Restrict Enrollment of International Students to 15% per Institution and Province in Canada

The funding structure of Canadian universities and colleges is a critical aspect of the education system, with a significant portion derived from public funds contributed by both federal and provincial taxpayers. In the 2021/2022 academic year, a substantial sum of $22 billion was allocated from provinces, the federal government, and various grants, constituting 52.7% of the institutions' overall funding. This financial support serves as a backbone for the educational opportunities provided to Canadian students, facilitating their access to high-quality tertiary education.

However, a notable distinction exists in the allocation of these funds, as they are designated exclusively for Canadian students and not extended to international students. This stance aligns with the belief that taxpayer-funded resources should predominantly benefit citizens of the country. The argument for such exclusivity is grounded in the idea that Canadian universities and colleges, supported by taxpayers and donors, should prioritize the education of their citizens.

In light of these considerations, I propose to restrict and cap the enrollment of international students to a maximum of 15 percent, both at the provincial level and for individual institutions, which emerges as a logical extension of the principle of fairness and equity. By implementing such limitations, the intention is to ensure that the primary beneficiaries of tax-funded and donation-supported higher education institutions are Canadian citizens. This approach seeks to strike a balance between the educational needs of domestic and international students while upholding the responsibility of public institutions to serve the interests of their citizens.

Proponents of this viewpoint and I would argue that while international students contribute positively to the cultural diversity and economic growth of the country, the core mission of publicly funded institutions should remain focused on providing accessible and high-quality education to Canadian residents. The proposed enrollment cap aims to safeguard the integrity of the educational system, fostering a balanced and inclusive environment that serves the interests of both the local population and international students.

Further, it is essential to acknowledge that discussions around enrollment caps for international students involve complex considerations, including economic impacts, cultural exchange benefits, and the potential for global collaboration. Striking the right balance between inclusivity and prioritizing domestic interests requires careful deliberation and a nuanced approach to ensure the continued success and sustainability of Canada's higher education system.

FACTS: There are currently 807,750 international students across all study levels who have study permits in Canada. Of the total 807,750 study permit holders, 551,405 received a study permit in 2022 in Canada. From 2000 until 2021, the number of study permit holders has significantly increased by more than 400%.

At present, there are 2,194,087 students enrolled in universities and colleges across all provinces in Canada in total. Therefore, using this actual figure of students then here are the following percentages and numbers to consider for international students:

10% = 219,408, 15% = 329,113, 20% = 438,818 and 25% would equal and allow 548,522 international students out of the total existing number of 2,194,087.

Comparing the number of international students between Canada and the USA reveals a trend where Canadian citizens may be overlooked in favour of international students paying higher tuition fees. This raises concerns about our children being left behind in terms of post-secondary education placements within our taxpayer-funded universities and colleges.

In the USA, there are 16.2 million enrollments in universities and colleges, with 1,057,188 international students, constituting 6.5% of the total enrollment.

In Canada, there are 2,194,087 enrollments in universities and colleges, with 807,750 international students. This represents 36.8%, which seems disproportionately high considering our population and the available enrollment spaces for Canadian citizen students. It raises questions about the impact on opportunities for our citizens.

Source:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230803/dq230803a-eng.htm

https://www.statista.com/statistics/447802/enrollment-of-postsecondary-students-in-canada-by-province/

https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics#:~:text=Preliminary%20data%20indicate%20that%20total,%25%20%26%20decline%20from%20Fall%202020.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/international-students-us/2023/11/13/international-enrollment-rockets-past-pre-pandemic#:~:text=American%20institutions%20hosted%201%2C057%2C188%20international,of%20growth%20in%2040%20years.

 

Biggest Threat to Democracy is From Corporations

Today in the USA and Canada the biggest threat to liberty is primarily from companies, not governments. 

Further, the political party and governments who say that the other party or government is “a threat to democracy” in reality it is they who are doing it. When governments, political parties and companies together control information and projections, then there is no transparency accountability for the citizenry to hold corporations, the media politicians’ governments, or political parties accountable for their actions. 

Without diverse sources of information as we are witnessing happening throughout the education system and media corporations there is no such thing as a free press rather a biased press.

We all realize that views on threats to liberty can vary depending on individual perspectives and ideologies. For the past few years, some individuals and experts expressed concerns about the growing power and influence of large technology companies. These concerns often revolved around issues such as:

Data Privacy: Companies, especially in the tech sector, collect vast amounts of personal data. The misuse or mishandling of this data can lead to privacy violations, potentially infringing on individuals' liberties.

Surveillance and Monitoring: The capabilities of technology for surveillance and monitoring raised concerns about the potential abuse of power by both private and government entities. This could impact citizens' privacy and civil liberties.

Monopoly Power: The dominance of certain companies in key sectors could limit competition, leading to less choice for consumers and potentially enabling these companies to exert undue influence on various aspects of society.

Content Moderation and Censorship: Social media platforms and other online services faced scrutiny for their content moderation policies. The power to control and moderate information could be seen as a threat to freedom of speech and expression.

Algorithmic Bias: Concerns were raised about the potential bias in algorithms used by companies, especially in areas like hiring, lending, and law enforcement. This could lead to discriminatory outcomes and impact individuals' rights.

While these concerns were prominent, it's important to note that government actions, policies, and regulations also play a significant role in shaping the landscape of liberty. The interplay between governments and private entities is complex, and threats to liberty often involve a combination of factors from both sectors.

A common phenomenon in politics is known as "projection" or "political projection." Projection occurs when one party or government accuses its opponents of engaging in behaviours or practices that they themselves are involved in. This can be a strategic or rhetorical tactic aimed at deflecting attention from one's own shortcomings or creating a narrative that undermines the credibility of political rivals.

In political discourse, accusations of hypocrisy and projection are not uncommon. Political actors engage in such tactics to shape public opinion, distract from their own controversies, or gain a perceived advantage in the competition for power and influence.

It's essential for citizens to critically evaluate political statements, fact-check claims, and be aware of the possibility of projection in political discourse. Understanding the motivations behind accusations can help individuals make more informed decisions about the credibility of political actors and the issues at hand. Additionally, a healthy democracy relies on transparency, accountability, and an engaged citizenry to hold political leaders accountable for their actions.

Another critical concern relates to the concentration of power and the potential erosion of democratic principles. When a small number of entities, including governments, political parties, and large corporations, control information and shape narratives, it can lead to a lack of transparency and accountability. This concentration of power may have several implications:

Limited Access to Information: If a few entities control the flow of information, citizens may have limited access to diverse perspectives and critical information. This can hinder their ability to make informed decisions about political matters.

Manipulation of Public Opinion: Controlling information allows those in power to shape public opinion in their favour. This can involve the strategic use of propaganda, selective reporting, or even misinformation, making it challenging for citizens to discern the truth.

Reduced Accountability: When there is limited transparency, it becomes more difficult for citizens to hold governments, political parties, and corporations accountable for their actions. Lack of accountability can lead to abuses of power and corruption.

Threats to Democracy: Centralized control over information and narratives can undermine the foundations of a democratic society, where informed citizens are essential for the functioning of a representative government.

To address these challenges, citizens must play a vital role by actively seeking out information from various perspectives, supporting independent journalism, and participating in civic activities that promote accountability and transparency in governance. The digital age while bringing new opportunities for information dissemination, it also requires thoughtful consideration of the sources and reliability of information in the online space.

Also, the issue of media bias is a complex and multifaceted one. Media bias is manifested in various forms, including political, ideological, and cultural biases. While it is challenging to eliminate all biases from reporting, a commitment to journalistic ethics and a diversity of perspectives must be legislated to assist in mitigating the impacts of bias.

Here are some considerations related to media bias and the importance of diverse sources of information:

Diverse Media Outlets: Encouraging a diversity of media outlets with different ownership structures, editorial perspectives, and political leanings can provide citizens with a range of viewpoints. This diversity allows individuals to access a more comprehensive understanding of issues.

Media Literacy: Promoting media literacy is essential in helping individuals critically evaluate the information they consume. People must analyze news sources, fact-check information, and recognize different forms of bias which then empowers them to be more discerning consumers of news.

Editorial Independence: Journalistic outlets must maintain editorial independence from external influences, whether political, commercial, or ideological if we are to be provided with objective and balanced reporting.

Transparency in Reporting: Media organizations must be transparent about their editorial processes, disclose any potential conflicts of interest, and provide clear distinctions between news reporting and opinion pieces. This transparency fosters trust between the media and the public.

Support for Independent Journalism: Independent and investigative journalism plays a crucial role in holding those in power accountable. Supporting independent media outlets and investigative journalism initiatives can contribute to a more robust and pluralistic information landscape.

Citizens need to be proactive in seeking out information from various sources, being aware of potential biases, and engaging with news critically. Additionally, advocating for policies that support media diversity and independence can be part of efforts to address concerns related to media bias.

Further, the political party and governments who say that the other party or government is doing something well in reality it's they who are doing it. When governments, political parties and companies together control information and projections, then there is no transparency accountability for the citizenry to hold corporations, the media politicians’ governments, or political parties accountable for their actions. Without diverse sources of information as we are witnessing happening throughout the education system there is no such thing as a free press rather a biased press.

The above expresses several interconnected concerns related to liberty, governance, and the role of various entities in shaping information and narratives.

Here is a breakdown of the key elements:

1. Threat to Liberty from Companies, Not Governments:
• For the past few years now, companies have posed a significant threat to liberty compared to governments. The focus may be on issues such as data privacy violations, censoring of free speech, corporate power, and potential abuses by large technology or other influential companies.
2. Accusations and Projection in Politics:
• For the past few years, there has been a common political strategy where parties or governments accuse their rivals of certain actions or behaviours, deflecting attention from their own involvement in similar activities. This can create confusion and undermine public trust in the political process.
3. Control of Information and Projections:
• The joint control of information by governments, political parties, and companies is a major concern. When these entities collaborate to shape narratives and control the flow of information, it leads to a lack of transparency and accountability. This has already involved practices of censorship, propaganda, or selective disclosure.
4. Impact on Citizen Accountability:
• Presently information and projections are controlled by a few entities, and now citizens face challenges in holding corporations, media, politicians, and governments accountable for their actions. Limited access to unbiased information has hindered the ability of the citizenry to make informed decisions and participate effectively in a democratic process.
5. Lack of Diverse Sources in the Education System:
• The education system is lacking diverse sources of information and now there is a biased perspective that has been perpetuated within educational curricula. This lack of diversity greatly limits students' exposure to a variety of viewpoints and hinders their ability to develop critical thinking skills.
6. No Such Thing as a Free Press, Only a Biased Press:
• Today there are very few diverse sources of information, and therefore there is no true concept of a free press. As media outlets have shown themselves to be inherently biased, either due to their alignment with particular ideologies or one-sided interests.

In summary, the concerns raised here highlight the potential threats to liberty and democracy when information is controlled by a concentrated group of entities, and when accusations and projections are used strategically in politics. The call for diverse sources of information and an unbiased education system underscores the importance of a pluralistic and informed society in preserving democratic values.

Time to Amalgamate GTHA Transit Authorities and Systems.

In the face of a persistent transportation crisis in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), it is evident that the current fragmented and politically influenced transit system is unable to meet the growing demands of our communities. This proposal advocates for the amalgamation of all GTHA public transit authorities into a robust Regional Transit Authority, aiming to establish a streamlined, efficient, and impartial approach to transit planning, funding, and operations.

Current Challenges:

Metrolinx, as a Provincial agency, faces inherent biases in its funding decisions, which are exclusively determined by the Province. Over the past four decades, various political parties and career politicians across all levels of government have failed to effectively manage and fund our transportation infrastructure. The absence of GTHA city Mayors on Metrolinx's Board further hampers the agency's ability to coordinate regional transit needs adequately.

Proposal for Amalgamation:

The proposed GTHA Regional Transit Authority would bring together the operations and systems of GO, TTC, Halton, Peel, York, Durham, and HSR into a unified and strategically managed entity. This amalgamation would facilitate a cohesive and integrated approach to addressing the region's diverse transit challenges.

Representative Board Structure:

The Regional Transit Authority's Board of Directors must include elected representatives from various levels of government to ensure balanced decision-making. This includes two representatives each from the Province and the Federal government, as well as Mayors from key cities like Mississauga and Toronto. Additionally, elected representatives from Halton, Peel, York, Durham, and the Mayor of Hamilton would contribute to comprehensive regional oversight.

Leadership Qualifications:

The CEO and COO leading the Regional Transit Authority should possess professional qualifications in transportation gained from both private and public transportation systems globally. This ensures a leadership team with the expertise required to navigate the complexities of regional transit planning and operations.

Dedicated Funding through Corporate Levy:

To secure lasting financial commitment for public transit, a dedicated 1% or 2% transit levy on corporations is proposed. This funding stream, backed by legislation from both provincial and federal governments, will exclusively finance transit initiatives, ensuring a stable and reliable source of funds to address the region's transit needs.

Conclusion:

Amalgamating GTHA's transit authorities into a Regional Transit Authority with a representative and expert leadership structure, coupled with a dedicated corporate levy, will empower our transit system to evolve and meet the challenges of the future. It is time for a transformative approach that prioritizes seamless regional integration, efficient operations, and sustainable funding to build a transit system that truly serves the people of the GTHA, in my view.

Child Prostitution and 'Slavery' Crisis at the US Border

In 2018, over half (51.6%) of the criminal human trafficking cases active in the U.S. were sex trafficking cases involving only children.

In the U.S., child trafficking is aggravated by four main factors: the porous southern border, predatory social media use, pornography, and broken families

The Biden administration must follow our existing laws and seal our porous southern border. Much more must be done, but that is a critical first step.

The facts are frightening:

• On average, a child enters the U.S. sex trade at 12 to 14 years old. Many are runaway girls who were sexually abused as children.
• Most of the time, victims are trafficked by someone they know, such as a friend, family member, or romantic partner.
• Predators can rent a child for a single sex act for an average of $90. Often, that child is forced to have sex 20 times per day, six days a week.
• Trafficking usually occurs in hotels, motels, online websites, and at truck stops in the U.S.
• About 50,000 people, primarily from Mexico and the Philippines, are trafficked into the U.S. annually.
• According to the Federal Human Trafficking Report, “In 2018, over half (51.6%) of the criminal human trafficking cases active in the U.S. were sex trafficking cases involving only children.”
• Traffickers use social media platforms to recruit and advertise victims of human trafficking, according to anti-trafficking advocates.

The USA Southern Border

The crisis at the southern border is directly linked to an increase in child trafficking in the United States. In April, a whistleblower told Congress’ House Judiciary Committee that the “United States federal government has become the ‘middleman’ in a multibillion-dollar human trafficking operation targeting unaccompanied minors at the southern border.”

In May, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered an average of 435 unaccompanied minors per day. One study suggests that drug cartels and traffickers will exploit 60% of these children in prostitution, forced labour, and child pornography. To make matters worse, in June alone, the Biden administration released 344 kids to non-related adults in the U.S.—most of whom already had multiple children in their care. These children are prime targets for traffickers—for sex or labour.

Notably, half of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “most wanted” criminals for child trafficking are from Mexico.

https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/border-crisis-cbp-fights-child-exploitation

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6345280433112

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/us-top-destination-child-sex-trafficking-and-its-happening-your

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-10-worst-things-biden-did-in-2021/

Public Protests and Civil Disobedience

Masked protesters during demonstrations must be outlawed, labelled as shirkers, idlers, attempted wreckers of democracy and considered as a possible terrorist action under the criminal code.

The issue of masked protesters during demonstrations raises significant concerns, necessitating a thoughtful approach that balances public safety with the right to peaceful assembly. Acts of violence and disruption by individuals within student unions have become a growing concern in the USA, Canada, and Europe.

Instances of masked hooliganism, where protesters storm intersections, bridges, airports, or other public and private properties, are indeed unlawful and criminal. It is crucial to address these actions as acts of violence against the community, residents, students, and public or private property.

While acknowledging the right to express dissent, it is equally important to differentiate between peaceful demonstrators and those engaging in criminal behaviour. Acts of domestic terror, involving violence to coerce or intimidate for political or social objectives, must be treated as serious criminal offences, and prosecuted accordingly.

Gangs of masked political activists and hooligan student union protesters storming and disrupting, intersections, bridges, airports or other public or private property and university classes are an unlawful and criminal act of violence against the community, residents, students and public or private property.

In the USA, Canada and across Europe these increasing acts of lawlessness by delinquent juveniles and socially harmful elements with the student union membership have been dangerously increasing and continue unabated by politicians, law enforcement and the courts within the justice system.

These increasing acts of attempted domestic terror by masked criminal perpetrators from within student unions by professional protesters, hooligans, vicious fascists, and other socially harmful elements within the student body across Canada must no longer be condoned by our politicians and appointed judges.

Such lawlessness must not continue to be referred to by today’s socialistic mainstream media as mischievous pranks, a hoax, or amusing acts by likable scoundrel scamps.

This anti-social behaviour by such undesirable elements within or outside of the membership of the student unions must be labelled for what they realistically represent.

Acts of Domestic Terror using violence against persons or property to coerce or intimidate the student body, the government and or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.

They are villainous enemies of student unions and hostilely dangerous habitual offenders who must be considered and labelled as social outlaws, shirkers, idlers and disruptive wreckers of democracy.

Policymakers, law enforcement, and the justice system need to address these concerns promptly. Rather than condoning such behaviour, there must be a concerted effort to label these actions accurately. This includes refraining from dismissing them as mere pranks or amusing acts.

Individuals engaging in disruptive and violent actions within, or outside student unions must be recognized for the potential harm they pose to democratic principles. Designating them as civic terrorists, social outlaws, shirkers, idlers, and disruptive elements emphasizes the seriousness of their actions and encourages appropriate legal responses.

There must be no place or excuse for not addressing, prosecuting, or condemning actions that pose a threat to public safety and democratic values.

The Current Rent Geared to Income System Perpetuates Poverty

Lack of Uniformity Across the Province:

The disparity in maximum income limits per household, as stipulated by the HSA (Housing Services Act) for eligibility, creates an unjust scenario across different regions. This lack of consistency results in unequal rights for residents. For instance, an individual on the RGI waiting list in Toronto who relocates to Kingston faces substantially lower maximum income limits per household. Consequently, the eligibility of the person diminishes upon moving, leading to inequality across the province. This discrepancy potentially constitutes a violation of constitutional principles under the Canadian Constitution Charter, demanding a reassessment of the current system.

Challenges Faced by Couples in RGI Mixed-Income Communities:

Couples residing in RGI mixed-income communities encounter precarious situations, especially in the unfortunate event of the death of one partner. In buildings that combine both market rent and RGI units, surviving spouses may grapple with untenable financial burdens. For instance, if one spouse passes away, the surviving partner may face exorbitant market rent prices, despite having no immediate medical or pressing issues. Existing city policies place them in a situation where they are no longer financially equipped to maintain their current living arrangement in the market rent unit due to a reduction in income following the death of a partner.

Proposed Solutions:

To address these critical issues, we implore the Province under the HSA to establish a uniform eligibility criterion across the province. Additionally, swift and decisive steps are needed to safeguard the rights and well-being of residents, particularly surviving spouses. We propose that the Province institute policies and procedures facilitating the immediate transition of surviving spouses from market rent units to available RGI units within the same building based on income eligibility. This compassionate and practical solution aims to prevent further upheaval in their lives during an already challenging time. For example: In 2022, the Official Poverty Line for a single person is estimated to be approximately $27,343, with the deep income poverty threshold set at $20,508. For a couple, the poverty income is calculated as $54,686, and the deep income poverty for couples is $41,014. Notably, in Kingson, the allowable income for a one-bedroom unit is restricted to $36,000, whereas in Toronto, it is $58,500 for a one-bedroom unit for a couple.

Call to Action:

It is imperative to protect and support those who have contributed to our community. Therefore, we urge the swift implementation of these changes to demonstrate our commitment to the well-being of residents and reinforce the sense of unity and compassion that defines our community. Acting promptly will ensure that vulnerable surviving spouses are not left in financial distress and can continue to call our community their home as opposed to the present system of having a surviving spouse put on the waiting list for 5 to 10 years for an RGI unit.

The proposed reforms will contribute to a more equitable and compassionate RGI system across the Province for all municipalities and Cities.

PS Today, across Ontario there are more than 200,000 thousand on the RGI waiting list province-wide and most likely far more.

The House Passed the Secure the Border Act of 2023

The Secure the Border Act of 2023 is a comprehensive bill that encompasses various changes to immigration law and border security measures. 

Divided into different sections, the bill primarily focuses on enhancing border security, reforming asylum processes, preventing uncontrolled migration flows, addressing issues related to children and families at the border, implementing visa overstay penalties, and establishing a strict framework for employment eligibility verification. 

The bill aims to strengthen border security, reform asylum processes, address migration challenges, protect families and children at the border, impose penalties for visa violations, and implement stringent measures for employment eligibility verification across all industries. 

These measures seek to create a more controlled and regulated immigration system while reinforcing the security of the United States' borders. 

Yet, Chuck Schumer, a Democratic Party Member, is an American politician serving as Senate Majority Leader since 2021 and the senior United States senator from New York since 1999, will not allow this legislation to be voted on in the Senate, WHY?

Key provisions of the bill include: 

Division A: Border Security Resumption and Expansion of border wall construction: Mandates the construction of a border wall along at least 900 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border and requires waivers of certain legal requirements for expeditious construction. 

Investment in border security technology: Requires a strategic technology plan, upgrades to surveillance programs, communication devices for officers, and eradicating plant growth impeding border security operations. 

Division B: Immigration Enforcement and Foreign Affairs 

Title I: Asylum Reform and Border Protection Toughened asylum eligibility criteria: Limits asylum eligibility, imposes stricter standards for credible fear of persecution, and restricts asylum applications for those who travel through third countries. 

Title II: Border Safety and Migrant Protection Expanding expedited removal: Widens the category of non-U.S. nationals subject to expedited removal and mandates detention for certain individuals awaiting asylum consideration. 

Title III: Preventing Uncontrolled Migration Flows in the Western Hemisphere Negotiating agreements with Western Hemisphere countries: Requires the State Department to negotiate agreements on asylum seekers and immigration issues. 

Title IV: Ensuring United Families at the Border Detention policies: Establishes rules regarding the detention of alien children for immigration purposes and limits state licensing requirements for immigration detention facilities. 

Title V: Protection of Children Handling unaccompanied alien children: Modifies procedures for handling unaccompanied alien children, tightens requirements for Special Immigrant Juvenile visas, and establishes deadlines for handling cases. 

Title VI: Visa Overstays Penalties Penalties for overstaying visas: Increases civil and criminal penalties for visa overstays and unlawful entry into the U.S. 

Title VII: Immigration Parole Reform Limitations on parole authority: Restricts DHS authority to grant parole for humanitarian reasons or public benefit, limiting such grants to specific cases. 

Title VIII: Legal Workforce Employment eligibility verification: Mandates the use of an electronic employment eligibility verification system by all employers, imposes penalties for non-compliance, and preempts state laws on employment verification. 

 Other Significant Points Nullification of certain Department of Labor rules related to H-2A visas. Establishment of pilot programs for different technologies for employment eligibility verification.