April, 2004 (#163)

Don’t Let The Door Hit You!
In an overly generous assessment, the National Post (Feb 25, 2004) editorialized: “Elinor Caplan’s career in the House of Commons has been marked by mediocrity and controversy.  Her decision to not seek re-election in her riding of Thornhill, Ont., announced this week, comes as a thoroughly welcome surprise.  What we’ll remember most about Ms. Caplan is the new low she set for political discourse when she labelled Canadian Alliance supporters ‘Holocaust deniers, prominent bigots and racists’ during the 2000 election campaign.  It was a hateful and ludicrously ignorant comment.  Yet, Ms. Caplan refused to renounce it or apologize. 

The following year, the then-immigration minister responded to 9/11 by lashing out against anyone looking to beef up border security.  In her first public comments after the attack, she falsely declared our immigration laws to be ‘amongst the toughest in the world when it comes to inadmissibility for criminality and terrorism’ and denounced anyone looking to overhaul them as engaging in ‘anti-immigrant, anti-everybody’ rhetoric.  Ms. Caplan symbolizes an undesirable breed in Canadian politics — the shrill, reality-blind partisan with an unhealthy affection for knee-jerk leftism.  Whoever takes her place in Thornhill won’t have a tough act to follow.”  Don’t be too sure: Caplan’s intolerant rant was a really big hit with her  constituents.  Thornhill voters (35% Jewish, 15% Chinese) returned her to office by an even wider margin than she enjoyed in 1997.  

Whatever Happened To .. ?
If you thought Hedy Fry was permanently relegated to the back benches, think again.  The Martin government quietly installed her as (ahem!) Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with a Special Emphasis on Foreign Credentials.  There are already dark mutterings around Ottawa that the scandalous $43-billion in EI surpluses is simply tailor-made for immigrant upgrading, retraining and credential equalization programmes “to break down systemic barriers faced by newcomers.”  Anything, evidently, rather than give back one red cent to taxpayers compelled to pay into the shakedown.  This sinecure at Immigration is a nice fit for someone who has never troubled to hide her dislike of Canadians; while they may not actually be burning crosses, Fry seemed to really believe they were. 

As a panellist on a Cross Country Checkup episode taped in Vancouver during the Chinese smuggling ship crisis, Fry immediately evoked the St. Louis.  As if the criminal movement of sweated labour were the same thing.  When an audience member timidly suggested “there’s a reaction to more and more people coming into the area.  And it’s a legitimate reaction, because there’s an awful lot of — of crowding that’s going on in this place,” Fry snapped: “This, this idea that we don’t have enough room in here is ridiculous.  I would also like to add one thing.  I wonder how the aboriginal people, when they saw the boatloads of colonialists coming into their country, I wonder if they had a tough immigration and refugee policy in those days?  They didn’t have a choice, did they?”  … Do we? 

Family Circus
Imagine an idea bad beyond what connoisseurs of cynicism might reasonably expect of Elinor Caplan.  Now imagine that when even Caplan rejects the idea as dangerously intemperate, NDP MP Libby Davies resuscitates it as Bill C-436.  Briefly, it is an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sponsorship of relatives clause), to allow each citizen or permanent resident in Canada to sponsor one foreign national who is a relative but is not a member of the family class one time during their life.  (And, of course, we must forfeit Eurocentric notions about what constitutes a “relative”)  At the inaugural news conference, Ms. Davies (squired by ex-BC Human Rights Commission head, Mary-Woo Sims) explained that C-436 was necessary, “because the current definitions are so narrow and restrictive that it becomes very difficult to undertake family reunification under the present policies.” 

In fact, our definition is the most magnanimous in the world: “You can sponsor relatives or family members from abroad if they are: spouses, common-law or conjugal partners 16 years of age or older; parents and grandparents; dependent children, including adopted children; children under 18 years of age whom you intend to adopt; children under guardianship; brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces or grandchildren who are orphans; under the age of 18 and not married or in a common-law relationship; or you may also sponsor one relative of any age if you do not have an aunt, uncle or family member from the list above whom you could sponsor or who is already a Canadian citizen, Indian or permanent resident.”  (Immigration Canada, Family Class Immigration) 

In addition, Ottawa recognizes and allows non-citizens to sponsor partners in same sex relationships.  Over a single three-year period (1998-2001), family class admissions leapt from 50,882 to 66,713.  At the same time, Ottawa slashed sponsorship terms from ten years to three.  In 1996, Ontario pegged annual costs at around $160-million a year to support welfare recipients whose sponsors had defaulted.  And family class immigrants remain the only category in which welfare reliance actually increases with length of residence in Canada.  The Immigration Department itself admits that about 10% of all sponsors renege, which means actual numbers are undoubtedly higher.  So, why is Ottawa still enamoured of the old hag?  Because the gains (like gratitude votes) are federal,  while the pains (like the $300-million Toronto spent on ESL in 1998) blow back on provinces and municipalities. 

The immigration system remains hopelessly backlogged, but Ottawa can still ratchet up the numbers and do it on the cheap: independent class immigrants demand at least some pretence of scrutiny, but when it comes to family reunification, Ottawa invests anywhere from 25% to 50% fewer resources per case.  Permissive atmosphere notwithstanding, note that 82% of the IRB’s total immigration appeal workload last year was still due to “Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose applications to sponsor close family members to Canada have been refused.”  (IRB Performance Report 2003)  The old trick of “paper families” turns on an applicant exaggerating family size at the first immigration interview and later selling off “slots” to the highest bidder. 

Allowing absolutely everyone to bring in absolutely anyone will not only sweep away what few controls remain, but set up unstoppable new networks of chain migration. We can only wonder what the going price for these “slots” might be.  While Canada still has an infrastructure, you might just want to share your thoughts on Bill C-436 with Immigration Minister Judy Sgro. 

Educate Me
According to Sun Media data from the 2000 election, average household income in the province of Ontario was $52,225.  However, that average soared to $79,182 in the immigrant-heavy riding of Markham.  It is easy to see how Ottawa would seize on this as evidence that immigrants outperform unloved Canadians.  Up until Cecilia Zhang, that is.  The country would learn that the search for the missing girl was hugely complicated by the fact that anywhere from 6 to 8 other adults were living in the household at any given time.  In other words, 10 adults earning less than $8,000 can still kick household income into a pretty impressive bracket. 

And Canadians lose again: By common consent, a homogenous country agreed that school taxes should be levied, not against parents, but households.  How fair is that if some households are pouring 6 or 7 unrelated kids into the system?  “The rise of multiple-family households in Toronto’s expanding suburbs has surprised planners and is forcing school boards to find room for unexpected numbers of children. 

The boards are building schools in record numbers but it still isn’t enough to keep up.  ‘We have times where, in particular communities, instead of one or two kids per house, it’s six or seven because you have multiple families living in that home,’ said Brian Woodland, spokesman for the Peel Region District Schoolboard.  … Each September, yearly elementary enrolment increases by 2,500 students in York and 4,500 in Peel.  … The York and Peel Regional boards opened more schools this year than ever before.  York opened 10 elementary schools and Peel nine.  … Still, children in some areas are being bussed to nearby communities — sometimes to as many as four different schools — waiting for their neighbourhood schools to be built.  [Markham’s Cedarwood Public School principal, Sherly Hoshizaki, acknowledges:] ‘The parent community might be upset at times because they feel it’s not the best conditions for their children, … but the areas that are difficult to plan for are areas where you have multi-family housing.’  … Sandy Ransom, a long-time Mississauga school trustee who retired in September, said the board has seen the trend for three to four years, particularly in [the almost wholly immigrant settled] Churchill Meadows in the city’s northwest corner.  ‘What’s happening with a lot of these new large homes, we’re finding that two or three families are moving in. 

So, the old projections are not applicable any longer,’ she said.  … School boards go through a lengthy planning process, consulting with municipalities to track housing development and studying enrolment trends over five year periods.  But the multiple-family trend has surprised planners.”  (National Post, January 26, 2004)  It’s impossible to see how boards could “plan” for a steady stream of an unknowable number of immigrants and refugees bringing with them an unknowable number of offspring year in and year out.  Given the high percentage of those children who will require intensive language and upgrading programmes, it seems especially unjust when multi-families make multi-economies at a single accommodation address.

Gateway To Gracious Plantation Living
“Multiculturalism made perfect sense in the old British Empire.  A remarkably small number of British soldiers and administrators established themselves at the top of a social pyramid on [the Indian] subcontinent seething with several hundred million souls, belonging to an extraordinary variety of races, colours and creeds.  The British notoriously, but instinctively, shuffled the interests of one group against another, while reshuffling themselves constantly back to the top.  … When you put yourself above everything, as the management of multiculturalism requires, you lose all your own religious sense of involvement. 

This is because all the spiritual questions that normally animate at least some part of a human soul must be externalized.  At most, you ‘referee’ between groups, and your own ‘objectivity’ is assured by your freedom from commitment to a religion, or a culture, or to anything except yourself.  … ‘Multiculturalism’ remains a viable policy only as long as no one calls the bluff.  But in the meantime, the policy keeps a growing disorder superficially in order.  … The principle is: ‘We rule, and They — the lesser breeds without the law — may get on with their little lives and breedings.  We will intervene in their internal affairs only when they do something inconvenient to us, such as mutiny.’  … The British found all the variety of India ready-provided; whereas they had found Canada nearly empty when they arrived here. 

Outside of Quebec, a distinctive British North American society was shaped and formed, into which new arrivals were assimilated.  Only later did they — or now, we — turn what has been indelicately called an ‘immigration hose’ on the product of our labours.  Our Liberal Party discovered that by importing various exotic immigrant groups, and discouraging them from assimilating, they could create dependants — deep pools from which to harvest Liberal votes.  The formula, once again, is: ‘We rule, and They –‘ can do pretty much anything they want, so long as it is compatible with ‘We rule.’  Master wouldn’t dream of intervening unless something is done that might undermine his place at the top, in which case all this cultural relativism goes quickly through a window.”  (National Post, December 8, 2003) 

Lowering Our Sights, Again
It is a stock expectation among immigrationists that even if the first generation proves a total wash-out, their offspring will in due course, seamlessly and brilliantly replace the host population.  While that sounds a lot like scoring on your own goal, new U.S. figures indicate that even these dubious ambitions are fading fast: as they embark on working life, second-generation Hispanics (that is, the U.S.-born children of immigrants) are meeting with a singular lack of success. 

Analyzing Bureau of Labour Statistics data, the Pew research organization found: “Between the end of 2000 and 2002, the number of unemployed 25- to 34-year-old, second-generation Latinos more than doubled.  … There were about 10 million second-generation Hispanics in America in 2000 [a huge population, given that] unemployment rates for the second generation rose to 10 percent at the end of 2002 — higher than the rate for both immigrants and for third-generation Hispanics, which were at 7.2 and 6.6 percent, respectively.”  (Chicago Tribune, December 26, 2003)  Naturally, there is a ready alibi for this lacklustre performance among decently-educated, English-speaking candidates: second-generation Hispanics have been deprived of old-boy networking.

Throw Away Your Crutches And Walk
A new StatsCan study kicks both crutches out from under immigration armpits.  Recent immigrant performance shows that the first crutch, Immigrants Do Better Than Canadians, is a holdover from much earlier, largely European, cohorts: “post-war immigrants to Canada, many of whom arrived from Europe with little money and few prospects, are now wealthier than people born in this country.  … The median wealth of immigrant families that arrived before 1976 was $87,000 — higher than that of Canadian-born families of similar ages, the researchers found.  Yet the median wealth of immigrant families that came to this country between 1986 and 1999 was $46,000 — lower than that of comparable Canadian-born families.  … Roderic Beaujot, a professor of sociology at the University of Western Ontario who studies immigration trends … said there are a number of differences in the immigration waves before 1976 and post-1980s. 

The early wave involved a lot of people from Europe, North America and Australia, whereas more recent immigrants have come from Asia or Latin America.”  (National Post, November 19, 2003)  How does the other crutch, We Need Immigrants To Restore Our Pension System, hold up under the weight of new evidence?  “According to the well-known life-cycle hypothesis, individuals accumulate wealth during their working age and consume this wealth upon retirement.  Those who retire with a large amount of wealth will be less likely to rely on government transfers for their retirement consumption.  If immigrants are unable to save enough for retirement, high immigrant intake will have negative effects for public retirement funds.”  (The Wealth Position of Immigrant Families in Canada, Statistics Canada, November 2003) 

Not content to merely raid pensions, the Ottawa brain trust hopes relentless Third World immigration will postpone an even more horrible fiscal crunch — hopefully after the last productive (and childless) Canadian has shuffled off this immoral coil.  We may have been bullied and bludgeoned into wilful blindness about “origins,” but this data does suggest that human beings are far from neatly interchangeable worker/consumer units.  At the very least, most persons admitted here in the 1950s and 60s came from First World communities and, barring the cataclysm of world war, were generally accustomed to better than Canada could offer.  The labour market has revolutionized, but what matter that when family reunification is the mainstay of the immigration debacle?  Post-war arrivals were made to jump through hoops to satisfy immigration officers they were healthy specimens unlikely to become public charges. 

The government’s part ended with landing; it was for the motivated individual to sort out his own language upgrading and professional accreditation problems.  Immigration to this country was perceived as a gift and an opportunity, not some form of everlasting debt Canadians themselves must somehow seek to discharge.  And if the object is to import a permanent impoverished underclass, CIC is going about it with rare efficiency.  McGill University economics professor William Watson says: “Here’s the most interesting thing I’ve read this year: Half the increase in income inequality between 1990 and 1995 was due to immigration.  [Using] data from the 1991 and 1996 censuses … income inequality in Canada increased by 5.9% between 1990 and 1995.  But when [researchers] recalculated the index leaving out the 2.7% of the population who were recent immigrants, inequality only went up half as much.”  (National Post, November 6, 2003)  Does that mean the rest of us are working twice as hard for half as much, or does it just feel that way?

Pulling The Wool Over Your Own Eyes
Possibly inspired by We’re here, we’re queer — get used to it, “about 150 Toronto Muslims … chanting ‘Whatever we wear, however we pray, human rights are here to stay’ … yesterday protested the French government’s plan to ban religious headgear from its schools.  … The protest coincided with rallies staged around the world.  … The [10,000] Paris protesters chanted as they waved the French flag or wore it as a head scarf, ‘The veil is my choice.’  … In Ottawa, more than 150 people marched on the French Embassy and 50 came out in Montreal.  … In London, 2,400 people demonstrated near the French Embassy.  About 2,000 marched in Stockholm.  In the Mideast, the largest turnout was in Beirut — 2,500 people marched.”  (Toronto Sun, January 18, 2004) 

If France’s initial proposal was prompted by the fear that fundamentalist networks might organize on a massive transnational scale, responding with simulcast global protests has to stand as a singularly mutton-headed strategy.  With their fears so graphically confirmed, it’s little wonder the French National Assembly voted (494-36) on Feb 10 to uphold the ban on ostentatious religious accoutrements in public schools.  The proscription comes into effect this September.  France supports about 5-million Moslems; the largest population in Western Europe.


Albanians Foiled In Bid To Escape Canada
Thanks to U.S. authorities, “an Albanian couple was found in a train boxcar after a 15-hour ride from the Canadian border to western Michigan.  The couple had apparently planned to cross from Windsor into Detroit, where they would exit the boxcar.  However, they apparently were trapped inside until the train stopped in the town of Holland, police Capt. Rick Walters said.  The 20-year-old woman and 34-year-old man were discovered Saturday, after a nearby resident reported hearing screams coming from one of the boxcars, the Holland Sentinel reported in a story yesterday. 

When police arrived, they located the boxcar and pried it open.  Walters said the woman spoke English and told police they had entered the country illegally with false documents.  In Windsor, they met up with a person who told them he could get them to Detroit by smuggling them across the border on a train.  Their plan was to get off the train after a five-minute ride and then travel to New York City where they had relatives, Walters said.  But either the train didn’t stop or they failed to open the door, he said.  U.S. Border Patrol agents came from Detroit to take custody of the Albanians, whose names weren’t immediately released.”  (Toronto Sun, March 24, 2004)

Koreans Foiled In Bid To Escape Canada
“Eleven people are in custody after an attempt to smuggle a group of Korean nationals on foot from Canada into the U.S. was foiled by authorities at the Coutts-Sweetgrass border Sunday night.  ‘It appears that approximately 10 of those people were in the process of being smuggled.  They were headed by foot into the U.S.,’ said Sgt. Ted Burbridge, in charge of the RCMP Immigration and Passport office in Calgary.  [Once again, they were caught thanks to U.S. officials]  At about 10 p.m., U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency officials detained a suspicious-looking man on the U.S. side of the border. 

A subsequent investigation led them to a second man on the Canadian side, and they were questioned.  ‘The others were found in a hotel on the Canadian side,’ said Burbridge.  ‘Their comprehension of English is negligible.  They all held Republic of Korea passports.’  … Human trafficking has been identified as a growing problem in Vancouver.  It has been reported that South Koreans, predominantly women, caught trying to enter the U.S. via Vancouver in the past year have paid $6,000 to $10,000 US [naturally]  Korean nationals are able to enter Vancouver without visas.  Once in Canada, they place ads in Korean-language newspapers in an attempt to connect with smugglers.  Smugglers have reacted to tightened border security by moving into B.C.’s Interior in search of remote, weak border links. 

Last December in Calgary, Anthony Lee, a cleaner by trade, turned himself in to police after being wanted on Canada-wide warrants for prostitution-related charges, including living off the avails of prostitution and keeping a common bawdy house.  Lee also faces charges of conspiracy to commit an indictable offence.  Police claim Lee, the alleged mastermind behind a human smuggling ring, offered to help two undercover officers buy women from Thailand who would work as prostitutes in Calgary massage parlours with falsified massage practitioner credentials obtained in B.C.  Raids on massage parlours last November resulted in more than 50 charges against 28 people.  Female employees arrested during the raids came from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam.”  (Calgary Herald, February 24, 2004)

What About Our “Feelings?”
Most people associate their church with a particular wedding or funeral; the congregation of Victoria Square United Church will forever link their place of worship with three bodies dumped in the parking lot.  Had the killers especially counted on church-going Christians to leave the grisly vehicle alone?  It brings a whole new dimension to the word cynical: “Forensic experts gingerly removed the bodies yesterday of two women and a man [Zhu Xia Lin, 41, Yan Jun Liu, 35, and Xiao Chen Zhang, 40] found murdered Sunday in the rear of an SUV in a church parking lot.  York Region homicide detectives believe the three were slain in the Mirage massage parlour … then put in the rear of the Ford Explorer and covered with blankets.  … The vehicle, believed to be owned by the dead man, was abandoned in the rear parking lot of the Victoria Square United Church.  … Despite service on Sunday morning, none of the parishioners realized the horror hidden behind tinted windows in sub-zero temperatures as they walked by the properly parked SUV before and after services.  It wasn’t until someone looked in about 4 p.m. and saw one victim, a partially nude woman, in the cargo area that police were called.  The dead are the third, fourth and fifth murders for the region to date, compared to zero at the same time last year.  … Det.-Sgt. Bill Sadler … said the slayings had nothing to do with the church: ‘It just happened to be a convenient spot for whoever was responsible for dropping the (SUV) off.’  … Victoria Square residents Maureen and Dick Fisher said they’ve never seen anything like the dumping of three bodies in their village, but … said it appeared somebody knew the area well enough to drive the SUV to the church and park it where it wouldn’t attract attention.”  (Toronto Sun, February 10, 2004)  Doesn’t it just?  Around the Mirage Spa, almost every street houses a massage parlour.  A single Richmond Hill plaza boasts six. 

Canada, A Place To Grow
“The great Canadian dream is to own one’s own home after years of hard work to pay the mortgage.  I want to tell Canadians what is really going on so I will use just one example of many.  Phu Son came to Canada in 1994.  He was 38 years old and had no money when he arrived.  He has been on welfare from the time he arrived 10 years ago.  He recently got busted for drug dealing.  Now I find he owns three homes, not one but three: one in Abbotsford, another in Aldergrove, and yet another in Langley, British Columbia.  How does a person come to Canada and stay on welfare for 10 years?  How does a person living exclusively on welfare come to own three houses?”  (Randy White, Langley-Abbotsford, CPC, Hansard, February 16, 2004) 

From across the floor, the larcenous Liberals inexplicably met this with cries of “Shame!”  Next day Mr. White was back on his feet: “When I asked the Revenue Minister how this atrocity could happen, what I got from the Revenue Minister was laughter, telling me that it was a joke.  I just do not get the attitude in this place.  The Revenue Minister thought that it was a joke.  While hardworking Canadians are spending their lives paying for mortgages, a guy is given welfare for nine years and is allowed to keep three houses that were obviously obtained illegally.”  (Hansard, Feb. 17, 2004)  Several days later, Mr. White had more disturbing details: “It may seem a little surprising, but there is one particular trust company in the country that has funded many grow ops.  … Individuals are putting their applications forward, typically using a certain type of job, a very low paying job, and the applications just get whisked through a particular trust company and approved.  … Now we have finance companies funding grow ops because it is lucrative and the cash is there.”  (Randy White, Hansard, February 25, 2004) 

St. Paddy’s Day Toronto, Not What It Was
A TTC bus driver was assaulted by two passengers so viciously that he had to be hospitalized.  “An argument erupted with a passenger trying to pay a student fare.  The driver pulled over and asked the passenger to get off the bus.  A second passenger came out of the crowd and hit the driver in the head.  Both assailants dragged the driver down onto the sidewalk and beat him.  It wasn’t until a motorist stopped to help that the assailants fled.  Police are looking for an Hispanic man, about 25 years old, 5-foot-5, 160 pounds, with a stocky build, round face and a triangular goatee.  The second man was also Hispanic, about 5-foot-5, 130 pounds, with a scar on his forehead.”  (Toronto Sun, March 17, 2004)  The attack took place in front of the driver’s terrified eight-year-old son.

Psychopath Thumbs Nose At Timorous Removal ‘Order’
Somewhat redundantly, “the wife of a convicted killer who has disappeared after being ordered deported to India says he should be allowed to remain in Canada.  Karen Jhatoo said her husband, Satpal Singh Jhatoo, 38, has served his time for the 1987 contract killing of a mother of six.  Jhatoo did not show up for a scheduled flight back to India.”  (National Post, February 18, 2004)  Gosh, who’d have seen that one coming?  Despite lengthy acquaintance, evidently not our immigration department!  We celebrated this citizen of India’s contribution to Canadian diversity in the Oct 1995 Immigration Hotline #73. 

Jhatoo was convicted of second degree murder in the baseball bat beating death of Ranjit Kaur Toore. (Afterward, he doused the body with gasoline and burned it).  During a pre-sentencing window of opportunity, Jhatoo acquired a further conviction — aggravated assault for stabbing a man in the neck.  By 1994, his “life” sentence had mellowed into day parole, which he violated.  Jhatoo was arrested for drug possession in Feb. 1995.  In June of that year, a fawning three-member IRB panel travelled to Matsqui Prison to hear his deportation appeal.  The Vancouver Sun of June 29, 1995 published portions of the case assessment which stated: Jhatoo “was likely to commit more crimes, had no work history and had not benefited from counselling [in sum, Jhatoo gifted Canada with] ‘a considerable reservoir of hostility, particularly under the influence of intoxicants.'”  These credentials so impressed the IRB brain trust, that it automatically ruled in Jhatoo’s favour. 

We’re not sure what prompted the late reversal, but it hardly matters when Immigration sends murderers polite invitations to please consider showing up for removal on such-and-such a date.  … Performance bonuses anyone?

The Monster Of The Andes
“A Superior Court judge said he wouldn’t let a Peruvian-born pervert ‘get one free’ as he was sentenced for a second series of attacks on young kids.  Justice Paul Dilks rejected a defence lawyer’s bid to have a concurrent sentence for twice-convicted sex offender Juan ‘Carlos’ Quintana yesterday afternoon.  ‘It’s really hard to get away from the thought that (despite) the harm you do, … you get a free ride,’ said Dilks, who was the second judge to impose a penitentiary sentence against Quintana yesterday.  The two judges sentenced Quintana to a total of seven years. 

Earlier on the same day, Quintana was sentenced by another Superior Court judge, Justice Arthur Whealy, to a net four years for raping a six-year-old girl in 1987 — while the offender was on probation for another sexual assault conviction.  ‘You can’t say one crime is more heinous than the other.  In both cases, the victims are severely traumatized,’ said Crown attorney Cara Sweeny, who asked for five years apiece from each judge.  ‘The accused opted for two separate trials, was convicted at both and consecutive jail terms are appropriate,’ Sweeny said. 

The judge agreed.  Dilks imprisoned Quintana for an additional three years for ‘brutally sodomizing’ and inflicting other sexual acts against a six-to-eight-year-old Parkdale boy in the early 1990s.  ‘In my view, this is not a situation for concurrent sentences, these two situations were separate, completely separated by time,’ Dilks said.  Quintana, a twice-married father of five children from four different women, immigrated to Canada as an 18-year-old in 1972.  He is now a Canadian citizen.”  (Toronto Sun, March 23, 2004)  Is anyone responsible for allowing this monster to prey on Canadian children? 

Canadian Immigration Hotline Index

Canada First Immigration Reform Committee



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.