Sports Groups That Took CEWS Money To Enforce Masks, Vaxx Pass

Ever wonder why so many sports groups, including youth sports, were to willing to enforce masks and vaccine orders? Maybe, just maybe, it’s because of the CEWS handouts they’ve been getting. CEWS is of course the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Of course, it’s not practical to add each agency, so searching the registry for individual names is probably the best.

Even at the NHL level, it seems that subsidies were too tempting rather than just treat people normally.

Wild idea, but with so many playing along, perhaps society isn’t worth saving.

(1) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch

OTHER SHILLS FOR MASKS AND VACCINE PASSPORTS
Hotel, Restaurant Groups Getting Wage/Rental Subsidies
Liberals, Conservatives, NDP All Getting Bailout Money
Lawyers, Bar Associations Receiving CEWS Money
Conflicting Out? Lawyers Getting More Than Just CEWS
Churches Are Charities, Getting CEWS, Subsidies & Promoting Vaccines
Trucking Alliance Grants Raising many Eyebrows
Chambers Of Commerce Subsidized By Canadians, Want Open Borders
Banks, Credit Unions, Media Outlets All Getting CEWS
Publishing Industry Subsidized By Taxpayer Money
Gyms And Fitness Centers Getting Subsidies To Push Vaxx Pass
Chapters-Indigo Getting Millions In Subsidies To Discriminate
Jordan Peterson Shills For Vaxx, Suspension Of Civil Rights
Toronto Region Board Of Trade Pushing Vaxx Passports

International Mobility Programme Data: 1994-2013

Below is some significant data on temporary foreign workers (TFW) from 1994 to 2013. (See archive). In fairness, the totals differ somewhat from the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. Perhaps, the methods of calculation weren’t the same.

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

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

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

There’s also the issue that “temporary” workers and students often don’t leave when their visas expire. Canada offers many pathways to extend their stays, and there is little in the way of enforcement.

Aside from all the official totals, there are 3 “temporary” programs that are worth mentioning. These lead to hundreds of thousands of foreigners entering Canada each year, and most with some option to extend. There are also pathways to permanent residence. These are:

  • Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP)
  • International Mobility Programme (IMP)
  • International Students

Let’s look at a decade worth of data, and see where the bulk of these people are coming from. Of course, this should be pretty obvious. This is from page 27 and 36, and focuses on the International Mobility Programme. In fairness, it’s likely that a lot of these people leave afterwards. That said, having the rates would be nice.

2. International Mobility Programme: Permit Holders 1994-2013

For reference: the International Mobility Visas (also known as “Working Holiday Visas”) are typically valid for 1-2 years. The charts below refer to the total at any given year.

YEAR
NEW IMP PERMITS ISSUED
1994 64,020
1995 60,358
1996 59,293
1997 61,339
1998 64,405
1999 67,584
2000 71,186
2001 72,525
2002 66,984
2003 58,619
2004 66,757
2005 72,689
2006 81,312
2007 88,217
2008 102,659
2009 106,737
2010 121,642
2011 138,533
2012 148,070
2013 161,541

This is from page 27 of this report. Overall data is from 1994 to 2013. Also, the number of permits has nearly tripled from 1994 (64,000) through to 2013 (161,000).

3. Source Countries For International Mobility: 2004 To 2013

INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2004
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 18,567 27.8 1
Australia 7,271 10.9 2
France 7,028 10.5 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 6,476 9.7 4
Japan 5,916 8.9 5
Germany 2,467 3.7 6
China 1,801 2.8 7
Ireland 1,615 2.4 8
South Korea 1,558 1.8 9
New Zealand 1,484 2.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 53,517 80.2
TOTAL — OTHERS 13,240 19.8
GRAND TOTAL 66,757 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2005
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 19,453 26.8 1
France 8,636 11.9 2
United Kingdom, Colonies 6,701 9.2 3
Japan 6,244 9.2 4
Germany 2,751 3.8 5
South Korea 1,998 2.7 6
China 1,959 2.7 7
New Zealand 1,702 2.3 8
India 1,688 2.3 9
Ireland 1,572 2.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 52,704 72.5
TOTAL — OTHERS 19,985 27.5
GRAND TOTAL 72,689 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2006
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 21,469 26.4 1
France 9,767 12.0 2
Australia 7,975 9.8 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 6,894 8.5 4
Japan 5,953 7.3 5
Germany 4,211 5.2 6
India 2,295 2.8 7
China 2,242 2.8 8
South Korea 2,009 2.5 9
Ireland 1,998 2.5 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 64,813 79.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 16,499 20.3
GRAND TOTAL 81,312 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2007
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 22,168 25.1 1
France 10,358 11.7 2
Australia 8,220 9.3 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 7,397 8.4 4
Japan 5,683 6.4 5
Germany 4,809 5.5 6
China 2,822 3.2 7
South Korea 2,363 2.7 8
Ireland 2,259 2.6 9
New Zealand 2,058 2.3 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 68,137 77.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 20,080 22.7
GRAND TOTAL 88,217 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2008
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 24,169 23.5 1
Australia 11,879 11.6 2
France 11,505 11.2 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 7,813 7.6 4
Japan 6,715 6.5 5
Germany 5,336 5.2 6
India 3,776 3.7 7
South Korea 3,318 3.2 8
China 3,098 3.0 9
New Zealand 2,436 2.4 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 80,045 78.0
TOTAL — OTHERS 22,614 22.0
GRAND TOTAL 102,659 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2009
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 23,446 22.0 1
France 14,233 13.3 2
Australia 10,053 9.4 3
United Kingdom 7,983 7.5 4
Germany 6,092 5.7 5
Japan 5,954 5.6 6
India 4,166 3.9 7
South Korea 4,041 3.8 8
China 2,920 2.7 9
Ireland 2,812 2.6 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 81,700 76.5
TOTAL — OTHERS 25,037 23.5
GRAND TOTAL 106,737 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2010
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 27,398 22.5 1
France 16,107 13.2 2
Australia 10,375 8.5 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 8,161 6.7 4
Germany 6,812 5.6 5
India 6,603 5.4 6
South Korea 5,508 4.5 7
Japan 5,059 4.2 8
Ireland 3,649 3.0 9
Philippines 3,440 2.8 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 93,112 76.5
TOTAL — OTHERS 28,530 23.5
GRAND TOTAL 121,642 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2011
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 27,979 20.2 1
France 17,509 12.6 2
India 9,961 7.2 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 9,386 6.8 4
Australia 9,160 6.6 5
Germany 6,854 4.9 6
Japan 6,284 4.5 7
South Korea 6,014 4.3 8
Philippines 5,514 4.0 9
Ireland 5,247 3.8 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 103,908 75.0
TOTAL — OTHERS 34,625 25.0
GRAND TOTAL 138,533 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2012
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 29,833 20.1 1
France 17,951 12.1 2
India 11,368 7.7 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 9,771 6.6 4
Australia 9,135 6.2 5
Germany 6,932 4.7 6
Japan 6,436 4.3 7
Ireland 6,231 4.2 8
South Korea 6,144 4.1 9
Philippines 5,387 3.6 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 109,188 73.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 38,882 26.3
GRAND TOTAL 148,070 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2013
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 30,399 18.8 1
France 19,971 12.4 2
India 14,251 8.8 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 10,189 6.3 4
Australia 9,840 6.1 5
Ireland 7,076 4.4 6
Japan 6,723 4.1 7
Philippines 6,703 4.1 8
Germany 6,386 4.0 9
South Korea 5,885 3.6 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 117,423 72.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 44,118 27.3
GRAND TOTAL 161,541 100

It should also be mentioned: it’s likely that a lot more of people from this program will actually leave afterwards, as opposed to international students, and the TFWP.

A little self promotion: Borderless Canada is still available online. Learn about what’s been going on in this country. Virtually all major issues can be directly tied to immigration and border security, and it’s not racist or bigoted to discuss these hard truths.

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

(A.0) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/index.html
(A.1) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1966.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1966
(A.2) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1967.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1967
(A.3) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1968.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1968
(A.4) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1969.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1969
(A.5) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1970.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1970
(A.6) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1971.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1971
(A.7) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1972.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1972
(A.8) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1973.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1973
(A.9) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1974.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1974
(A.10) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1975.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1975
(A.11) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1976.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1976
(A.12) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1977.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1977
(A.13) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1978.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1978
(A.14) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1979.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1979
(A.15) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1980.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1980
(A.16) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1981.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1981
(A.17) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1982.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1982
(A.18) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1983.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1983
(A.19) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1984.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1984
(A.20) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1985.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1985
(A.21) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1986.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1986
(A.22) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1987.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1987
(A.23) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1988.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1988
(A.24) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1989.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1989
(A.25) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1990.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1990
(A.26) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1991.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1991
(A.27) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1992.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1992
(A.28) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1993.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1993
(A.29) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1994.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1994
(A.30) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1995.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1995
(A.31) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1996.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1996

(B.0) https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.505817/publication.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/statistics-open-data.html
(B.1) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/cic/MP43-333-1999-eng.pdf
Canada Immigration Facts And Figures 1998
(B.2) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/MP43-333-2000E.pdf
(B.3) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/cic/Ci1-8-10-2013-eng.pdf
Temporary Migration In Canada 2004-2013

(C.0) Parliament Report Index
http://archive.is/vwM6G
(C.1) 2004 Report to Canadian Parliament
2004.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.2) 2005 Report to Canadian Parliament
2005.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.3) 2006 Report to Canadian Parliament
2006.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.4) 2007 Report to Canadian Parliament
2007.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.5) 2008 Report to Canadian Parliament
2008.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.6) 2009 report to Canadian Parliament
2009.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.7) 2010 Report to Canadian Parliament
2010.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.8) 2011 Report to Canadian Parliament
2011.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.9) 2012 Report to Canadian Parliament
2012.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.10) 2013 Report to Canadian Parliament
2013.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.11) 2014 Report to Canadian Parliament
2014.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.12) 2015 Report to Canadian Parliament
2015.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.13) 2016 Report to Canadian Parliament
2016.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.14) 2017 Report to Canadian Parliament
2017.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.15) 2018 Report to CDN Parliament
2018.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.15.2) 2019-2021 Supplemental Report
http://archive.is/onyev
(C.16) 2019 Report to Canadian Parliament
2019.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.17) 2020 Report to Canadian Parliament
2020.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.18) 2021 Report to Canadian Parliament
2021.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament

Source Countries For “Temporary” Workers: 2004-2013

Below is some significant data on temporary foreign workers (TFW) from 1994 to 2013. (See archive). In fairness, the totals differ somewhat from the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. Perhaps, the methods of calculation weren’t the same.

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

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

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

There’s also the issue that “temporary” workers and students often don’t leave when their visas expire. Canada offers many pathways to extend their stays, and there is little in the way of enforcement.

Aside from all the official totals, there are 3 “temporary” programs that are worth mentioning. These lead to hundreds of thousands of foreigners entering Canada each year, and most with some option to extend. There are also pathways to permanent residence. These are:

  • Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP)
  • International Mobility Programme (IMP)
  • International Students

Let’s look at a decade worth of data, and see where the bulk of these people are coming from. Of course, this should be pretty obvious. This is on page 17.

Starting with the TFWP: it should be apparent from the data provided that the Philippines is consistently at the top of the TFWP.

2. Temporary Foreign Worker Program Source Countries: 2004-2013

Note: these figures are considerably less than the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. It’s unclear why, but perhaps this doesn’t encompass all portions. In any event, we can at least see where people are coming from.

TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS ADMITTED IN 2004
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Philippines 13,812 37.1 1
United States 4,423 11.9 2
India 2,714 7.3 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 2,636 7.1 4
Japan 1,125 3.0 5
France 1,095 2.9 6
South Africa 918 2.5 7
Australia 847 2.3 8
China 537 1.4 9
South Korea 513 1.4 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 28,620 76.0
TOTAL — OTHERS 8,602 24.0
GRAND TOTAL 37,222 100
TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS ADMITTED IN 2005
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Philippines 16,561 38.1 1
United States 4,721 10.9 2
India 3,560 8.2 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 3,179 7.3 4
France 1,233 2.8 5
Japan 1,042 2.4 6
South Africa 972 2.2 7
Australia 867 2.0 8
Germany 827 1.9 9
China 642 1.5 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 33,004 76.0
TOTAL — OTHERS 10,415 24.0
GRAND TOTAL 43,419 100
TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS ADMITTED IN 2006
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Philippines 21,362 39.5 1
United States 4,924 9.1 2
India 4,249 7.9 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 3,568 6.6 4
France 1,509 2.8 5
Germany 1,225 2.3 6
Japan 1,055 2.0 7
South Korea 1,020 1.9 8
Australia 984 1.8 9
Thailand 847 1.6 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 40,743 75.5
TOTAL — OTHERS 13,275 24.5
GRAND TOTAL 54,018 100
TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS ADMITTED IN 2007
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Philippines 32,451 41.4 1
India 6,250 8.0 2
United States 5,456 6.9 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 4,402 5.6 4
China 2,447 3.1 5
Mexico 2,337 3.0 6
France 1,928 2.5 7
Germany 1,905 2.4 8
South Korea 1,531 2.0 9
Australia 1,234 1.6 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 59,941 76.5
TOTAL — OTHERS 18,420 23.5
GRAND TOTAL 78,361 100
TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS ADMITTED IN 2008
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Philippines 46,816 42.3 1
India 8,333 7.5 2
United States 6,305 5.7 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 5,812 5.3 4
Mexico 4,819 4.4 5
South Korea 2,922 2.6 6
Germany 2,743 2.5 7
China 2,727 2.7 8
France 2,309 2.1 9
Japan 1,684 1.5 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 78,165 70.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 32,464 29.3
GRAND TOTAL 110,629 100
TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS ADMITTED IN 2009
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Philippines 51,019 45.3 1
India 8,287 7.4 2
United States 6,242 5.5 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 5,657 5.0 4
Mexico 4,467 4.0 5
South Korea 3,101 2.8 6
France 2,435 2.2 7
Germany 2,349 2.1 8
China 2,239 2.0 9
Japan 1,523 1.4 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 87,319 77.6
TOTAL — OTHERS 25,266 22.4
GRAND TOTAL 112,585 100
TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS ADMITTED IN 2010
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Philippines 44,401 50.8 1
India 7,338 8.0 2
United States 5,044 5.5 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 4,165 4.5 4
Mexico 2,747 3.0 5
France 2,409 2.6 6
South Korea 2,305 2.5 7
China 1,717 1.9 8
Guatemala 1,468 1.6 9
Germany 1,378 1.5 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 72,972 79.2
TOTAL — OTHERS 19,182 20.8
GRAND TOTAL 92,154 100
TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS ADMITTED IN 2011
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Philippines 36,984 45.3 1
India 5,728 7.0 2
United States 4,937 6.1 3
Mexico 4,019 4.9 4
United Kingdom, Colonies 3,749 4.6 5
France 2,664 3.3 6
South Korea 2,210 2.8 7
China 1,568 1.9 8
Guatemala 1,523 1.9 9
Jamaica 1,188 1.5 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 64,570 79.1
TOTAL — OTHERS 17,016 20.9
GRAND TOTAL 81,586 100
TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS ADMITTED IN 2012
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Philippines 36,501 42.1 1
India 6,520 7.5 2
United States 5,741 6.6 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 4,052 4.7 4
Mexico 2,983 3.4 5
France 2,924 3.4 6
South Korea 2,517 2.9 7
Guatemala 2,036 2.3 8
China 1,632 1.9 9
Thailand 1,403 1.6 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 66,039 76.2
TOTAL — OTHERS 20,671 23.8
GRAND TOTAL 86,710 100
TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS ADMITTED IN 2013
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Philippines 40,655 39.0 1
India 7,930 7.6 2
United States 5,861 5.6 3
United Kingdom 4,941 4.7 4
Mexico 4,226 4.1 5
South Korea 3,369 3.5 6
France 3,230 3.1 7
Guatemala 2,504 2.4 8
Jamaica 2,234 2.1 9
Ireland 2,078 2.0 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 77,028 74.0
TOTAL — OTHERS 27,132 26.0
GRAND TOTAL 104,160 100

Of course, this is just a snapshot from a decade, but it shows the patterns. It’s also worth noting that the TFWP has many pathways to extend visas, or to transition in permanent residents.

A quick look will show that Canada went from 37,000 or so visas in 2004, to issuing 104,000 in 2013. That has not gone on unnoticed.

3. Changes Made To Temporary Foreign Worker Program

This point had been made before, but is important to go over again. (See archive). In 2013/2014, the “Conservative” Government of Stephen Harper faced backlash for how many TFWs were coming into the Canada, and the effect of reducing wages.

Instead of making serious cuts — as was implied — the Government split up the program, and bumped up the number of people who could come under the International Mobility Programme. This had the effect of appearing (on paper) that significant reductions had occurred, but was really a sleight-of-hand.

The International Mobility Programme will be covered in greater detail later, but here is some background information on it.

And sure, there’s always the claim that immigration and temporary workers will grow the economy. Yes, but which economies? Perhaps many aren’t up to date on some of the statistics surrounding remittances sent abroad from Canada. Or sent globally.

A little self promotion: Borderless Canada is still available online. Learn about what’s been going on in this country. Virtually all major issues can be directly tied to immigration and border security, and it’s not racist or bigoted to discuss these hard truths.

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

(A.0) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/index.html
(A.1) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1966.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1966
(A.2) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1967.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1967
(A.3) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1968.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1968
(A.4) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1969.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1969
(A.5) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1970.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1970
(A.6) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1971.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1971
(A.7) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1972.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1972
(A.8) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1973.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1973
(A.9) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1974.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1974
(A.10) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1975.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1975
(A.11) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1976.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1976
(A.12) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1977.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1977
(A.13) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1978.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1978
(A.14) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1979.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1979
(A.15) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1980.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1980
(A.16) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1981.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1981
(A.17) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1982.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1982
(A.18) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1983.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1983
(A.19) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1984.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1984
(A.20) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1985.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1985
(A.21) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1986.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1986
(A.22) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1987.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1987
(A.23) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1988.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1988
(A.24) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1989.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1989
(A.25) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1990.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1990
(A.26) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1991.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1991
(A.27) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1992.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1992
(A.28) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1993.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1993
(A.29) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1994.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1994
(A.30) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1995.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1995
(A.31) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1996.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1996

(B.0) https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.505817/publication.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/statistics-open-data.html
(B.1) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/cic/MP43-333-1999-eng.pdf
Canada Immigration Facts And Figures 1998
(B.2) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/MP43-333-2000E.pdf
(B.3) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/cic/Ci1-8-10-2013-eng.pdf
Temporary Migration In Canada 2004-2013

(C.0) Parliament Report Index
http://archive.is/vwM6G
(C.1) 2004 Report to Canadian Parliament
2004.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.2) 2005 Report to Canadian Parliament
2005.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.3) 2006 Report to Canadian Parliament
2006.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.4) 2007 Report to Canadian Parliament
2007.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.5) 2008 Report to Canadian Parliament
2008.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.6) 2009 report to Canadian Parliament
2009.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.7) 2010 Report to Canadian Parliament
2010.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.8) 2011 Report to Canadian Parliament
2011.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.9) 2012 Report to Canadian Parliament
2012.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.10) 2013 Report to Canadian Parliament
2013.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.11) 2014 Report to Canadian Parliament
2014.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.12) 2015 Report to Canadian Parliament
2015.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.13) 2016 Report to Canadian Parliament
2016.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.14) 2017 Report to Canadian Parliament
2017.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.15) 2018 Report to CDN Parliament
2018.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.15.2) 2019-2021 Supplemental Report
http://archive.is/onyev
(C.16) 2019 Report to Canadian Parliament
2019.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.17) 2020 Report to Canadian Parliament
2020.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.18) 2021 Report to Canadian Parliament
2021.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament

Taking That Last Step To See Through The Lies….

Plenty of decent people across the world are fully aware that their freedoms have been crushed in a planned and deliberate manner since 2020. They see that these “conspiracy theories” of using a so-called pandemic to implement societal control turned out to be accurate. Kudos to them for that.

But, there’s one step many won’t take: admit there’s no virus.

(Credit for the artwork goes to Bill Huston. Go visit his channel). This confrontation with Andrew Kaufman and Judy Mikovits is very much worth the watch. The full video is available online and mirrored.

Why does this last step matter? Because it’s the pipeline to realizing how deep the pharma rabbit hole goes. If there’s no “Covid-19”, then it means all of the testing equipment is completely faulty and invalid. Moreover, all of the other “viruses” discovered over the years would be immediately suspect. If no viruses have ever been proven to exist, then virology — and germ theory itself — come crashing down. In order to preserve the medical industry, then this lie needs to be protected at all costs.

Why are theories of lab leak and/or bioweapon promoted? Because they attempt to explain the origins of this “virus”, rather than look into whether it’s even real.

How is a “case” defined, according to the World Health Organization? (See archive).

Notwithstanding how vague “suspected” and “probable” cases are, the definitions for so-called confirmed cases are equally dubious.

  1. A person with a positive Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT)
  2. A person with a positive SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-RDT AND meeting either the probable case definition or suspect criteria A OR B
  3. An asymptomatic person with a positive SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-RDT who is a contact of a probable or confirmed case.

NAAT testing doesn’t prove anything, which will be addressed later. Also, everyone, including the WHO, admits these tests aren’t reliable.

Not only is there the issue of no isolation, WHO recommends in its March 2020 (see page 3), and September 2020 (see page 8), guidance NOT to isolate for routine testing.

Perhaps WHO just doesn’t want proper testing done normally to save money?! Well, not really, their own paperwork (see archive) indicates that they view testing for just a gene to be sufficient.

If no virus has even been isolated or shown to exist, then what have doctors been prescribing over the years? Are they morons, or just being paid off?

Admittedly, it wasn’t really a topic addressed here for quite a while. However, the time has long come for hitting this home. And what is the definition of a “Covid death”? According to the World Health Organization, it is:

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

Unfortunately, this isn’t satire. The WHO actually provides this incredibly vague and meaningless definition. Only a complicit and deliberately obtuse media wouldn’t expose this. (See original), which has either been deleted or moved.

The BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC), admitted in April 2020 that these tests can’t actually determine active infection. (See original). Also, the 30% error rate is apparently just a commonly quoted statistic, not the result of real research.

There was an article in June 2020 (now deleted), where BCPHO Bonnie Henry warned against mass testing, as false positives could overburden hospitals. See archives here and here.

To repeat: considering that there is no virus isolation, and these tests aren’t designed for infection anyway, what exactly is being tested for?

  • Why is this virus pushed, despite lack of proof it exists?
  • Why have other viruses been pushed, despite lack of proof they exist?
  • Why does WHO recommend against isolation in regular testing?
  • Why does WHO see testing for a gene as sufficient?
  • Why is the definition of “Covid death” so convoluted?
  • Why does Bonnie Henry admit false positives could flood hospitals?
  • Why does the BCCDC admit these tests can’t determine infection?

These are just a few of the core problems.

There’s also all kinds of proof that this was planned in advance. And people should wonder about connections like the Rockefeller Foundation to the University of Toronto.

Of course, this isn’t to say that everyone who still believes in germ theory or viruses is a grifter or shill. Plenty of well meaning people are still caught up in that. They RIGHTLY recognize martial law being imposed, but can’t bring themselves to admit that it’s all been a lie.

Many accept that 90-95% of this is a lie, but can’t come to that last part.

That being said, there are still some basic questions that need answering.

Simply saying: “I oppose masks, vaccine passports and lockdowns” is a safe position to take. It doesn’t address the depth of the hoax.

And if you haven’t checked out the work from Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. This deadly “virus” hasn’t been isolated or proven to exist, anywhere in the world. Additionally, it doesn’t appear that any others have been either. There’s also a pretty interesting set of Google docs available from A Warrior Calls, worth checking out.

(1) https://www.bitchute.com/video/qm1z7PhGXnGe/
(2) https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Surveillance_Case_Definition-2020.2
(3) WHO-2019-nCoV-Surv_Case_Definition-2020.
(4) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
(5) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-Guidelines-Classification-Of-Death.pdf
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-COVID-19-laboratory-Testing-March-17-2020.pdf
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-2019-nCoV-laboratory-September-11-2020-Guidelines.pdf
(9) https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/protocol-v2-1.pdf
(10) Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR
(11) https://www.bitchute.com/video/iKXqxr8RgNQz/
(12) https://odysee.com/@CanuckLaw:8/Definitions-Matter:d
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BC-COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
(14) http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
(15) https://www.glaciermedia.ca/bc-news/bonnie-henry-warns-businesses-against-covid-testing-4682197
(16) https://archive.ph/U2k6g
(17) Wayback Machine
(18) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
(19) https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BZ7kHlWeg5pcvLMFvC-Hao8pIc4hiM-o
(20) https://www.youtube.com/c/BillHustonPodcast
(21) https://www.chancellorscircle.utoronto.ca/members/the-rockefeller-foundation/

U.S. Customs And Border Protection: Some Statistics On The Invasion

This piece focuses on the problem that is the United States border, particularly the side with Mexico. There have been many interests vested in not securing it. Consequently, people flood in illegally, since there’s little reason not to.

Why should Canadians care about this?

The answer is simple: it’s not just an American problem. Open borders threatens the sovereignty of nations in general. Not only that, many of those illegal aliens will surely be working their way to Canada, given the generous welfare benefits available.

Unfortunately, far too few Canadians, including many “conservatives”, fail to realize that open borders changes everything. The makeup of the country impacts everything: voting patterns; finance; culture; crime; and future immigration policies. And the mantra “just come legally” misses the bigger picture.

For an earlier piece on the estimated real scale of illegals in the U.S., north of 22 million. There was also this gem in 2018, suing for the right to illegally enter the U.S.

Now, let’s get into some of the data from the USCBP, or the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. The numbers are quite shocking indeed.

A note about “fiscal year”: Fiscal Year 2022 runs October 01, 2021 – September 30, 2022. All of the years seem to be done in this format.

“Recidivism” in the context of CBP refers to the percentage of people who are detained multiple times within the same fiscal year. It’s been approximately 25% the last few years, meaning 1/4 of people caught and forced to leave are caught again. There doesn’t seem to be much of a deterrent. As for drugs being brought in:

Month Marijuana Cocaine Heroin Meth Fentanyl Other
October 2021 376 220 0 290 73 3
November 2021 191 73 0 581 84 3
December 2021 127 102 66 559 26 4
January 2022 360 39 0 457 65 56
February 2022 785 90 2 268 12 27
March 2022 58 50 2 224 13 4
April 2022 259 186 14 479 174 19

Data from the 2022 fiscal year (thus far). The C.B.P. also provides recent statistics on the drug busts that have occurred from people trying to bring narcotics into the country. While it’s nice to have these seizures, it’s likely just a drop in the bucket as to what really goes on.

AGENCY INVOLVED FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22TD
Office of Field Operations Encounters 216,370 281,881 288,523 241,786 294,352 259,057
U.S. Border Patrol Total Encounters 310,531 404,142 859,501 405,036 1,662,167 1,219,920
Total Enforcement Actions 526,901 683,178 1,148,024 646,822 1,956,519 1,478,977

For “enforcement actions”, this refers to: individuals encountered at ports of entry who are seeking lawful admission into the United States but are determined to be inadmissible, individuals presenting themselves to seek humanitarian protection under our laws, and individuals who withdraw an application for admission and return to their countries of origin within a short timeframe. This is according to the CBP’s own definition.

In other words, it’s the number of people who show up LEGALLY to border ports of entry and then are turned away. It doesn’t cover the vast numbers who enter illegally between border ports.

CATEGORY FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22TD
Office Of Field Operations
Criminal Non-Citizens 10,596 11,623 12,705 7,009 6,567 9,101
NCIC Arrests 7,656 5,929 8,546 7,108 8,979 5,580
U.S. Border Patrol
Criminal Noncitizens Encountered 8,531 6,698 4,269 2,438 10,763 5,985
Criminal Noncitizens With Warrants 2,675 1,550 4,153 2,054 1,904 525

There have also been considerable amounts of arrests for people who either had criminal records, and/or outstanding warrants. This doesn’t include people who entered without being detected.

GANG ARRESTS FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22TD
18th Street 84 47 61 145 168 36 28 66
MS-13 335 253 228 413 464 72 113 149
Paisas 73 119 53 62 90 93 79 80
Other 352 283 194 188 254 162 128 98
Total 844 702 536 808 976 363 348 393

There have also been gang-related arrests of people attempting to enter the United States. Of course, not all are included, just a few which represent the larger numbers of arrests.

Concerning arrests of suspected terrorists (all nationalities), CBP provides some data of people detained at both the Southern and Northern borders.

TERRORISTS AT BORDER FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22TD
Southern Border 116 155 280 72 103 42
Northern Border 217 196 258 124 54 115
Total 333 351 538 196 157 157

How many encounters does the U.S. Government have overall? Thankfully, they do provide more data, and a lot of it is mind blowing.

Nationwide Encounters
.
Encounter data includes U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Title 8 Apprehensions, Office of Field Operations (OFO) Title 8 Inadmissibles, and Title 42 Expulsions for fiscal years (FY) 2020, 2021, and 2022. Data is available for the Northern Land Border, Southwest Land Border, and Nationwide (i.e., air, land, and sea modes of transportation) encounters.

FISCAL YEAR 2019 2020 2021 2022
October 60,781 45,139 71,929 164,849
November 62,469 42,643 72,113 174,849
December 70,694 40,565 73,994 179,254
January 58,317 36,585 78,414 154,816
February 76,545 36,687 101,099 165,900
March 103,731 34,460 173,277 221,144
April 109,415 17,106 178,795 234,088
May 114,116 23,237 180,597
June 104,311 33,049 189,034
July 81,777 40,929 213,593
August 62,707 50,014 209,840
TOTAL 904,863 400,414 1,542,685 1,141,054 (so far)

Once more, how many people are simply sneaking in undetected?

The data can further be broken down by the type of person/people coming:

  • Accompanied Minors (AM)
  • Individuals in a Family Unit (FMUA)
  • Single Adults
  • Unaccompanied Children (UC)

While there are clearly a lot of people who get stopped by the various departments, an awful lot don’t. They are let in through some pathway, or just sneak in.

It also doesn’t help that there are countless Sanctuary Cities and States, which do an end run around border security. If people know they can get social services without the risk of being deported, many more will come.

Again, this is not just an American issue. Many of the hordes flooding into the U.S. will eventually make their way North. Canadians should absolutely be worried about this.

A little self promotion: Borderless Canada is still available online. Learn about what’s been going on in this country. Virtually all major issues can be directly tied to immigration and border security, and it’s not racist or bigoted to discuss these hard truths.

Don’t worry, there will be much more included on this subject in the near future. This can’t be done justice by a single piece.

(1) https://www.cbp.gov/
(2) https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics
(3) https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters
(4) https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/true-scale-of-illegals-in-us-22-million-more-amnesty-coming/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-2-migrant-caravan-lawyers-sue-for-right-to-legally-invade-u-s/
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-10b-sanctuary-cities-an-end-run-around-having-borders/

Action4Canada Finally Has Hearing Over Application To Strike

May 31, 2022: Action4Canada finally had a hearing over its August 17, 2021 lawsuit against the B.C. Government, Canadian Government, and various other named and unnamed parties. The decision is reserved, and will be issued sometime in the future.

This session was based on multiple applications filed by Defendants to strike the pleadings as being frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, prolix, and otherwise an abuse of process.

Striking differs from dismissing in that the Court is not being asked to make a determination on the merits. Instead, the documents themselves are challenged. In this case, it was argued that the 391 page Statement of Claim was so convoluted and poorly written, that it was impossible to determine what the case was.

As painful as this is to admit, they’re not wrong about this.

Without completely rehashing the original assessment, here are the major parts of the civil procedure that are worth noting:

Rule 3-1 — Notice of Civil Claim
Notice of civil claim
(1) To start a proceeding under this Part, a person must file a notice of civil claim in Form 1.
.
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
.
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
(b) set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant;
(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;
(d) set out the proposed place of trial;
(e) if the plaintiff sues or a defendant is sued in a representative capacity, show in what capacity the plaintiff sues or the defendant is sued;
(f) provide the data collection information required in the appendix to the form;
(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7.

Rule 3-7 — Pleadings Generally
Content of Pleadings
.
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved
.
.
Documents and conversations
(2) The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.
.
When presumed facts need not be pleaded
(3) A party need not plead a fact if
(a) the fact is presumed by law to be true, or
(b) the burden of disproving the fact lies on the other party.

This isn’t hard. Broadly speaking, a lawsuit must do 3 things:
[1] Briefly set out the facts as alleged
[2] Set out what remedies are being sought
[3] Briefly list what important laws will be relied on

Instead of following these simple rules, a 391 page mess was dropped on the Courts last year. Even someone researching for the last 2 years would have considerable difficulty following along.

Rule 9-5 — Striking Pleadings
.
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
.
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,
.
and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs.

In short, the Defendants alleged that the Plaintiffs failed to meet even the basic requirements of a pleading, as laid out in Rules 3-1 and 3-7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for B.C. The remedy sought was to strike the case, as outlined in Rule 9-5.

There is considerable vindication for the previous critique of this lawsuit, for what it’s worth. One doesn’t have to be lawyer to see how plain and obvious the defects are.

Yes, there was a considerable amount of truth in the Statement of Claim. However, it was such an incomprehensible mess that it would be next to impossible to sift through. While a bitter pill to swallow, the various Defendants had valid reasons to try to strike it. That’s what any sensible person would have done in that position.

At the hearing, the Government lawyers essentially argued the points in the Notices of Application, outlining why this Claim was so poorly written.

The issues with the Claim:

  • It is 391 pages long
  • It has over 1300 paragraphs and subparagraphs
  • It seeks over 200 declarations
  • Its rambling and disjointed nature makes it difficult to follow along
  • It’s impossible to separate fact from speculation or conjecture
  • It contains mostly irrelevant or redundant material
  • It goes on at length about non-parties
  • It seeks criminal remedies (improper for a civil case)
  • It seeks the kind of international relief a B.C. Judge can’t provide
  • Its tone comes across as unhinged and ranting

The Claim contains many footnotes from various media sources, which is improper to include in a lawsuit. While the content is interesting, that alone could lead to the Claim being struck.

The Governments also argued that the case was brought for improper purposes, such as causing harassment to various Officials. As proof, they introduced the Notices of Liability that had been downloaded from the Action4Canada website.

It was confirmed that Action4Canada had raised in excess of $750,000 for this case. It was pointed out that despite this amount of money, there was no activity besides the convoluted Statement of Claim.

Action4Canada accepts no responsibility or liability for any harms or losses that occur as result of delivering this notice. If you do not agree to these terms then please do not use this notice. We do not make any representations or warranties about the potential consequences of delivering this Notice of Exemption/Non-Consent (eg. removal of child from a private school). A parent/legal guardian must decide what is in the best interest of their child.

It’s darkly amusing that there is a portion on the website that explicitly states Action4Canada assumes no responsibility or liability for using their forms.

The Responding Parties (Plaintiffs) essentially had one main argument: a case shouldn’t be thrown out just because it’s complicated or difficult. People reading this article should see the Claim itself, and come to their own conclusions.

The Plaintiff’s arguments for the Application (overall) actually weren’t that bad. However, considering how shoddily the Claim was written, there’s likely no saving it.

The Application was supposed to have been heard on February 3rd, 2022, but an alleged illness from the Plaintiff’s lawyer pushed that back until April 5th. That was again delayed for medical reasons. Interestingly, it was admitted that the only reason it was heard on May 31st was that the Defendants’ lawyers refused to consent to further extensions of time. Perhaps they thought a 4 month delay was long enough.

It’s still unclear why co-counsel Lawrence Wong couldn’t have taken the case. He is a B.C. lawyer with 35 years experience, and was called to the Bar in 1987.

One has to wonder what’s even the point at this stage. Even on the remote chance this suit were successful, what good comes from it? It’s been 2 years, and some 90% or so of the country has taken the shots (for a non-existent virus). Was the goal to run out the clock?

Do the Plaintiffs not know that they will be on the hook for very substantial Court costs once this case is thrown out?

It was interesting that the B.C. Government referenced the recent defamation case of Kulvinder Gill. This was a $12.75 million lawsuit filed in late 2020. It was found to be completely baseless, and dismissed as a SLAPP, or a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Side note on that case: despite the suit being thrown out as having no merit, a Notice of Appeal was filed. However, it seems that the Appeal Books themselves never arrived. On May 12, 2022, the Registrar’s Office issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay. The new deadline was May 31. The Respondents/Defendants say they still received nothing, so, presumably that Appeal is over as well. It’s alleged that getting the original SLAPP decision cost over $1.3 million, or about $55,000 for each Defendant. If this is true, Gill and Lamba will have to dig deep.

As for the Vaccine Choice Canada suit from July 6th, 2020, that’s going nowhere as well. It’s been left to sit for 2 years, and can be dismissed for delay at any time. No Default Judgement was ever sought. This is in addition to many other serious defects. The Police On Guard and schools cases could probably also be dismissed for delay, as they’ve each sat dormant for over a year.

The B.C. Court has reserved the decision (deferred it), and this is pretty typical. It’s unknown when the ruling will be handed down for Action4Canada, and the other Plaintiffs.

Prediction: the Action4Canada case will be struck in its entirety, without leave (permission) to amend. We can expect appeals after that, though it would be far more productive to have just done a proper Claim from the beginning.

It’s disheartening to have to cover content like this. That said, far too few people do any due diligence before handing over money. And many don’t seem to care even when the facts are laid bare.

It’s curious that none of the “freedom lawyers” will call out the nonsense that others put out, no matter how poorly written. What, is there some gentlemen’s agreement in place?

Of course, the requests for donations are still ongoing, which isn’t surprising. Despite the fact that this case is supposedly 100% funded, Action4Canada continues to ask for money. And when the Claim is struck, there will probably be more requests for help to finance appeals.

COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view

OTHER
(11) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_00
(12) https://canucklaw.ca/action4canada-statement-of-claim-fatally-defective-will-never-make-it-to-trial/
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/delay-prevents-action4canada-case-from-being-immediately-thrown-out/
(14) https://canucklaw.ca/action4canada-case-to-be-put-off-indefinitely/
(15) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Notice-of-Appeal-and-Appellants-Certificate-Gill.pdf
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Gill-and-Lamba-Appeal-Notice-of-Intention-to-Dismiss-Appeal-for-Delay.pdf
(18) https://action4canada.com/covid-liability-notices/
(19) https://action4canada.com/court-update-may-31-2022/
(20) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-choice-canada-lawsuit-fatally-defective-will-never-make-it-to-trial/

%d bloggers like this: