Officials in Canada’s immigration department are using their resources to not only track Canadian sentiments on immigration, but also reactions from Americans, not only to Canada’s immigration policies, but in some cases to American stories.
Documents obtained by True North under Access to Information laws reveal the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada communications office was specifically tracking the American media’s response, as well as things posted to social media by Americans, to issues at the Canada-United States border.
The office was also monitoring American reaction to President Donald Trump’s infamous “sh*thole countries” remark, as well as the American government’s decision to discontinue temporary protected status for 9,000 Nepali immigrants living in the United States.
Multiple Canadian Jewish groups have expressed outrage and disappointment in the wake of Canada’s support for an anti-Israel resolution at the United Nations.
On Wednesday, Canada voted in favour of a resolution on “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,” sponsored by countries such as North Korea and Zimbabwe.
In addition, the resolution calls Israel the “occupiers” of Palestinian territory and calls for their immediate withdrawal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Similarly-worded resolutions come to a vote at the UN annually, but for the first time in over a decade, Canada has voted in favour of one.
Jewish groups in Canada were quick to express their disappointment.
“This vote reflects poorly on Canada’s record as a defender of democracy and justice,” said B’nai Brith CEO Michael Mostyn.
“It stains Canada’s reputation.”
Hillel Neuer of UN Watch suggested that this change of policy was Canada’s attempt to win over anti-Israel nations in Asia and Africa. Canada is currently campaigning for a seat on the UN Security Council and would require the support of anti-Israel countries to get elected.
Experts have suggested Canada has little chance of getting elected to the Security Council regardless of their vote on this resolution.
Avi Benlolo, CEO of Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, said Canada “is losing the moral high ground by voting against its democratic ally, Israel, alongside countries with poor human rights records like North Korea.”
Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne told the media before the vote that Canada stands by its decision to support the motion condemning the middle-eastern democracy.
“I think people in the Jewish community in Canada and across the world see Canada as an ally, but there are times when we must express our opinion and our position as we did yesterday at the UN,” said Champagne about the decision.
We remain angry and deeply disappointed that #Canada voted against #Israel – Canada's democratic ally – again today at the #UNGA, reaffirming its earlier vote on Nov. 19th in the 3rd Committee. https://t.co/BHrqLZjwBr
Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), which attempted to convince the Trudeau government to change its mind before the vote, said the Prime Minister told them that Canada will not be reversing its decision anytime soon.
“Trudeau said that Canada’s vote on this resolution will not change back because Canada seeks to underscore its commitment to a two-state solution,” said CIJA CEO Shimon Fogel.
Fogel hopes that the government will attempt to reaffirm Canada’s support for Israel in the future.
Justin Trudeau has instructed his new Heritage Minister, Steven Guilbeault, to “create new regulations for social media platforms” and to force social media companies to remove “hate speech within 24 hours or face significant penalties.”
But Trudeau fails to define exactly what he means by “hate speech.” How will they determine who to ban on social media? Without a definition, this new law has the potential for political abuse.
True North’s Anthony Furey says if the government goes forward with this, they need to 100% clear with Canadians.
Did you know we’re a charity? When you donate to True North, you’ll get a generous tax receipt! Donate today: http://www.tnc.news/donate/
The Mexican Ambassador to Canada has warned Canada against reinstating visa requirements for travellers from Mexico. According to Ambassador Gomez Camcho, reinstating the requirements would make tourists feel unwelcome in Canada.
“Not because Mexicans will not be able to meet requirements for a visa. It’s that they will not feel welcome anymore,” said Camcho.
As reported on by True North, refugee claims by Mexicans skyrocketed after Justin Trudeau lifted visa requirements. Since 2016, when the visa was dropped, there has been a 1,400% increase in Mexican asylum claimants.
In 2018, a total of 2,455 claims were made for asylum status by Mexican nationals.
A visa requirement was introduced by the Harper government in 2009 in an effort to curb an influx of illegitimate refugee claims. Shortly after Trudeau was elected, the Liberal government stopped the practice of requiring Mexican citizens to acquire a visa before entering Canada.
As it stands, Mexicans wishing to enter Canada are only required to obtain an Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA). The ETA’s only take several minutes to complete and cost $7 CAD.
When considering the move, government officials were warning the Liberals that the decision would come with a number of severe risks including an increase in human and drug trafficking, organized crime and an increase in illegitimate refugee claims.
Since the change was implemented, the Canadian Border Services Agency has reported an 80% increase in drug seizures along Canada’s border with the U.S. and a 500% increase in inadmissibility.
Earlier this year it was reported by TVA Nouvelle that approximately 400 Mexican cartel members, including drug traffickers and hitmen managed to enter Canada using fake passports.
Canadian authorities have struggled to keep track of these individuals and many have gone off the radar and are roaming free throughout the country.
The move to remove visas is expected to cost Canadian taxpayers $433.5 million over the next 10 years in spending associated with law enforcement due to the fraudulent asylum claims.
According to official figures, Mexico and India were the top two source destinations for refugee claimants in Canada.
Last week, the Parole Board of Canada granted a five hour temporary escorted absence to Tooba Yahya, the native Afghanistan woman convicted of participating in the murder of her three daughters and her husband’s first wife in 2012.
This heinous crime was described in the court and the media at the time as “honour killings.” There was evidence introduced that their father Mohammad Shafia, and son Hamed were angry that the girls – Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13 – were becoming too “westernized.”
The three were all convicted of four counts of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. One could argue whether that was satisfactory for four murders, but that’s a different question.
The more appropriate question is if someone sentenced to life in prison just seven years ago be able to get a day pass?
The other important question in all of this relates to the concept of honour killings, anathema to the vast majority of Canadians and to Canadian values.
The Parole Board seemed to think that there was little chance of Yahya reoffending because she had already, with her husband, killed all her daughters. I suppose that’s true to a point, but it totally misses the point of one of the primary principles of sentencing in Canadian justice, that of deterrence to the community.
When a judge pronounces sentence on a convicted criminal, they are supposed to consider three things; the punishment of the person convicted, the pubic interest and, perhaps more importantly, especially in the case of honour killings, is deterrence.
Our courts need to send the message to newcomers that whatever may have been acceptable in the societies they came from, Canadian values are such that honour killings are not acceptable in Canada and anyone who commits such an act should be treated in the most severe manner available to the court.
This is deterrence to others in the community who might otherwise think what was okay in Islamabad or Kabul would be okay in Toronto. It is not.
And, at the end of the day, this is the problem with unimpeded immigration from third world nations.
As Canadians, we have certain values that considers the worth of all human life. We believe that misogyny has no place in our society let alone the patriarchy mentality that says a father can decide whether a child lives or dies.
Anyone who comes to this country needs to understand this and, in my opinion, agree with it if we are to let them into this country.
If this is unacceptable, then don’t come here.
Our society has been developing for over 150 years, more if you consider the years before Confederation. Our morals and values have developed and anyone who wants to come here should do so eyes wide open.
We welcome folks from all cultures around the world and our society is better for it. But, there are aspects of other societies that are not conducive to Canada and honour killing is chief among them.
The colonial origins of some street and building names in Canada are receiving increased public scrutiny, and discussions are being had about whether some historical figures with views we don’t approve of today should still be memorialized in monuments or statues.
Here are the five most contentious cases of monuments being removed and places being renamed in 2019.
1. Statue of Justice Matthew Begbie removed
On July 7th, a bronze statue of BC’s first chief justice, Matthew Begbie, was removed from its stand outside the Law Courts in New Westminster, BC.
Justice Begbie is sometimes referred to as “The Hanging Judge.”
In a conflict known as the 1864 Chilcotin War, an English and American road-building crew entered Tsilhqot’in (Chilcotin) territory without permission. Because the Tsilhqot’in didn’t want their land conquered, and allegedly were concerned about the threat of smallpox and men assaulting their women, they killed 21 English workers.
Afterwards, five Tsilhqot’in chiefs were invited to “peace talks” by the government, but they had been tricked: instead, they were arrested, tried, and hanged.
Begbie was conflicted about the decision to hang the five chiefs: he admitted the Tsilhqot’in had been “injudiciously treated” and was appalled at how the men had been tricked into arrest.
Begbie’s statue was removed on the premise that it was a “symbol of the colonial era,” and taking it down is necessary as a step towards reconciliation with indigenous people. Local First Nations groups reportedly cheered as the statue was lifted away. However, in his time, Begbie was popular amongst First Nations chiefs. He spoke two indigenous languages, opposed efforts to displace First Nations from their land, and forced legislation that ensured First Nations women would receive their share of the estates of their English partners.
In October, New Westminster city council unanimously approved a motion to rename Begbie Square and Begbie Street to Chief Ahan Square and Chief Ahan Street, after a chief that was hanged under Justice Begbie’s orders.
2. Historical “Cecil Rhodes School” plaque removed in Vancouver, BC
L’École Bilingue in Vancouver, BC was called Cecil Rhodes School until 1977, and a plaque made of tile with the previous moniker sat at the back of the school basketball courts for years.
However, in June, Vancouver school trustees voted to remove the plaque, on the basis that Cecil Rhodes was an exploitative 19th-century British imperialist and “notorious racist” that set the stage for apartheid in South Africa.
Because they didn’t remove the monument earlier, the school board must present a plan for reconciliation with the BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of colour) community.
3. Part of Peter Robertson Boulevard renamed to Guru Nanak Way in Brampton, ON
In October, Brampton City Council voted to rename part of Peter Robertson Boulevard “Guru Nanak Way” after the founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanak, just in time to celebrate the Guru’s 550th birthday.
One of the councillors who introduced the motion, Gurpreet Dhillon, stated “Brampton is home to one of the largest Sikh populations in the world, and have [sic] contributed greatly to the social, economic, political, and cultural fabric of our great city.”
However, not everyone celebrated the decision. Peter Robertson, former mayor of Brampton from 1991-2000 and namesake of Peter Robertson Boulevard, was against the decision to rename part of the street after the founder of Sikhism. “It’s problematic and dangerous; you might be upsetting quite a few people by naming streets after religious figures,” he said.
4. Amherst Street in Montreal becomes Ateteken Street
Montreal’s Amherst Street became Atateken Street after city council approved a name change in August.
Lord Jeffery Amherst was a British general that led the capture of Montreal in 1760. There is also evidence he suggested that the British intentionally infect indigenous tribes with smallpox by sending them smallpox-infected blankets.
After the French surrender of Canada, local indigenous groups were angered by Amherst’s new policies that discontinued the French practice of providing supplies to indigenous groups in exchange for their friendship and assistance, which led to a rebellion that the British wished to suppress. In letters dating back to 1763, Amherst and Colonel Henry Bouquet exchanged words about using smallpox-infected blankets to “innoculate the Indians” during what was known as the Pontiac rebellion.
In 2017, then-mayor of Montreal Denis Coderre said celebrating Amherst, “someone who wanted to exterminate Indigenous peoples,” wasn’t conducive to reconciliation, and announced the street’s name would be changed.
The street’s new name, Atateken, means “brotherhood” in the Mohawk language.
5. Monument of Samuel de Champlain faces a delayed return to Orillia, ON
In 2015, Parks Canada temporarily removed a monument of explorer Samuel de Champlain in Orillia, ON for restoration and reconditioning, but started to receive complaints of its “racist” and “hurtful” depictions of First Nations groups. The government then decided to hold off from returning it to its foundation.
On the original monument, Champlain was surrounded by four indigenous characters: two looking up at a Jesuit priest as they sit at his feet, and two others sitting at the feet of a fur trader.
According to the City of Orillia, the design of the statue represented “Champlain’s role in bringing Christianity and Commerce to New France.”
A plaque fixed to the monument stated it was “erected to commemorate the advent into Ontario of the white race” under Champlain’s leadership.
A working group congregated between October 2018 and June 2019 to study what they should do about the monument. Ultimately, they recommended the monument return but only featuring the figure of Champlain, without the four indigenous depictions. Another recommendation from the report was to develop “additional interpretive signage/pieces…with the participation of First Nations representatives to tell a historically accurate story of Samuel de Champlain and his relationship with First Nations.”
SaskEnergy bills acquired by True North show a Canadian grain retailer in Saskatchewan was charged $10,267.71 in federal carbon taxes for a $46,382.23 energy bill.
The unnamed company is involved in trading various grains including corn, canola and wheat throughout Canada and has operations in various provinces.
The documents were obtained from an employee of the company who wished to remain anonymous. The individual told True North that he wasn’t trying to be political and only wished to shed light on the exorbitant sum and pointing out how the money could go to paying employee salaries instead.
Saskatchewan has a federally imposed carbon tax after refusing to implement its own carbon pricing scheme. Along with Alberta and Ontario, Saskatchewan is involved in a Supreme Court constitutional challenge of the tax.
Recently, the federal government announced that it will be reducing the number of rebates Saskatchewan residents would receive on their tax returns. Saskatchewan was hardest hit by the reduction, while Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario also saw reductions.
Recent documents obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter show that the Liberal government misled Canadians when they said they would not raise the carbon tax past its $50 a tonne cap in 2022. According to internal memos from the Department of the Environment, the federal government was considering an increase of the carbon tax as far back as February 2017.
Documents from the Department of Employment also project that the government could see a revenue of $5.7 billion from the carbon tax by 2023.
While the former Minister of Environment Catherine McKenna publicly denied that the Liberals would be hiking the carbon tax to exceed $50 a tonne, documents obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter reveals that the Department of Environment was planning an increase as far back as February 2017.
“The overall price will be reviewed in 2022 to ensure that it is effective and to confirm future price increases,” stated Briefing Material For Canada’s Climate Change Envoy.
The document mentioned a potential carbon tax increase more than once and confirmed that the government didn’t believe that the current rate of the carbon tax was sufficient in reaching its emission targets.
“The overall approach to pricing carbon pollution will be reviewed by 2022 to ensure that it is effective and to confirm the path forward, including future price increases. The review will consider potential competitiveness impacts and will account for actions by other countries,” claimed the note.
Documents from the Department of Employment placed the projected revenue from the carbon tax to be $5.7 billion by the 2022-2023 period.
Although bureaucrats were already aware that the carbon tax would be reviewed and potentially increased, McKenna was telling the public that there were no plans to increase the carbon tax.
“The price will not go up. The plan is not to increase the price post-2022. We are doing exactly what we said we’d do,” McKenna told the public on June 13, 2019.
Recently, current Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson revealed that the government intends on reviewing the $50 cap in 2022 in light of new reports detailing that Canada would have to raise the tax to $210 a tonne by 2030 to reach emission targets.
When introducing the tax, the Liberal government also ensured Canadians that the tax would be “revenue neutral” for the government in the form of tax rebates. However, earlier this month it was revealed that the Liberals were reducing the rebate for Canadians in provinces that are fighting the federal carbon tax.
Justin Trudeau’s government is slashing carbon tax rebates in provinces pushing back against the federal carbon tax. The new environment minister is also not ruling out an increase to the carbon tax, just two months after the federal election.
Trudeau’s mandate letter to Minister Jonathan Wilkinson says the new minister should be “strengthening existing and introducing new greenhouse gas reducing measures,” citing Canada’s 2030 Paris accord targets and a 2050 goal of net-zero emissions.
This comes just a couple weeks after a key player from Canada’s Eco-Fiscal Commission said Canada needs to quadruple its carbon tax to meet these targets.
A firearms rights group has challenged an organization of gun control advocates to a public debate, promising to donate $10,000 to charity if the latter accepts.
The Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR) issued a public challenge Thursday to Dr. Najma Ahmed of Doctors for Protection from Guns, asking that she join CCFR Executive Director Rod Giltaca for a debate on gun control in March.
CCFR says the debate is to “politely and maturely discuss the most important questions concerning the relationship between private firearm ownership and public safety in Canada.”
If Ahmed agrees to the debate, CCFR will donate $5,000 to Big Brothers and Sisters of Toronto and an additional $5,000 to a charity Dr. Ahmed and Giltaca will decide on together.
The leading question of the debate would be “Is there evidence to support further regulation of firearms in Canada?”
So far, Doctors for Protection from Guns has not responded to the challenge. The organization did not respond to a request for comment from True North.
Doctors for Protection from Guns is an advocacy group that supports increased gun control and research into the root causes of gun violence.
In February, Ahmed, on behalf of Doctors for Protection from Guns, testified before a senate committee on Bill C-71, a bill imposing on law-abiding gun owners extra background checks and record-keeping. Ahmed’s testimony advocated for increased gun control.
That same month, Ahmed received multiple formal complaints accusing her of unfairly using her position as a doctor for political advocacy. She says that the complaints started after the CCFR wrote an article critical of her.
Ahmed would later tell CBC that the article was an attempt to intimidate her.
CCFR claims to have offered this debate to encourage polite dialogue.
“For the donations to be awarded, both parties must act in a respectable and polite manner throughout the event and participate in the conversation in its entirety. Political talk will be kept to a minimum so the conversation can remain productive and on topic,” the organization said.
