 An understanding of s. 3 that emphasizes the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process also is sensitive to the full range of reasons that individual participation in the electoral process is of such importance in a free and democratic society. As Dickson C.J. wrote in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, at p. 136: The Court must be guided by the values and principles essential to a free and democratic society which I believe embody, to name but a few, respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society.

    (32) The Court held that being able to participate in democratic process was worth protecting. How can we maintain this protection if Canada signed on to the proposed UN Parliament/World Government? If ensuring democratic involvement and meaningful participation is tricky now, how would this help things?

    UN Parliament Would Trample on Indigenous Rights (Section 35)
    (33) From the case: Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR
    511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII), the issue of duty to consult to brought up.

    26 Honourable negotiation implies a duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and conclude an honourable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights. But proving rights may take time, sometimes a very long time. In the meantime, how are the interests under discussion to be treated? Underlying this question is the need to reconcile prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Is the Crown, under the aegis of its asserted sovereignty, entitled to use the resources at issue as it chooses, pending proof and resolution of the Aboriginal claim? Or must it adjust its conduct to reflect the as yet unresolved rights claimed by the Aboriginal claimants?

    27 The answer, once again, lies in the honour of the Crown. The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. It must respect these potential, but yet unproven, interests.

    (34) This case referred to land use and resource development. However, the Court should not conclude that adding a level of government would be LESS important.

    (35) The case of Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII), should also be considered, and for much the same principle.

    25 As discussed in Haida, what the honour of the Crown requires varies with the circumstances. It may require the Crown to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to taking decisions: R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1119; R. v. Nikal, 1996 CanLII 245 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, at para. 168. The obligation to consult does not arise only upon proof of an Aboriginal claim, in order to justify infringement. That understanding of consultation would deny the significance of the historical roots of the honour of the Crown, and deprive it of its role in the reconciliation process. Although determining the required extent of consultation and accommodation before a final settlement is challenging, it is essential to the process mandated by s. 35(1). The duty to consult arises when a Crown actor has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect them. This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.

    (36) Managing these rights is tricky enough just within Canada. However, no Indigenous group ever signed onto the proposed UN Parliament/World-Government. So how could the Federal Government claim with any sincerity that there would no violations of the “duty to consult”?

    (37) To repeat, although the UN Parliament is still just a proposal at this point, there are many serious and legitmate questions that need answering. Simply saying “prerogative power let’s us do it” shirks the Feds’ responsibilities.

    (38) Also, the claim is made that the Executive Branch is allowed to sign treaties. However this would conflict with another treaty, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP).

    Consider the 2000 Clarity Act and Reference Question
    (39) The Applicant submits that the reference questions regarding Quebec separation would also apply to Canada being taken over by the United Nations Parliament/World Government

    ( Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC))
    The Court in this Reference is required to consider whether Quebec has a right to unilateral secession. Arguments in support of the existence of such a right were primarily based on the principle of democracy. Democracy, however, means more than simple majority rule. Constitutional jurisprudence shows that democracy exists in the larger context of other constitutional values. Since Confederation, the people of the provinces and territories have created close ties of interdependence (economic, social, political and cultural) based on shared values that include federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. A democratic decision of Quebecers in favour of secession would put those relationships at risk. The Constitution vouchsafes order and stability, and accordingly secession of a province “under the Constitution” could not be achieved unilaterally, that is, without principled negotiation with other participants in Confederation within the existing constitutional framework. Our democratic institutions necessarily accommodate a continuous process of discussion and evolution, which is reflected in the constitutional right of each participant in the federation to initiate constitutional change. This right implies a reciprocal duty on the other participants to engage in discussions to address any legitimate initiative to change the constitutional order. A clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.

    (40) Yes these discussions do need to be had. However, to repeat, the Government of Canada says it is its right to unilaterally sign Canada over to the UN Parliament if it ever became operational. Surely there has to be something more than just that.

    Consider Brexit as a Warning
    (41) The European Union started in 1973 as a free trade zone between 6 countries (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands).

    (42) Today it is 28 members are controls nations: trade, immigration, budgeting, commerce, farm subsidies, borders and many other categories. It can also (in the cases of Hungary and Poland), strip member’s voting rights for not towing the line. All of this was accomplished with no democratic referendum. Today, the hierarchy of the EU are unelected bureaucrats accountable to no nations’ voters.

    (43) In fact the only democratic referendum was in 2016, where the UK voted to leave, (Brexit). However, the EU acting in bad faith, and the UK Government’s complicity has led to delay after delay.

    (44) It is not unreasonable for Canada to find itself in such a situation, where even if the majority voted to leave the UN Parliament, we would be prevented from doing so.

    Summary
    (45) The Applicant has public interest standing to raise such an application.

    (46) In the event there are irregularities, the Court has wide discretion to order amendments to rectify them. Fixable errors should not be grounds for denying justice to self-represented litigants (Pintea v. Johns, SCC 2017).

    (47) There is a legitmate public interest in preventing Canada from joining such a world government (injunction), or at least deciding on a minimum standard, or forcing the Government to explain itself (writ of quo warranto).

    (48) Furthermore, there is a public interest in bringing the issue to the Court well ahead of any such signing.

    (49) If Canada ever joined such a World Government, there are very legitimate questions and concerns about how the Constitutional protections listed above would be enforced.

    (50) The Government of Canada cannot simply run roughshod over Canadians by calling this a “treaty” and signing away their Constitutional rights. There has to be some checks and balances. Additionally, it would conflict with other treaties signed with the NATION of Canada as a party.

    (51) Endorsements are not violations of rights (nice strawman), but evidence of intent.

    (52) Even if joining the UN Parliament/World Government were a treaty, would we not be violating “other” treaties, which were formed as the NATION of Canada?

    (Mental Gymnastics At Play….. )

    (53) If the Supreme Court (Harper Re: Senate Reform) stated that unanimous consent of all Provinces was needed to abolish the Senate, then how could the Government justifying effectively eliminating the Legislature altogether, via UN Parliament with 1 signature?

    (54) If the Supreme Court (Re: Seccessation of Quebec) stated that a clear majority of the population needed to vote for it, via referendum, why wouldn’t the people of Canada be called on to make an even bigger decision, to dismantle Canada?

    Part IV: Remedies/Order

    (a) Dismiss the motion

    Alternatively,
    (b) Allow the matter to proceed as a Claim, or as the Court deems appropriate

    Alternatively,
    (c) Grant an injunction, or writ of quo warranto against the Government

    Alternatively,
    (d) Establish a standard necessary for Canada to join such a World Government with
    the following requirements:
    (I) Approval from the Federal House of Commons
    (II) Approval from the Canadian Senate
    (III) Signature of the Prime Minister
    (IV) Endorsement from the Governor General
    (V) Consent from 7 of 10 Provinces with 50%+ of population
    (VI) A national referendum, with 75%+ approval

    And in all cases, the Applicant encourages guidance on the matter from the court
    Sincerely,


    (E-Signature of Party)
    (Applicant/Respondent in Motion)
    May 2, 2019

    Part V: Authorities

    (1) Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38)

    (2) Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC)

    (3) Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA) (S52)

    (4) Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC) (S2)

    (5) Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 (S3)

    (6) Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII) (S35)

    (7) Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII) (S35)

    (8) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),
    [1992] 1 SCR 236, 1992 CanLII 116 (SCC)

    “Temporary” Foreign Worker Program, & Other Migration

    (Source: Globe and Mail)

    (Source: Globe and Mail, 2012)

    (Source: Vice)


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    IMPORTANT LINKS


    CLICK HERE, for a 2015 look at TFWP.
    CLICK HERE, for a 2015 powerpoint
    CLICK HERE, for “How Temporary are TFWs?”
    CLICK HERE, for Library of Parliament, 2013.
    (From 2002-2013, avg 13% increase annually in TFWs, now 386,406)
    CLICK HERE, for Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program.
    CLICK HERE, for Vancouver Sun article on depressing wages.
    CLICK HERE, for Global News article (2018).
    (TFW went from 52,000 in 1996, to 310,000 in 2015)
    CLICK HERE, for Provincial Nominee Program.
    CLICK HERE, for International Mobility Programme.
    CLICK HERE, for StatsCan on international students.
    CLICK HERE, for StatsCan student data.
    84K international students in 1995, 350K in 2015.
    CLICK HERE, for enrollment in college/uni.
    CLICK HERE, for 2018 Report to Parliament on Immigration.
    CLICK HERE, for StatsCan 2018-2019 estimates. (Over 1/2 million new citizens)
    CLICK HERE, for StatsCan data (165K new temporary residents)

    Categories to Consider:

    1. Regular immigration — 310,000 currently
    2. Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) — 78,788 in year 2017
    3. International Mobility Program — 224,033 in year 2017
    4. International Students — 350,000 in 2015
    5. “Refugees” — 44,747 in year 2017

    MORE INFORMATION

    Facts and Figures
    More than 192,000 temporary foreign workers entered Canada in 2011. The overall total includes about 70,000 foreign workers whose employer required an LMO from HRSDC and close to 120,000 who did not require an LMO.
    In 2011, more than 29,000 temporary foreign workers made the transition to permanent status.

    (Source for quote)

    Guess it’s not really “temporary”.

    Advantages to Employers
    For employers who have been unable to recruit Canadian citizens or permanent residents for job openings, the TFWP makes it possible to hire workers from abroad. Employers might also find a qualified foreign worker already in Canada, such as a foreign worker who is about to complete a job contract with another employer or a foreign national holding an open work permit that allows the employee to work for any employer in Canada.

    While most temporary foreign workers will be hired to address a specific, short-term labour need, some temporary foreign workers who initially came to fill a temporary vacancy can transition to permanent residence if they meet certain requirements. For example, the Canadian Experience Class is open to foreign nationals who have been working full-time in Canada as trades people or in managerial or professional occupations and meet certain other requirements. Other foreign workers may qualify through the Provincial Nominee Program for permanent residence in Canada. These routes exist to ensure that workers who have shown that their skills are in continuing demand and that they have already adapted well to life in Canada can build a future here.

    As the TFWP is designed to help employers fill short-term gaps in Canada’s labour market, most temporary foreign workers are limited to working in Canada for four years before having to return to their home country. Most TFWs have the opportunity to apply for permanent residence if that is their desire, and limiting the amount of time they may work in Canada with a temporary status encourages them to do so.

    (Source for quote)

    Yeah, it’s not really “temporary”.

    And how many are we talking about anyway?

    “A. Temporary Workers
    In 2017, a total of 78,788 work permits were issued under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), which includes caregivers, agricultural workers and other workers who require a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA).”

    (Source is here).

    Year Female Male Total
    2015 14,884 58,132 73,016
    2016 16,013 62,367 78,402
    2017 14,380 64,408 78,788

    Well, if nothing else the TFW category is down from the Harper years. Though, to be fair, I think this is “per year” admittants, not the total in the country at a time.

    PROVINCIAL NOMINEE PROGRAM


    How the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) works
    This program is for workers who:

    • have the skills, education and work experience to contribute to the economy of a specific province or territory
    • want to live in that province, and
    • want to become permanent residents of Canada

    Each province and territory
    Footnote
    * has its own “streams” (immigration programs that target certain groups) and requirements. For example, in a program stream, provinces and territories may target:

    • students
    • business people
    • skilled workers
    • semi-skilled workers

    If “temporary” foreign workers cannot get PR status Federally, then there is a good chance they can Provincially.

    Now this is encouraging: “As part of the process, you will have to pass a medical exam and get a police check (certificate). Everyone must have these checks, no matter where they plan to live in Canada. However, being healthy and of good conduct does “not” apply to refugee applicants.

    Note: In 2017, the number of PN admissions was 49,724.
    (Source is here)

    INT’L STUDENTS FASTRACKED TO PNP


    Although this article was meant to address the Temporary Foreign Worker’s Program (TFWP), it should also be noted that international students completing a college diploma or university degree are often accepted into the PNP as well. So it is worth looking at how many people that involves.

    Number of international students increasing at a higher rate than that of Canadian students
    The number of international students enrolled in Canadian postsecondary institutions has been on the rise for two decades, with their numbers increasing at a higher rate than that of Canadian students. International students totalled 245,895 in 2016/2017, representing 12.0% of overall enrolments.

    Increases in international student enrolments in Canada are observed due to a variety of factors, including programs and policies put in place to increase their numbers, the quality of postsecondary education, and the appeal of Canada as a study destination. While China remained the top country of citizenship for international students in 2016/2017, most of the gains in enrolments of international students from 2015/2016 to 2016/2017 were a result of the growing number of students from India, up 34.4% (+9,060).

    245,895 international students in the 2016/2017 year, and we can expect that number to grow. Of course, Permanent Resident status is often straightforward after that. From there, citizenship is really just a formality.

    Now, we are told that Canada currently has an immigration intake of 310,000 per year (although scheduled to increase). This does not take the 245,895 (though probably higher now), numbers of international students.

    2018 REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON IMM

    In 2017, a total of 44,747 people were admitted to Canada as resettled refugees, as permanent residents in the Protected Persons in Canada category or as people admitted for humanitarian and compassionate considerations and under public policies.

    Some other facts:
    -In 2017, Canada admitted 159,262 permanent residents in Economic Class programs, representing 55.6% of all 2017 admissions.
    -In 2017, Canada admitted 65,417 new permanent residents in the Economic Class through the Express Entry application management system, an increase of 32,003 from the previous year.
    Of the 49,724 admissions under the Provincial Nominee Program, 13,531 were through Express Entry, an increase of 73% over 2016.
    -In 2017, IRCC admitted 22,253 caregivers as permanent residents. This was above the high end of the planned admissions and reflected measures to reduce the inventory of applicants that applied under the former Live-in Caregiver Program.
    -In 2017, a total of 587 admissions were processed through Federal Economic – Business Immigration programs.

    YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS UP!

    Of the 286,479 permanent residents admitted in 2017, a total of 76% self-identified as having knowledge of English, French or both official languages, which is an increase of three percentage points compared to 2016.

    (Source is here)

    Okay, apparently you speak English of French if you “identify” as doing so.

    HOW MANY PEOPLE TOTAL?

    A few assumptions:
    (1) Although International Mobility is “meant” to be temporary, visa holders absolutely can find ways to obtain other visas, or apply for PR in certain cases, so count the entire amount.
    (2) The data on international students appears to lump “current” visa holders in, it doesn’t specify the length of the visas (nor how long each would be good for). While some numbers put it at close to half a million overall, 150,000 permits would be a reasonable number to put.

    Category Number
    Permanent Immigration 310,000
    Temp Foreign Worker 80,000
    International Mobility 225,000
    International Student 150,000
    “Refugees” 45,000
    Totals (approx.) 810,000

    Of course, these are estimates from older data. They do not include other categories, or the hordes of illegals coming into Canada. It also doesn’t include any other program that may not be listed.

    810,000 in a year. More than 1/2 million more than our “leaders” are telling us.

    BERNIER V.S. TRUDEAU


    What we are “told” the numbers are

    Who Current Proposed Diff Percent
    Trudeau 310K 350K +40K +13%
    Bernier 310K 250K -60K -20%

    What the numbers “actually” are:

    Who Current Proposed Diff Percent
    Trudeau 810K 850K +40K +5%
    Bernier 810K 750K -60K -7.5%

    And of course, this is presupposed on the idea that there are only 810,000 legal immigrants into Canada this year.
    5% increase with “open borders” Trudeau.
    7.5% decrease with “populist” Bernier.
    What a complete scam.

    WHAT DOES STATSCAN SAY?


    CLICK HERE, for 2018-2019 estimates.

    Statistics Canada estimates that from 2019 to 2019
    Q1 in 2018 = 36,786,021
    Q2 in 2018 = 36,890,169
    Q3 in 2018 = 37,058,856
    Q4 in 2019 = 37,242,571
    Q1 in 2019 = 37,314,442

    This would be an increase of 525,000, which is 215,000 or 70% higher than what we have been told. But there’s more.

    StatsCan found most growth came from migration.

    The number of non-permanent residents increased by 165,729 in 2017/2018. This increase surpassed the previous peak in 1988/1989, the year when the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada was created and the new refugee determination system was introduced. Although also fed by a strong increase of asylum seekers, the increase of the number of non-permanent residents in the country in 2017/2018 was still mainly explained by the rise in the number of work and study permit holders.

    So, another 525,000 new citizens, and another 165,000 new residents
    That would be 690,000 people.

    Let’s see some census data.
    In 2011, there were 33,476,688 Canadians.
    In 2016, there were 35,151,728 Canadians.
    This is a difference of 1.68M, or 335,000/annually.

    But this only takes into account “citizens”, not permanent residents, or other temporary residents.

    Even using StatsCan data, the 810K estimate seems pretty reasonable, when other groups are factored in

    Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan (Destruction of Europe)

    (Kalergi Plan, explained by Black Pigeon Speaks)

    (Macron’s Reform Agenda)


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for UN Population Conferences (1974 Romania, 1984 Mexico, 1994 Egypt)
    CLICK HERE, for the Barcelona Declaration (of 1995).
    CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1995).
    CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1998).
    CLICK HERE, for the Expert Group of Population Decline (of 2000).
    CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2002).
    CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2005).
    CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2008).
    CLICK HERE, for the Declaration on High Level Dialogue on Migration (of2013).
    CLICK HERE, for the New York Declaration (of 2016)
    CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact (of 2018)
    CLICK HERE, for the Charlemagne Prize, for unifying Europe.
    CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Multiculturalism Act.

    2. Let’s Get A Timeline

    1. 1918 – End of WW1, Austria Hungary broken apart
    2. 1918 onwards – tensions between nations and groups within
    3. 1922 – Kalergi’s Writings of a “Unified Europe”
    4. 1933 – Hitler becomes Chancellor of Germany
    5. 1945 – End of WW2, start of cold war
    6. 1973 – Free trade bloc between 6 European nations
    7. 1974 – Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania
    8. 1984 – Population Conference in Mexico City, Mexico
    9. 1994 – Population Conference in Cairo, Egypt
    10. 1995 – Barcelona Declaration in Barcelona, Spain
    11. 1995 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
    12. 1998 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
    13. 2000 – Expert Report on Population Decline
    14. 2002 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
    15. 2005 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
    16. 2008 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
    17. 2013 – High Level Talks in Migration, UN
    18. 2016 – New York Declaration, NY, USA
    19. 2018 – UN Global Migration Compact, Morocco

    3. Who Was At Barcelona?


    Barcelona declaration

    adopted at the Euro-Mediterranean Conference – 27-28/11/95

    • The Council of the European Union, represented by its President, Mr Javier SOLANA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain,
    • The European Commission, represented by Mr Manuel MARIN, VicePresident,
    • Germany, represented by Mr Klaus KINKEL, ViceChancellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Algeria, represented by Mr Mohamed Salah DEMBRI, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Austria, represented by Mrs Benita FERREROWALDNER, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
    • Belgium, represented by Mr Erik DERYCKE, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Cyprus, represented by Mr Alecos MICHAELIDES, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Denmark, represented by Mr Ole Loensmann POULSEN, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
    • Egypt, represented by Mr Amr MOUSSA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Spain, represented by Mr Carlos WESTENDORP, State Secretary for Relations with the European Community,
    • Finland, represented by Mrs Tarja HALONEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • France, represented by Mr Hervé de CHARETTE, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Greece, represented by Mr Károlos PAPOULIAS, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Ireland, represented by Mr Dick SPRING, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Israel, represented by Mr Ehud BARAK, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Italy, represented by Mrs Susanna AGNELLI, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Jordan, represented by Mr AbdelKarim KABARITI, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Lebanon, represented by Mr Fares BOUEZ, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Luxembourg, represented by Mr Jacques F. POOS, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Cooperation,
    • Malta, represented by Prof. Guido DE MARCO, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Morocco, represented by Mr Abdellatif FILALI, Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • the Netherlands, represented by Mr Hans van MIERLO, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Portugal, represented by Mr Jaime GAMA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • the United Kingdom, represented by Mr Malcolm RIFKIND QC MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,
    • Syria, represented by Mr Farouk AL-SHARAA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Sweden, represented by Mrs Lena HJELM-WALLEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Tunisia, represented by Mr Habib Ben YAHIA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • Turkey, represented by Mr Deniz BAYKAL, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    • the Palestinian Authority, represented by Mr Yassir ARAFAT, President of the Palestinian Authority, taking part in the Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Barcelona:

    The first sections have to do with free trade and economic cooperation. However, the partnership in social, cultural and human affairs is far more interesting.

    Partnership in social, cultural and Human affairs:

    Developing human resources, promoting understanding between cultures & exchanges between civil societies

    The participants recognize that the traditions of culture and civilization throughout the Mediterranean region, dialogue between these cultures and exchanges at human, scientific and technological level are an essential factor in bringing their peoples closer, promoting understanding between them and improving their perception of each other.

    In this spirit, the participants agree to establish a partnership in social, cultural and human affairs. To this end:

    they reaffirm that dialogue and respect between cultures and religions are a necessary precondition for bringing the peoples closer. In this connection they stress the importance of the role the mass media can play in the reciprocal recognition and understanding of cultures as a source of mutual enrichment;

    they stress the essential nature of the development of human resources, both as regards the education and training of young people in particular and in the area of culture. They express their intent to promote cultural exchanges and knowledge of other languages, respecting the cultural identity of each partner, and to implement a lasting policy of educational and cultural programmes; in this context, the partners undertake to adopt measures to facilitate human exchanges, in particular by improving administrative procedures;

    they underline the importance of the health sector for sustainable development and express their intention of promoting the effective participation of the community in operations to improve health and well-being;

    they recognize the importance of social development which, in their view, must go hand in hand with any economic development. They attach particular importance to respect for fundamental social rights, including the right to development;

    -they recognize the essential contribution civil society can make in the process of development of the EuroMediterranean partnership and as an essential factor for greater understanding and closeness between peoples;
    -they accordingly agree to strengthen and/or introduce the necessary instruments of decentralized cooperation to encourage exchanges between those active in development
    -within the framework of national laws: leaders of political and civil society, the cultural and religious world, universities, the research community, the media, organizations, the trade unions and public and private enterprises;
    -on this basis, they recognize the importance of encouraging contacts and exchanges between young people in the context of programmes for decentralized cooperation;
    -they will encourage actions of support for democratic institutions and for the strengthening of the rule of law and civil society;
    they recognize that current population trends represent a priority challenge which must be counterbalanced by appropriate policies to accelerate economic takeoff;
    -they acknowledge the importance of the role played by migration in their relationships. They agree to strengthen their cooperation to reduce migratory pressures, among other things through vocational training programmes and programmes of assistance for job creation. They undertake to guarantee protection of all the rights recognized under existing legislation of migrants legally resident in their respective territories;

    -in the area of illegal immigration they decide to establish closer cooperation. In this context, the partners, aware of their responsibility for readmission, agree to adopt the relevant provisions and measures, by means of bilateral agreements or arrangements, in order to readmit their nationals who are in an illegal situation. To that end, the Member States of the European Union take citizens to mean nationals of the Member States, as defined for Community purposes;

    they agree to strengthen cooperation by means of various measures to prevent terrorism and fight it more effectively together;

    by the same token they consider it necessary to fight jointly and effectively against drug trafficking, international crime and corruption;

    they underline the importance of waging a determined campaign against racism, xenophobia and intolerance and agree to cooperate to that end.

    4. Summary


    Okay, let’s gather some information here:

    1. Improving perception of them? Sounds like propaganda
    2. Mass media to “play a role”. Okay
    3. Closeness of cultures to be valued
    4. Exchanges to be promoted
    5. Migration to be valued
    6. Must repatriate illegals
    7. campaign against racism, xenophobia and intolerance (no Islamophobia). Could this be to silence critics of this mass migration pact?

    In case anyone was wondering, this is to promote multiculturalism, with no expectation of assimilation. While this is promoted as a post-cultural era, the idea is to encourage mass migration (mainly to Europe). Various cultures could then expect accommodation, since tolerance was the norm.

    Of course, all of this presupposed that nations were totally fine giving up their national heritage and culture, something that has never proven true.

    5. Exerps of Kalergi Plan

    This war of annihilation, prepared by European politics, will leave the world war just as far behind in horror as it did the German-French one. His element will be the air – his weapon the poison – his aim is the extermination of the hostile nation. The main fight will be directed against the cities of the hinterland, against women and children. The vanquished nations are destroyed – the victorious mortally wounded emerge from this mass murder. This imminent war means the complete downfall of Europe, its culture and economy. Other continents will take its place. The second danger that escapes a fragmented Europe is the conquest by Russia.

    Then the fragmented and divided small states of Europe will face the one Russian world power whose territory is five times larger than the whole of Europe. Neither the small states of Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the Balkans nor disarmed Germany would then be able to ward off the Russian onslaught. Rhine, Alps, Adriatic would become the border of Europe: until this border also falls and Europe becomes Russia’s western province. There is only one salvation from this danger: the European union. For a united Europe there is no Russian danger. Because it has twice as many people as Russia and a much more developed industry. So the decision about the Russian danger is not with Russia – but with Europe.

    Getting originals of Kalergi’s work has been difficult. But here is the basic idea. Individual nation states within Europe lead to violence and war. People’s attachment to ethnicity, culture and heritage leads to violence between groups. However, if there was only one people, then these issues would not exist.

    Yes, the Kalergi plan is ethnic cleansing, although the intent was to make for a more peaceful Europe. (Watch BPS’s video above as he explains it very well).

    Further, individual nations weaken Europe against Russia. Russia of course is vastly stronger than any individual nation, but could be fended off if the European nations united.

    The Kalergi plan was a way to solve both problems: (1) prevent violence between European nations; and (2) unite to be able to stand up to Russia.

    As for the Charlemagne Prize, this is an award given to a person who has made extraordinary efforts in uniting Europe. There are some notable winners:
    -Jean Claude Juncker won in 2006
    -Angela Merkel won in 2008
    -Emmanuel Macron won in 2018

    The goal of Barcelona Declaration and Kalergi Plan is to destroy the individual European nation and to give rise to a European super state. Of course, the people’s themselves do not wish to give up their culture, language, traditions or ethnicity. Therefore, a high level of duplicity is necessary.

    Of course, the aim of the December 10, 2018 UN Global Migration Compact is to erase nations throughout the West, not just Europe.

    On a final note: doesn’t the Barcelona Declaration sound a lot like Canada’s Multiculturalism Act? Any unique national identity is to be removed in order to be “diverse and tolerant”

    Multiculturalism policy
    3 (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to
    (a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;
    (b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;
    (c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;
    (d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;
    (e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;
    (f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;
    (g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;
    (h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;
    (i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and
    (j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.

    The Multiculturalism Act is Canada’s version of the Barcelona Declaration. Nothing to unite us as a people, no unique culture, customs, traditions or heritage. Canada is to be “multicultural”, which plainly means it is to have “no” culture.

    Also worth noting, Quebec has laws to protect its language and culture, while the rest of Canada does not. Hypocritical.

    Instead of preventing conflicts BETWEEN societies, forced multiculturalism ensures there will be conflicts WITHIN societies.

    Reasons For Leaving The PPC

    (Maxime Bernier defends “dysfunctional” UN, won’t leave)

    (March 8 Rebel Media video on Brooks, AB)

    (Rebel Media on Islamic Relief Funding Terrorism)

    (Islamic Party Wanting To Impose Sharia In Belgium)


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for the PPC Platform
    CLICK HERE, for the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.
    CLICK HERE, for TFWP data, 1990 to 2009.
    CLICK HERE, for more TWFP data.
    CLICK HERE, for 2018 Angus Reid poll on immigration.
    CLICK HERE, for UN Secretary General’s High-level Panel on Global Sustainability (co-authored by Jordan Peterson).
    CLICK HERE, for Abacus Poll, Bernier at 13%.
    CLICK HERE, for Globe & Mail, Bernier at 17%.
    CLICK HERE, for articles written on the binding nature of UN resolutions.
    CLICK HERE, for wasted foreign aid in Afghanistan.
    CLICK HERE, for Quebec opposing pipelines.

    After much though, I cannot support the People’s Party of Canada anymore. As a Canadian nationalist with social conservative views, the PPC is not substantially different than the Conservative party of Canada.

    There are many reasons, which will be addressed below.

    There are far more important issues than the dairy cartel.

    2. Index of Topics


    Personal Reasons
    (1) The Name Sounds Communist
    (2) PPC Purging/EDAs
    (3) Lack of Transparency

    Ideological Reasons
    (4) PPC Won’t Leave the UN
    (5) PPC Will “Only Review” Foreign Aid
    (6) PPC Will “Only Review” Equalization Formula
    (7) PPC Supports Mass Migration
    (8) Import Labour While Canadians Unemployed
    (9) Civic Nationalism is Glorified Multiculturalism
    (10) Quebec Hypocrisy in Protecting Identity
    (11) Bernier Compares Himself to Macron
    (12) PPC’s new hero: Jordan Peterson
    (13) Complete Dismissal of Social Conservatives
    (14) Political Islam
    (15) Hypocrisy in “Call-Out Culture”
    (16) Free Trade With China

    3. Topics Expanded


    Personal Reasons

    (1) The Name Sounds Communist
    This is probably the most trivial, so let’s get it out of the way. “People’s Party” sounds like something you would see in a Communist country.

    (2) PPC Purging
    Well, it wouldn’t be a “People’s Party” without a massive purge at some point (pun intended).

    While the party was originally touted as a right wing alternative, it seems that less and less viewpoints are now tolerated.

    Nationalists, and others who reject the mass migration and rapid replacement of Canadians are dismissed as racists and bigots. Apparently, the non-PC party decided that it had to reject people to appear more tolerant.

    Although the party calls itself “conservative”, attempts to bring socially conservative issues into the platform have failed, and their supporters not well received.

    There have also been entire EDAs that were set up, but then members were removed ad-hoc, with no reason given. Guess they didn’t quite fit the mold.

    (3) Lack of Transparency
    Admittedly, it was an exciting project to get behind.
    But looking back, I knew nothing of who were the people running the show, or how it operated. 6 months later that is still the case.

    Ideological Reasons

    (4) PPC Won’t Leave the UN

    As Canada’s former Foreign Affairs Minister, I witnessed first-hand how the international relations establishment has a set of priorities that are very different from those of ordinary Canadians.

    They care about attending global conferences in trendy cities and getting photographed in the company of important foreign leaders. They worry about prestige and glamour, about Canada’s presence on the international scene even if that simply means having a tiny influence on events in parts of the world where we have almost no interest.

    Whether it’s a bunch of bureaucrats discussing how to spend billions of dollars to kick-starting Canada’s economy; or a bunch of bureaucrats discussing how to spend billions of dollars on international organizations and development aid in other countries; it’s all the same. They are mostly furthering their own interests and wasting a lot of taxpayers’ money.

    We are not going to try and please the foreign affairs establishment and the United Nations, a dysfunctional organisation which for years has disproportionately focused its activities on condemning Israel as if it were the source of most conflicts in the world. Last year for example, the UN General Assembly adopted 20 resolutions targeting Israel, while passing one each about the human rights situation in North Korea, Syria, and Iran.

    Bernier’s now famous line: “The UN is a useless joke”. Is in the platform, and in many of his public comments and appearances, he criticizes the UN as wasteful. Sounds great, but one thing: why not leave the UN altogether? If Bernier truly views it money pit, against Canadians’ interests, and serves little value, why not leave? That detail is interestingly omitted.

    While Bernier claims to cut spending on the UN (although not leave). Yet UN agreements result in pressure being applied to nations even for “non-binding” resolutions. Worse still, “non-binding” resolutions can still be used as a legal reference in future court challenges.

    Further, if a Provincial or State level virtue signaller wants, a “non-binding” UN resolution can be legislated at that level (such as the case with BC wanting to pass the UN DRIP).

    If a nation wanted to support humanitarian causes: great, but why would they need to be officially in the UN at all? Couldn’t personnel and/or supplies be sent directly to a cause? Seems unlikely that it would be refused simply because the donor was not a member. If anything, not being in the UN would prevent (or at least make it harder), for our interests to be run over.

    (5) PPC Will “Only Review” Foreign Aid

    Third, my government will review the $5 billion that Canada spends every year on international assistance programs.
    Our refocused international assistance will centre on core humanitarian efforts to fight global health crises and respond to emergencies such as major conflicts and natural disasters. Canada has to show solidarity and do its part to help when populations are dying and suffering in countries that don’t have the means to save them.

    However, every year, we spend billions of dollars funding job training, farming technology, infrastructure building and various other programs to help develop other countries’ economies. We will phase out this development aid, for which there is no moral or economic efficiency argument.

    Serious question, given the waste and mismanagement in international agencies, how will PPC ensure that money given for “humanitarian purposes” is actually used as such? Also worth noting, how much of that $5 billion is development aid? And will this be cut completely, or redirected into “humanitarian aid?

    Also, if the only money being spent is on emergency actions, why would it be necessary to be part of the UN at all?

    In fairness to Bernier, it is nice to have the topic addressed. However, it would be naïve to assume that Canada will actually save anywhere near $5 billion annually.

    Finally, given the widespread corruption and mismanagement in the UN and other global organizations, how can we be sure that aid is reaching the people it’s supposed to? How can we be sure that some or even all of it simply does not disappear? How can we be sure foreign aid is not used to finance nefarious causes? See above video. This is not to say all organizations are bad, but that there has to be real accountability as to how and where it goes.

    (6) PPC Will “Only Review” Equalization Formula
    Rather than continuing the welfare trap that our system of equalization has become, Bernier proposes to create an environment that encourages provinces to succeed and thrive, rather than relying on aid from other parts of the country.
    Bernier’s plan has two key components:

    -Immediately freeze the envelope of taxpayer dollars dedicated to equalization to stop the ever-increasing spending.
    -Form a Parliamentary Committee dedicated to reviewing the equalization formula, proposing common sense solutions that will give provinces the right incentives to grow their economies.

    In fairness, it is nice to see this issue addressed. It hasn’t at the Federal level in any meaningful way since its inception. However, it is inter-provincial welfare, plain and simple. Perhaps the real reason there’s no proposal to scrap it entirely is it would be political suicide in Quebec and the Maritimes, which depend on these handouts.

    If a province still gets payments after 60 years, it should be obvious they have no intention of stopping. Phasing out completely would be a better option.

    (7) PPC Supports Mass Migration

    Of course, Canadian society is also transformed by immigration, as it has for centuries. But this has to be done organically and gradually. When it happens too fast, it creates social tensions and conflicts, and provokes a political backlash, as we can see today in several countries.

    This is why I am opposed to increasing the annual intake of immigrants from 250,000 to 300,000, as the Liberal government has announced.

    This is laughable. At 250,000/year, it is stable. At 300,000 (or 310,000) it is mass migration.

    Also worth mentioning is the petition Bernier sponsored, E-1906, cited here, to oppose the UN Global Migration Compact. In the height of the furor, thousands of Canadians protested against it. However, the PPC condemns “white nationalists” who are against mass migration, open borders, the UN in general, and in favour of protecting Canadian sovereignty and identity.

    It would take some mental gymnastics for the PPC to call Stephen Harper out as a globalist, but then cite “his” number of 250,000/year. Also, how would they explain why a 20% reduction in immigration is “good and stable”, but that a 50-75% cut would be xenophobic and anti-immigrant.

    Of course, this isn’t anywhere near a 20% reduction. Bernier omits the TFWP, which allows well over 100,000 people into Canada every year, many of whom becomes permanent residents. For example, in 2011, 192,000 TFW were admitted into Canada, and 29,000 TFW obtained permanent resident status. (See source). Also left out is the large number of student visas issued to college and university students annually. And of course, graduation is a quick path to permanent residence.

    Of course this doesn’t include illegals getting a pathway to citizenship, nor refugees, nor anchor babies (birth tourism).

    A far more accurate estimate would be that PPC wants an immigration reduction of about 10%.

    Bernier frequently cites the Angus Reid poll (shown here), saying 49% of Canadians want less immigration. It would be nice if Angus Reid had followed up and asked how deep the cuts should be. 10% isn’t a major reduction, it’s just a tweaking.

    Canada already has people from all corners of the globe. And most would love to have families, or at least bigger ones. See this initiative, recently announced by Hungary.

    (8) Import Labour While Canadians Unemployed

    Preventing our businesses from hiring the immigrant manpower they need with red tape is a big government policy. At the other extreme, mass immigration that would create social tensions and is not in the interest of Canadians is also a big government policy. A government under my leadership would find an appropriate middle ground so as to unleash Canada’s economic potential.

    In particular, it should answer the needs of sectors where there is a scarcity of manpower with specialized skills; and in more general terms contribute to increasing the number of younger workers in a society that is fast aging.

    Too little immigration means we will not get as much of these economic benefits as we could. But too much immigration also has its dangers.

    See the above video from Rebel Media on Jason Kenney flooding Brooks, AB with Somali Muslims in order to obtain cheap labour. While an extreme case, there is nothing in the PPC website that states ensuring cultural compatibility with immigrants is necessary. It’s all about money.

    And an obvious piece of information: businesses will ALWAYS say they need workers. From a supply side, there’s no downside, as it allows a greater choice for them.

    With the high unemployment in Canada, particularly in Alberta, is there need for economic immigration or at least much smaller amounts? As with H1B visa in the US, it has the effect of driving down wages and forcing locals to face even stiffer competition.

    The Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFW) allows companies to import cheaper labour which gets subsidized by taxpayers. And again, this is done while Canadians are unemployed. This is even more true with young graduates who often struggle to find work in glutted professions.

    When people can’t find work, it hurts them and hurts their families. There are larger impacts to consider than simply job growth or GDP. And in the larger picture, instead of relying on migration to grow a country, why not focus more on getting Canadian children to have more children? The overwhelming majority of Canadian families would want more.

    (9) Civic Nationalism is Glorified Multiculturalism
    Though not explicitly in the PPC platform, many PPC members have stated that the PPC is a “civic nationalist party”. So what’s the problem?

    CIVIC NATIONALISM REJECTS ANY NATIONAL IDENTITY

    The main features of civic nationalism is that people are joined by “values” as opposed to identity. Free speech, a constitution, equality under the law are all common tenants of the ideology. While those “are” important to have, they are not enough to unify a society.

    Civ-Nat rejects common bonds such as: culture, spoken or written language, faith or religion, heritage, traditions, customs and yes (ancestry or ethnicity). These identity unifiers are stronger within groups than the “values”. It is not bigoted to want there to be something in common with all the people. A common culture and language are the bare minimum. Without it, people break off into groups who share similar traits.

    Worse is the 1988 Multiculturalism Act (passed by “Conservative” Brian Mulroney). This Act actually encourages people to keep their old cultures, traditions and languages. In fact, it discourages assimilation.

    And how do people maintain their culture? They band together, form a group — or balkanize — and keep practicing it.

    Another bit of mental gymnastics for the PPC: “Why” do you object to Trudeau’s comments about Canada being a post-national country if you “don’t” support having a distinct and dominant identity?

    It is not “extreme multi-culturalism” to have balkanization and ghettos. It is in fact the point of multiculturalism. And this leads to the next point….

    (10) Quebec Hypocrisy in Protecting Identity
    Quebec has laws to protect its language and culture.

    There is nothing wrong with that. However, multiculturalism and bilingualism are forced down the throats of the rest of Canada. The bulk of Canada was built as a British colony, with and English tradition.

    Distinct identity for Quebec.
    Melting pot for everyone else.

    Every nation should have its own identity. But to allow a region to province to have one, but not elsewhere is hypocrisy.

    (11) Bernier Compares Himself to Macron
    In an interview, Bernier compared himself to Emmanuel Macron, who became President of France less than a year after launching his party in France.

    While that sounds harmless enough, consider this: Macron is a Rothschild banker. While running as a “populist”, he proved to be anything but. He is now an EU globalist calling for the further break down of European nations. See this earlier review.

    Interesting role model.

    (12) PPC’s new hero: Jordan Peterson
    While it is normally wrong to judge someone by the company they keep, this article covers why getting involved with Peterson would be a serious mistake for any serious “populist” party.

    (13) Complete Dismissal of Social Conservatives
    PPC has made it clear from the beginning that they will not have any sort of social conservative policies being advanced by the party. They seem to believe that killing unborn children using tax dollars, sex changes for children, and the like are not issues the Feds need to be concerned with.

    Indeed much of it is pushed off as “Provincial Issues”. Who cares if the culture declines as long as you are tolerant?

    For a party that claims to offer a voice to Canadians who otherwise would feel excluded, this is a little rich.

    Interesting that in recent by-elections, Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson did by far the best at 11%. She is a social conservative whose values would never actually be promoted by the PPC (except “possibly” as a private member’s bill).

    Do we value lives of unborn children?
    Are children best off with a mother and father?
    Do we want young children corrupted by SOGI?

    In September 2018, Bernier, even without a party had 13-17% support.
    Now PPC has 2% nationally. (more than 80% drop)

    Also consider the drop in support for 2 petitions Bernier sponsored:
    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE
    (I) 68,500 for the anti-global migration compact petition.
    (II) 4,100 for the anti-UN Parliament. (90% drop)

    (14) Political Islam

    First, my government will continue to work closely with our allies to ensure peace and security, especially against radical Islamic terrorism. We will only get involved in foreign conflicts when we have a clear strategic interest in doing so and when the security of Canadians is directly impacted.

    What could possibly be wrong with this statement? Nothing, except it omits the elephant in the room: POLITICAL ISLAM.

    Lebanon was a Christian country.
    Turkey was a Christian country.
    Afghanistan was a Buddhist country.
    Iran (Persia) was a secular country.
    Pakistan was part of India and a Sikh country.
    And so on….

    Islam has entered dozens of countries across the globe and infiltrated their politics. The OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries) makes up 57 of the 193 countries in the UN, and is in fact the largest voting bloc. Yet another reason to leave the UN.

    Islamic operatives are in the Canadian Government, and they have made serious inroads in American and European politics. The goal is the same: world domination and to spread Islam across the globe.

    Condemning terrorism is an easy thing to do. When people are slaughtered for their beliefs, and their religious institutions vandalized or burned, it is a straightforward matter. But the PPC doesn’t call out the political branches of Islam trying to weaponize corrupt democratic governments.

    Recently, the newly formed Islamic Party of Ontario made headlines. The founder, Jawed Anwer, stated that liberalism is killing off Islam. To be fair, Bernier did take a shot at this “ideological diversity making us stronger”.

    Although terrorism and direct violence are more overt and obvious, the creeping Sharia into Western countries is the bigger threat growing.

    (15) Hypocrisy in “Call-Out Culture”
    Probably Bernier’s strongest asset is his ability (and willingness) to call out pandering and political correctness. However, he seems uninterested in addressing criticism of the above topics.

    (16) Free Trade With China
    This is addressed in another video. But given how China does not play by the same rules, why would we undercut the job prospects of our own citizens?

    Policies That Are Good Ideas
    To be fair, there are some PPC policies that are great.

    (a) Ending Corporate Subsidies
    (b) Reviewing equalization is at least a start
    (c) Protecting Gun Owners
    (d) A Proposed Smaller Tax Structure
    (e) Opposing Climate Change Scam
    (f) Ending Supply management

    4. Final Thoughts


    Those 6 items are nice, though it misses bigger issues. As such, I can no longer be a part of this. Far from a full solution, in many ways it is a half measure.

    PPC offers nothing to Nationalists concerned with mass migration.
    PPC offers nothing to social conservatives.
    PPC is not substantially different than CPC on issues of Canadian sovereignty and independence.

    The CPC isn’t a solution either — for anyone who might make the “shill” accusation. They have signed plenty of bad deals such as Agenda 2030 (Harper) and Agenda 21 (Mulroney), and support for Paris Accord (Scheer).

    Time to keep looking.

    New York Declaration (September 2016), Prelude to The Global Migration Compact


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    IMPORTANT LINKS

    CLICK HERE, for the UN Migrant/Refugee link.
    CLICK HERE, for a summary of the New York Declaration.
    CLICK HERE, for NY Declaration full text.
    CLICK HERE, for the full text of the Global Migration Compact
    CLICK HERE, for result of legal challenge to UN GMC (February 12, 2019).

    TIMELINE

    • September, 2016, New York Declaration agreed to.
    • July 2018, Text of Global Migration Compact agreed to
    • December 2018, formal siging ceremony for Global Migration Compact

    To give some context, this conference in New York happened TWO YEARS before the signing. And comparing the NY Declaration to the Compact text, it seems that the opinions didn’t change much along the way.

    SUMMARY OF NEW YORK DECLARATION

    Note: for ease of comparison, the points are numbered, although not done so in the actual text.

    What are the commitments?
    The New York Declaration contains bold commitments both to address the issues we face now and to prepare the world for future challenges. These include commitments to:

    1. Protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status. This includes the rights of women and girls and promoting their full, equal and meaningful participation in finding solutions.
    2. Ensure that all refugee and migrant children are receiving education within a few months of arrival.
    3. Prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence.
    4. Support those countries rescuing, receiving and hosting large numbers of refugees and migrants.
    5. Work towards ending the practice of detaining children for the purposes of determining their migration status.
    6. Strongly condemn xenophobia against refugees and migrants and support a global campaign to counter it.
    7. Strengthen the positive contributions made by migrants to economic and social development in their host countries.
    8. Improve the delivery of humanitarian and development assistance to those countries most affected, including through innovative multilateral financial solutions, with the goal of closing all funding gaps.
    9. Implement a comprehensive refugee response, based on a new framework that sets out the responsibility of Member States, civil society partners and the UN system, whenever there is a large movement of refugees or a protracted refugee situation.
    10. Find new homes for all refugees identified by UNHCR as needing resettlement; and expand the opportunities for refugees to relocate to other countries through, for example, labour mobility or education schemes.
    11. Strengthen the global governance of migration by bringing the International Organization for Migration into the UN system.

    What will happen next?
    The New York Declaration also contains concrete plans for how to build on these commitments:
    Start negotiations leading to an international conference and the adoption of a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration in 2018. The agreement to move toward this comprehensive framework is a momentous one. It means that migration, like other areas of international relations, will be guided by a set of common principles and approaches.

    Develop guidelines on the treatment of migrants in vulnerable situations. These guidelines will be particularly important for the increasing number of unaccompanied children on the move.

    Achieve a more equitable sharing of the burden and responsibility for hosting and supporting the world’s refugees by adopting a global compact on refugees in 2018.

    CONTRAST NY DECLARATION TO UN GMC

    The Global Migration Compact consists of 23 “non-binding” objectives, which align almost perfectly with the original declaration

    Point #1

    Protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status. This includes the rights of women and girls and promoting their full, equal and meaningful participation in finding solutions.

    Gender will be mentioned throughout the document.

    Point #2, Objective 15(f)

    Ensure that all refugee and migrant children are receiving education within a few months of arrival.

    (Objective, 15(f)) Provide inclusive and equitable quality education to migrant children and youth, as well as facilitate access to lifelong learning opportunities , including by strengthening the capacities of education systems and by facilitating non-discriminatory access to early childhood development, formal schooling, non-formal education programmes for children for whom the formal system is inaccessible, on-the-job and vocational training, technical education, and language training, as well as by fostering partnerships with all stakeholders that can support this endeavour

    Point #3

    Prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence.

    Of course, there is the “elephant in the room”. If sexual and gender based violence is anticipated to be such a big problem, “why” are we letting large numbers of these people into our countries?

    Point #4, Objective 8

    Support those countries rescuing, receiving and hosting large numbers of refugees and migrants.

    We commit to cooperate internationally to save lives and prevent migrant deaths and injuries through individual or joint search and rescue operations, standardized collection and exchange of relevant information, assuming collective responsibility to preserve the lives of all migrants, in accordance with international law. We further commit to identify those who have died or gone missing, and to facilitate communication with affected families.

    Notice, they blur the line between:
    (a) Migrant and refugee, and
    (b) Legal and illegal

    Point #5, Objective 13

    Work towards ending the practice of detaining children for the purposes of determining their migration status.

    (Objective 13) We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

    That’s right. Avoid detention of illegals if at all possible. Release them into the community wherever possible. Just because they are in the country illegally, that doesn’t mean they are breaking the law apparently.

    Point #6, Objective 17

    Strongly condemn xenophobia against refugees and migrants and support a global campaign to counter it.

    (Objective 17) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media

    17(c) is the infamous propaganda clause that promotes “sensitizing and educating” media, and shutting down media critical of mass migration.

    Point #7, Objective 2

    Strengthen the positive contributions made by migrants to economic and social development in their host countries.

    We commit to create conducive political, economic, social and environmental conditions for people to lead peaceful, productive and sustainable lives in their own country and to fulfil their personal aspirations, while ensuring that desperation and deteriorating environments do not compel them to seek a livelihood elsewhere through irregular migration. We further commit to ensure timely and full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as to build upon and invest in the implementation of other existing frameworks, in order to enhance the overall impact of the Global Compact to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration.

    As convoluted as the wording is, the parties will be shelling out “BOTH” money for host countries, and to enhance mass migration to the West.

    Point #8

    Improve the delivery of humanitarian and development assistance to those countries most affected, including through innovative multilateral financial solutions, with the goal of closing all funding gaps.

    We commit to promote faster, safer and cheaper remittances by further developing existing conducive policy and regulatory environments that enable competition, regulation and innovation on the remittance market and by providing gender-responsive programmes and instruments that enhance the financial inclusion of migrants and their families. We further commit to optimize the transformative impact of remittances on the well-being of migrant workers and their families, as well as on sustainable development of countries, while respecting that remittances constitute an important source of private capital, and cannot be equated to other international financial flows, such as foreign direct investment, official development assistance, or other public sources of financing for development.

    Interesting side note: “financial flow” is what the Paris Accord calls the Carbon tax. But this is another massive wealth transfer scheme.

    Point #9, Objective 23

    Implement a comprehensive refugee response, based on a new framework that sets out the responsibility of Member States, civil society partners and the UN system, whenever there is a large movement of refugees or a protracted refugee situation.

    Conclude bilateral, regional or multilateral mutually beneficial, tailored and transparent partnerships, in line with international law, that develop targeted solutions to migration policy issues of common interest and address opportunities and challenges of migration in accordance with the Global Compact

    Point #10

    Find new homes for all refugees identified by UNHCR as needing resettlement; and expand the opportunities for refugees to relocate to other countries through, for example, labour mobility or education schemes.

    Even though nations have their own homeless, we are going to provide housing for foreigners. Great.

    (Point #11, Objective 11, 23)

    Strengthen the global governance of migration by bringing the International Organization for Migration into the UN system.

    (Objective 11) We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.

    (Objective 23) We commit to support each other in the realization of the objectives and commitments laid out in this Global Compact through enhanced international cooperation, a revitalized global partnership, and in the spirit of solidarity, reaffirming the centrality of a comprehensive and integrated approach to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration, and recognizing that we are all countries of origin, transit and destination. We further commit to take joint action in addressing the challenges faced by each country to implement this Global Compact, underscoring the specific challenges faced in particular by African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing States, and middle-income countries. We also commit to promote the mutually reinforcing nature between the Global Compact and existing international legal and policy frameworks, by aligning the implementation of this Global Compact with such frameworks, particularly the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as well as the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, and their recognition that migration and sustainable development are multidimensional and interdependent.

    A few thoughts:

    • This scheme was outlined in 2016, a full 2 years before the signing of the “treaty”.
    • The documents routinely blur the line between “refugee” and “migrant”.
    • All this talk of rights for “migrants and refugees”, but no consideration given for the host populations which are forced to deal with them
    • They go on and on about Agenda 2030. Guess this is the next step.
    • Media is to be “sensitized” about migration.
    • Looks like Calgary adventure was well worth it.