Category: Canada

Posted on

IMM #5: The Hidden Costs Of Economic Immigration: Remittances & Brain Drain

(Statistics Canada actually estimates this stuff)

(Who says the Government isn’t good for anything?)

(Pew Research estimates $150B left U.S. in 2017)

(UN encourages remittances for economic development)

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.

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/blog/cs/sending-money
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/payment/international-money-transfers.html
(3) https://www.pewresearch.org/global/interactives/remittance-flows-by-country/
(4) “https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/11/426672-remittance-investment-and-knowledge-sharing-can-help-lift-poorest-nations-un#.U6RQhXbD_ox
(5) https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/06/20/24b_left_canada_in_2012_heres_what_happened_to_it.html
(6) https://www.vancouversun.com/business/Remittances+billion+year+sent+home+from+Canada/10080290/story.html
(7) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/trumps-war-on-immigration-causing-silicon-valley-brain-drain.html
(8) https://acorncanada.org/tags/fair-fees

3. Context For The Article

Why should we care? Aren’t people working for their money, and isn’t it theirs to keep? And aside from fake refugees and welfare cases, this is a valid point.

However, it stands the argument for economic immigration on its head. How so? We are told repeatedly that we need increasing levels of economic immigration every year. GDP will rise, and their will be more economic activity. That money will then keep circulating through our society, creating even more wealth and jobs.

However, remittances do the opposite. This is sending money OUTSIDE of the country, typically to family members. That money is then used to stimulate OTHER economies. True, this is not the worker’s entire wage, but often amounts to a substantial portion of it.

If we had hired Canadian workers instead (or citizens of whatever host country), then this would not a nearly as much of a problem. That spending would still happen, but the money would stay here.

And while individuals and their families may benefit from economic immigration, what happens to the communities they leave behind? If all their talent is scooped up, how do those countries benefit? Instead of improving things themselves, all that is left is aid.

4. The American Situation: $150B in 2017

Pew Research, among many other things, tracks and estimates remittances sent back. The numbers are staggering, particularly in the U.S. An estimated $150 billion was sent outside the country in the year 2017.

Just think. All that money could have funded Donald Trump’s border wall. In fact, it would fund it several times over. Let’s take a look

Rank Nation Est. ($ Billions)
1 Mexico 30.019
2 China 16.141
3 India 11.714
4 Philippines 11.099
5 Vietnam 7.735
6 Guatemala 7.725
7 Nigeria 6.191
8 El Salvador 4.611
9 Dominican Republic 4.594
10 Honduras 3.769

This table only covers the top destinations for the remittances out of the U.S., but the point should be obvious. It doesn’t really stimulate the “American” economy when so much money is being sent overseas. It disproves (to a large degree) that there is any real economic benefit to this immigration system.

Also worth noting is that large amounts of foreign “temporary” labour has the added effect of driving down wages, as more people will be competing for the same job. This creates an employer’s market. And as we all know, these aren’t really “temporary” workers. Most will try to stay.

True, this focuses on the U.S. situation, but it’s worth covering, as Canada faces the same issues that our Southern neighbours do.

5. Toronto Star Article On Topic

$24 billion goes a long way.
According to the World Bank , that’s how much ordinary people living and working here sent to their home countries in 2012: The money may go to a grandmother in Beijing, a niece in Kingston or a cousin in Jaipur.

Canada sends more money, per capita, overseas than other developed countries. (The U.S. is the largest remitter by far, sending nearly a quarter of that global $500 billion: Mexico is their top recipient country, with $22.8 billion, followed by China, which receives about half that.)

For Canada — where, according to Statistics Canada, nearly seven million people living here were born elsewhere — most of the countries that receive remittances aren’t surprising: China. India. The Philippines, where Jacosalem and her sisters send money and packages. But millions of dollars also flow from Canada to European countries, like the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy.

For some nations, remittances help keep the country afloat. A 2012 United Nations report says that over the last decade, remittances have “steadily surpassed” foreign direct investment in the world’s least developed countries.

It’s nice to see Toronto Star, of all newspapers, covering this issue. Enormous sums of money are sent out of the country annually. This money is used to support relatives, and it also has the effect of stimulating economics elsewhere (basically everywhere except the host country).

What stops the article from being great, however, it the platitudes towards diversity and multiculturalism near the end. Still, it is an interesting read.

6. Vancouver Sun Article On Remittances

Another interesting article on the subject of remittances came from the Vancouver Sun. It echoed the World Bank’s estimate of $24 billion leaving Canada in 2012, but covered other relevant points as well.

ABUSE AND DUBIOUS MOTIVATIONS
Since the migration of one person to another country is often a family decision, many migrants feel guilty and pressured to send money to people, some of whom they fear may misuse it.
.
Most migrants remit in the belief the money will go to food, housing, health care and education. But reports frequently arise about how hard-earned remittance money is misspent, going to big-screen TVs or even drinking binges.
.
In addition, Canadian economist John Hoddinot says many migrants send remittances to their parents, uncles and aunts to “ensure hereditary rights,” meaning they have to do so for the long haul and have no guarantees their goal will be realized.
.
In worst-case scenarios the pressure on migrants can be abusive. SFU’s researchers discovered some Sri Lankan refugees to Canada were “intimidated and coerced” into sending remittances to a violent terrorist organization, the Tamil Tigers.

Some valid points here. This is a form of socialism, as one or a few people will be working and then sharing it with the entire family, and possibly extended family. It can be difficult for many to control their spending when it was earned by someone else. As well, who is to say the money is even going to the people who it is earmarked for?

Also, the morbid issue of inheritance is touched on. Is the person feeling pressured to remit money to ensure they aren’t left out of their parent’s or grandparent’s will?

HOW DO REMITTANCES AFFECT THE HOST COUNTRY?
Remittances cause billions of dollars a year to leave countries that host foreign-born workers. But that does not overly concern Dilip Ratha, the World Bank economist on remittances. People who remit only do so after they have paid taxes, says Ratha.
.
Emphasizing free-trade philosophy, Ratha says, “After you work and get paid, it is up to you whether you use the money in Canada, or send money to the Philippines, or buy a house, or blow it in a casino.” The $23 billion that leaves Canada each year in remittances represents about 1.3 per cent of the country’s GDP, which is $1.8 trillion.

Yes, it may seem relatively small, but it is exporting a portion of the overall wealth and being used to finance activity elsewhere. This isn’t what the public is told when we hear “economic migration”.

CAN REMITTANCES WEAKEN THE OLD COUNTRY?
UBC planning professor emeritus Prod Laquian laments how his home country’s politicians, in the Philippines, have relied for decades on more than 10 per cent of the country’s 90 million citizens working abroad.
Remittance dependence has broken up millions of Filipino families and allowed the country’s often-corrupt leaders, Laquian says, to hang on to power.
.
It would be preferable, says Laquian, if countries could retain their own industrious workers by creating more stable economies.
.
One “bad side” of remittances, says Henry Lagas, husband of Fatima, “is the people at home don’t try to help themselves. They think, if you live here in Canada, you have big bucks. They don’t know how hard we work to send them money.”
.
Economists believe remittances can be a positive private form of foreign aid to poor countries. But some also calculate in many cases it would be equally financially beneficial for extended families if loved ones could work at even low-paying jobs in their countries of origin — and didn’t feel they had to leave for foreign shores in hopes of sending money back home.

Spot on. It is a form of foreign aid.

Furthermore, it is a brain drain. While the developed country (arguably) receives some benefit from the immigration, what about the nations that are left behind? When their talent and skilled labour leaves for better opportunities, who picks up the slack?

7. U.N. And Resulting Brain Drain

The U.N. fully and freely admits that the money sent back as remittances is used to stimulate other economies. However, it has an interesting critique as to a downside of economic migration: brain drain.

While money flows from LDC migrants are crucial to the advancement of the world’s poorest nations, it is the migrants’ very departure which often contributes to the further debilitation of an LDC’s chances of development.

According to the UNCTAD report, the impact of “brain drain” on LDC countries appears to reinforce international inequalities in the availability of qualified personnel, and to damage LDCs’ prospects for long-term economic growth.

“Brain drain causes great damage to impoverished countries by removing the very people who could most help in stimulating economic growth,” the report states, adding that skilled, highly educated citizens are needed in the poorest countries to help them cope not only with development challenges but also the rising threat of climate change and its after-effects.

In an effort to counter the negative effects of “brain drain,” the UN agency has proposed a knowledge-transfer scheme – known as the investing in diaspora knowledge transfer – aimed at enabling highly skilled members of the LDC diaspora, including an estimated two million university-educated migrants, to drive learning and investment in home countries. The initiative would provide diaspora members with preferential access to the seed capital required to initiate investment back home at preferential interest rates.

This is surprising to see the U.N. of all places write this critique. To be fair, it was 2012. It’s true though. Creating economic incentives to leave a developing nation results in having their talent “poached” by wealthier nations. This leads to them falling even further behind.

Does it help a nation when most with medical or scientific training leave for better opportunities? On a societal level, no. It means less educated and qualified people needed there, and it’s the people who have contributed to that education in the form of taxes.

What is going on here? The Toronto Star, and now U.N. say things that are perfectly reasonable. That same U.N. now advocates for mass migration as a human right, and an entitlement to have social services provided for. Interesting how philosophies change. Don’t worry. I haven’t gone soft of the U.N. But valid arguments are to be commended, regardless of who they come from.

8. Economic Migration As Argument To Prevent Brain Drain In Developed World

This CNBC article argued some of the same points, but came to a different conclusion: continued immigration is necessary to prevent a brain drain from developed countries such as the U.S.

Rangnekar, a cloud computing developer and former Techcrunch50 winner, was working in Silicon Valley on an H-1B visa. Since H-1B visas are tied to jobs, his options were limited: Get a job at another company or try to get a visa on his own and start a company. Both came with one huge drawback: Any change to his job would reset the clock on his green card application. Green cards are allotted by country; the backlog for citizens from populous countries such as India or China is now more than 10 years.

There is a huge backlog in Canada as well, but that is to hide the full scale of mass migration going on. Perhaps the U.S. is in the same dilemma.

“We decided the indefinite wait was not for us, and we started thinking about our next play,” he said.
That next play turned out to be Toronto. “The permanent-resident process (Canada’s green card equivalent) is easy, and if you have all the points, it takes less than six months. The government is working hard to help and improve the start-up scene,” he said.

True, and that outlines a huge problem: getting permanent resident status in Canada is far too easy, and far too quick. We hand it out to people who are still strangers, and whose interest here is at best unclear.

Of course there is no mention of the countless U.S. citizens who are college educated, but struggle to find meaningful work. No mention in the glut of graduates or young people who vastly outnumber the available positions for them. Citizens should come first. There was a time when they did.

Are there not plenty of Americans who could fill those American jobs? Are there not plenty of Canadians who could fill those Canadian jobs? There are, but having a surplus of labour allows wages to be pushed down. It becomes an employer’s market.

9. Statistics Canada And Remittance Estimates

Even StatsCan has taken quite an interest in the remittance issue. It fully admits that it’s a huge industry, and will not slow down soon — if ever. StatsCan tries to get a grasp on the scale of it. Here is a 2018 posting from the Canadian Government.

Many people living in Canada—often immigrants—send international money transfers, also known as remittances, to relatives or friends living in other countries. In 2016, an estimated 1.6 million Canadian households sent at least $500 to their relatives or friends living outside Canada, with transfer amounts averaging $1,823 per household in that year.

In fairness to StatsCan, this is probably a huge underestimate. People aren’t likely to declare anywhere near the full amount if they are worried about taxes, fees, or government clampdown.

The money sent from Canada helps people pay for anything from food and education to medical expenses and crisis relief. Sometimes people are even able to use money from international transfers to improve their economic situation by investing in higher learning or entrepreneurial activities.

Interesting. So by sending this money back, is it in fact helping to finance the next wave of students and “temporary” workers?

The impact can be large, both for people receiving the remittances and the overall economy in the recipient country. According to the World Bank, remittances can amount to as much as 20% to 30% of a country’s gross domestic product (Report on the Remittance Agenda of the G20, 2014).

Nice to hear it being said so bluntly. The remittances are propping up many economies.

However, the cost of sending money―costs such as exchange rate fees and service charges―has long been a source of concern. In Canada, the cost averages 9% of total transfers (World Bank 2014). Given the role that remittances play in international development and poverty reduction, the G20 community, including Canada, has committed to exploring ways to reduce the global average fees for international transfers from 10% to 5%.

Yes, ignore the issue of money leaving the host countries in huge amounts. Let’s just make it cheaper to do so.

10. Global Migration Compact, Objective 20

OBJECTIVE 20: Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
36. We commit to promote faster, safer and cheaper remittances by further developing existing conducive policy and regulatory environments that enable competition, regulation and innovation on the remittance market and by providing gender-responsive programmes and instruments that enhance the financial inclusion of migrants and their families. We further commit to optimize the transformative impact of remittances on the well-being of migrant workers and their families, as well as on sustainable development of countries, while respecting that remittances constitute an important source of private capital, and cannot be equated to other international financial flows, such as foreign direct investment, official development assistance, or other public sources of financing for development.

The UN Global Migration Compact specifically lists making remittances easier and cheaper. Why? To send money back to families. This means that instead of money circulating the host country, much of it will be sent away.

How does the first world benefit from this? How does importing people and forcing locals to face foreign competition help? How does driving down the wages help locals? How does sending that money overseas help the local economy?

It doesn’t. But that’s what Canada has been signed up for. All without a democratic mandate of course.

11. Thoughts On The Issue

Both Canada and the U.S. are discussed in this article as they face the same issues here. And there are interesting facts about both.

While the World Bank estimate is a starting point, it could be easily far less than the reality. The $24B estimate was from 2012. The Toronto Star and Vancouver Sun articles came in 2014. But it’s now 2019. Assuming that estimate was remotely accurate, how much is it now? $25 billion? $30 billion? $40 billion? This is money that is taken out of Canada, and the U.S. situation is much worse.

It is entirely correct to point out that remittances are a form of foreign aid and they are used to prop up national economies. It’s also fair to wonder where exactly the money goes afterwards, and if families are really the ones benefitting.

The point was raised that economic immigration causes a sort of brain-drain. This is true, as we are giving financial incentives for the most accomplished to leave their homelands instead of helping to improve them. We take only the best (theoretically), when their presence is really needed at home. Nations should be putting their own people to work — meaningful work — before importing foreign labour.

Of course this doesn’t even account for the vast cultural differences and tensions that are created by mass migration to other nations. But that topic has been covered elsewhere.

While remittances do make an argument in favour of economic immigration (helping out families), they also make some compelling arguments against it. Immigration should be about more than just money.

Posted on

The Case For Leaving The U.N.

(U.N. decided that replacing the populations of certain nations is more important than promoting higher birth rates.)

(Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples)

(Replacement migration schemes violate Convention On Genocide)

(The outlines of a variety of globalist wealth schemes)

(Agenda 2030, global socialism)

(Plans for the global regulation of the internet)

(Global Citizenship Education. Post nation-state?)

(The ultimate goal is a world government)

While there are an almost endless number of reasons to leave the United Nations, this essay focuses on some of the more obvious ones.

Any true patriot, or nationalist, should be alarmed at the increasing loss of our sovereignty to the U.N. It is done incrementally, which makes it even more dangerous. Previous articles, along with the corresponding links and citations are available on the website. In no particular order, here are the arguments in favour of exiting the UN permanently, and completely.

In December 2018, Canada signed the UN Global Migration Compact in Morocco. This “non-binding” agreement was to set new guidelines in managing mass migration, including some 258 million people now. The prelude to this was the New York Declaration, signed in 2016. These agreements were to confer new rights upon migrants, even those coming illegally. They were also to establish the UN as the global manager of migration.

Note: Canada signs many “non-binding” agreements. Many have been domestically implemented by Governments in Canada, meaning they are not so “non-binding” after all.

However, the Global Migration Compact is a soft target, and obscures the ongoing problem. the push by the UN for almost unending immigration from the 3rd world to the 1st predates that by far. As early back as the 1970s (and likely much longer), the UN has hosted conferences on “replacement migration” in the West. Their solution is never to boost the birth rates of the West. Rather, the solution is always more immigration, regardless of cultural compatibility.

This flies in the face of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People. That 2008 agreement “Recogniz[ed] the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources.” Few, if any, Indigenous groups have supported the mass importation of peoples and cultures which are very different from their own.

While the text of the agreement seems fine on the surface, there is a conflict with other UN goals. How exactly are these Indigenous Peoples going to have those rights preserved in the face of mass migration? Consider that many nations govern by majority. By importing large numbers of immigrants with different goals and interests than the Indigenous ones, how will that help? How will diluting their numbers, political and voting power (via mass migration), aid Indigenous Peoples?

UNDRIP raises 2 other questions: (I) Is it only those Indigenous Peoples who have the right to a unique culture and identity, or do others get one as well? (II) Will any industrial or developmental projects be subject to veto power under the agreement? Unfortunately, it answers neither.

While claiming to respect border security and national sovereignty, the actions of the UN speak differently. This includes efforts to facilitate efforts of illegal aliens to enter countries, such as financing and organizing. This is done KNOWING that the host countries do not want illegal entry. In short, the UN aids in invasions of sovereign nations. Furthermore, little to no efforts are made to prevent smuggling or trafficking of people.

3 examples of this include: (a) crossing into Canada via a loophole in the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement; (b) caravans trying to enter the US via the border with Mexico; and (c) entering Southern Europe, typically through Greece, Italy, France or Spain.

Interestingly, the UN violates its own Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article II prohibits acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. It specifically lists:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The UN encourages people in Western nations to have less children, and gives reasons such as preventing climate change. This leads to a lower birth rate. The UN also facilitates mass migration from the 3rd World to the 1st, effectively bringing about rapid demographic change. The UN directly and indirectly attempts to circumvent borders and valid immigration restrictions. Naturally, the UN promotes multiculturalism and tolerance, instead of respecting the host nations.

It can also be plausibly argued that UN efforts to censor criticism of Islam (and the dangers it poses) amount to aiding and abetting with the destruction of religious groups.

And no, this is not sarcasm. Mass migration and replacement migration efforts by the UN bring about the same demographic changes that its Convention on Genocide specifically prohibits. It isn’t necessary to go out and execute a group of people to partake in genocide.

Speaking of criticizing Islam, one alarming initiative is the push to ban so-called religious defamation. Officially, it is to prevent discrimination and harm based on religious affiliation. Despite its harmless sounding name, this is an initiative to ban criticism of Islam on a global scale. Non-binding motions have passed, but have never been implemented, primarily due to free speech concerns. The truth behind the facade is that Islam is an extremely political religion, if it even is a religion. Banning legitimate concerns from being addressed helps those political goals. Much easier to advance an agenda if critics are forcibly silenced.

Canada signed Paris Agreement (a.k.a Paris Accord), again touted as “non-binding”. This agreement would restrict the levels of so-called greenhouse gases a nation is allowed to emit. The developed and developing world would be held to different standards, making the agreement inherently unfair. Note: Carbon Dioxide is plant food, not pollution. Conservative Premiers in Canada have challenged the jurisdiction of the Carbon taxes, while going along with the scam in principle.

While touted as a way to prevent a global catastrophe, the Paris Agreement is really just a revenue generating tool for the UN. Article 9 goes into depth about the “financial mechanisms” and the “financial flow”. The money generated would then be funnelled to the UN, and used to generate trillions more in the commodities market, via Green Bonds. In short, these taxes are used to create a slush fund for the UN IPCC and their allies to generate more wealth.

Aside from the Paris Accord, the UN has many schemes in mind for raising revenue. From the 2012 guide on New Development Financing, here is an estimate of their plans. This chapter would go through these plans, as well as where the money is intended to be spent.

  • SDR (or special drawing rights), from IMF $150B-$270B
  • Carbon taxes, $240B
  • Leveraging SDR, $90B
  • Financial transaction tax, $10B-70B
  • Billionaire tax, $90B
  • Currency trading tax, $30B
  • EU emissions trading scheme, $5B
  • Air passenger levy, $10B
  • Certified emission reduction tax, $2B
  • Current ODA Flow, $120B

These are just some of the schemes which are being dreamed up, but the list is hardly exhaustive.

Of course, why should your pension be any different? The UN Principles for Responsible Investing were wholeheartedly adopted by the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board. This means that the ESG factors, (Environmental, Social, Governance) must be considered in every transaction, in every investment the Board makes. One would think that the Canadian Government would want to invest the funds into Canadian industries. Or at least most of them. After all, why not promote and encourage local development? Instead, 85% of the money CPPIB invests is done in foreign companies and projects. While this may lead to higher returns in some cases, it does little to boost Canadian development.

The Canadian Pension Plan is hardly the only one that is being used to finance UN agendas abroad. And it is done without the consent (and knowledge, in most cases) of the pension holders themselves. While this comes across as virtuous, the Government is risking the pensions of its people in those foreign ventures.

Canada signed Agenda 2030 in September 2015. It was basically an expanded version of Agenda 21, which had been ratified in June 1992. Agenda 2030 aimed to put the “Sustainable Development Agenda” into every aspect of modern life. Furthermore, it would not be restricted to being a UN project. Nations, and even cities are encouraged to draw up their UN-compliant plans. The 17 SDA goals are to be implemented in all aspects of life.

It would not be restricted to the environment either. Irrelevant issues like gender, youth, people with disabilities, racial justice and abortion were to considered in every project. There is much more of a social justice focus being pushed.

The UN has an odd position on the right to abortion. They have a philosophy about the right to life. There are many noble goals such as: humane treatment of prisoners, due process in court proceedings, trying to prevent suicide, and banning torture. Those are all fine. What is strange is that abortion is considered a human right. Article 6 of the “Right To Life” outlines many beliefs, but promotes the idea that abortion is a human right, not the child that is killed in the process.

Paragraph 9 of Article 6 goes through what steps should be taken to ensure that getting abortions are not too difficult, or too dangerous. Furthermore, States should take steps to ensure that abortion is readily available to prevent women from undertaking abortions in a dangerous manner. These guidelines also apply to adolescent girls.

Interestingly, there is no mention of trying to discourage abortions, or promoting adoption services. Nor does the UN call a spade a spade: abortion is killing a baby. However, it is cloaked as “reproductive care”. The mother has the right to abortions, but the unborn babies have no rights themselves.

Perhaps this attitude is a population control measure.

They say that whoever controls the education system controls the youth, and hence, the future. That is what UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization seeks to do. It proclaims education to be a human right, as goal #4 of the Sustainable Development Agenda. The group wants to provide universal education to everyone. This encompasses pre-school, to higher education and beyond.

This sounds great, except that UNESCO wants to push “its” version of education on everyone else. It is a global citizenship focus, where people are part of a world community. The UN has its agenda for world domination (as outlined elsewhere in the essay). Much of the education focus will be promoting this narrative.

This is not to say there aren’t societal benefits to increasing the literacy rate, and providing basic education in math and science. There certainly are. It would be naïve, though, to think that this is entirely altruistic. A UN focused curriculum would certainly reinforce the dangers of climate change, the divisiveness of borders, and promote the benefits of mass migration, multiculturalism, sustainable development, speech and internet regulation.

The global citizen education agenda has already leaked into schools in Canada. Not only are the ideas creeping in, but some places, such as Manitoba, openly teach from UNESCO principles. The one-world vision is being promoted to our students.

Beyond formal education, the youth movement is becoming and increasingly important part of the UN agenda. Why? Because children are more impressionable. It is far easier to convince a young person of the dangers of climate change and the need for drastic action. Furthermore, few people would bluntly call them out openly on it. Most older people have been exposed to many hoaxes in their lives, and hence are wise to the scams.

It also explains (at least partly) the drive to drastically lower the voting age form 18 to 16, or 14, or even 8. Young children are viewed not as wise people, but as a voting block to be manipulated. If youth are convinced that the UN is the only hope humanity has, they can vote as a group to prevent this. Certainly, this can alter elections, or at least change the outcome in close ridings or districts.

Finally, there is a push for a UN Parliamentary Assembly. This is a movement to establish an actual world government, able to making binding legislation. In essence, it would be a scaled up version of the European Union, where member states would send representatives to the global body. This is still in the theoretical stages, as it is unclear how this would properly represent national rights. One need only look at the problems of the EU to be turned off to a UNPA.

Although informal talks have been ongoing for a long time, the UN Parliament campaign officially launched in June 2007. That year, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Committee approved the idea in principle. Canada’s current Federal Government claims it has the power to sign “this treaty”, if it ever came to pass.

These issues are hardly exhaustive, but should provide a good outline of what is wrong with being part of the UN. National sovereignty is compromised with every agreement that gets signed. It is not just Canadian autonomy that is eroded, but all nations.

The UN promotes mass migration, and gives little thought to borders or sovereignty. Forced migration leads to cultural tension, and breaks down social cohesion. The UN has many schemes to enrich itself, with the Paris Accord being just one of them. Our pensions are not safe either. Free speech is in danger if a global body were to regulate internet usage, and the ability to criticize ideas such as Islam. Sustainable Development Agendas, such as Agenda 2030 are designed to regulate nearly every type of activity in society. The right to life is enshrined, unless it means life of unborn children — in which case killing him/her is a human right. Children are being brainwashed by global citizen education, and ever worse, they become “useful idiots” for their causes. And the ultimate goal is a world government.

You think your interests aren’t being represented now? Will that improve if your nation became just one of 195 voices? Probably not.

Of course, there is one final insult to add: some of the great human rights abusers sit on the UN Human Rights Council. Some of the nations in which women have no rights are on the UN Women’s Council. This would be a parody if it wasn’t serious.

There is only one sensible solution: leave the UN completely.

Posted on

IMM #2(D): Replacement Migration In Canada Since 2004

(From 2018 Report to Parliament)

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.

2. Important Links

2004.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2005.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2006.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2007.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2008.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2009.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2010.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2011.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2012.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2013.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2014.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2015.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2016.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2017.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2018.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2019.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament

CLICK HERE, for archived listings.

CLICK HERE, for earlier piece on immigration rates in 2017.
CLICK HERE, for CDN immigration at 1M/year.
CLICK HERE, for more detail on replacement migration.

3. Quote From 2007 Report (Page 3)

Canada has one of the largest and best-known permanent immigration programs in the world, with approximately 250,000 new immigrants coming to this country each year. In addition to these newcomers, a further 200,000 temporary foreign workers and international students come to Canada to help respond to labour-market needs, support Canadian businesses and influence our culturally diverse communities.

Balancing the economic, family-reunification and refugee components of our immigration program, Canada welcomed over 251,000 newcomers in 2006. In 2008, we expect to welcome somewhere in the range of 240,000 to 265,000 newcomers.

This is important for a very simple reason: disclosure. We are told that the rate during this time has been about 250,000 people. But it’s not. The majority of so-called “temporary” worker and student positions want to remain in Canada. This results in a doubling of the actual immigration rate, if not more.

Live-in Caregiver Program The Live-in Caregiver Program allows Canadian families to hire temporary workers from abroad to provide live-in home care to a child, an elderly person or individuals with disabilities when there is a demonstrated shortage of workers already in Canada who are able to fill available positions. In 2013, 4,671 TFWs were admitted under this program. Caregivers first come to Canada on a temporary basis and become eligible to apply for permanent residence in Canada after working for two years as a live-in caregiver. In 2013, CIC admitted 8,797 live-in caregivers for permanent residence.

Also worth noting in the 2014, live-in caregiver is a pathway to PR program.

4. Information On “Diversity” Rates

The diversity in data recording systems and legislation makes international migration statistics difficult to compare. However, if immigration is expressed in terms of a foreign-born population, Canada can be compared to the United States and Australia. In 2001, Australia’s foreign-born population was 4,482,000, or 23 percent of its total population. Canada’s was 5,448,485, or 18.4 percent of its total population. The United States had a foreign-born population of 31,811,000, but this high number represented only 11 percent of its total population

The 2004 report claims that 18.4% of Canada’s population had been born outside of Canada.

5. Countries Of Origin For PR

So, where are people coming from? Let’s get a better grasp of the situation.

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2004 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 16.3
#2 India 11.1
#3 Pakistan 5.6
#4 Philippines 5.4
#5 S. Korea 3.2
#6 U.S. 2.7
#7 Iran 2.6
#8 Romania 2.5
#9 U.K. & Colonies 2.4
#10 Sri Lanka 2.0

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2007 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 13.2
#2 India 12.2
#3 Philippines 7.0
#4 Pakistan 4.9
#5 U.S.A. 4.3
#6 Iran 2.8
#7 U.K. 2.6
#8 S. Korea 2.5
#9 Colombia 2.3
#10 France 2.0

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2010 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 12
#2 Philippines 11
#3 India 10
#4 U.S.A 4
#5 U.K. & Colonies 4
#6 France 3
#7 Pakistan 2
#8 Iran 2
#9 S. Korea 2
#10 Morocco 2

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2013 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 12.8
#2 Philippines 12.7
#3 India 11.2
#4 Pakistan 3.9
#5 U.S.A 3.7
#6 France 3.2
#7 Iran 2.5
#8 U.K. & Colonies 2.5
#9 Haiti 2.2
#10 S. Korea 2.1

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2016 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 Philippines 18.7
#2 India 14.5
#3 China 7.2
#4 Iran 4.3
#5 Pakistan 4.2
#6 Syria 3.6
#7 U.S.A. 3.0
#8 France 2.0
#9 U.K. & Colonies 2.0
#10 Nigeria 2.0

Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

6. “Official” Government Numbers

Report Year Numbers
2004 221,352
2005 235,824
2006 262,236
2007 251,649
2008 236,758
2009 247,243
2010 252,179
2011 280,681
2012 248,748
2013 257,887
2014 258,953
2015 260,404
2016 271,845
2017 296,346
2018 331,226

Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

7. “Temporary” Foreign Workers

Report Year Numbers
2004 82,151
2005 90,668
2006 99,146
2007 112,658
2008 165,198
2009 192,519
2010 178,478
2011 182,276
2012 190,842
2013 213,573
2014 221,310
2015 95,086
2016 73,016
2017 78,402
2018 78,788

Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

Note: For 2016-2018 there is a discrepancy between the reports and the 2018 charts. The 2018 chart is used as it is the latest, and likely most accurate.

Temporary Foreign Workers spiked under the Conservatives. They sure seem to love their cheap foreign labour.

8. Student Visas Issued

Report Year Numbers
2004 61,293
2005 56,536
2006 57,476
2007 61,703
2008 64,636
2009 79,509
2010 85,140
2011 96,157
2012 98,383
2013 104,810
2014 111,865
2015 127,698
2016 219,143
2017 265,111
2018 317,328

Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

9. International Mobility Program

Report Year Numbers
2004 included
2005 included
2006 included
2007 included
2008 included
2009 included
2010 included
2011 included
2012 included
2013 included
2014 included
2015 197,924
2016 175,967
2017 207,829
2018 224,033

Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

Split Up Of TFWP

To offer greater clarity and transparency, the current TFWP is being reorganized and new International Mobility Programs (IMPs) are being created. The TFWP will now refer to those streams under which foreign workers enter Canada at the request of employers following approval through a new Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). The new IMPs will incorporate those streams in which foreign nationals are not subject to an LMIA, and whose primary objective is to advance Canada’s broad economic and cultural national interest, rather than filling particular jobs. These reorganized programs will improve accountability, with Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) being the lead department for the TFWP, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) the lead department for the IMPs. In addition, ESDC will publicly post data on the number of positions for temporary foreign workers approved through the TFWP on a quarterly basis, and will post the names of corporations that receive permission to hire temporary foreign workers through LMIAs.

Source is right here.

In 2014, 95,086 individuals were admitted to Canada under the TFW Program and 197,924 under the International Mobility Program. In addition, 46,520 TFW Program and International Mobility Program work permit holders transitioned to permanent residence under an Economic Class program.

In case anyone has any doubts, International Mobility Program “does” have a pathway to permanent residence.

10. Total “Temporary” Categories

Report Year Numbers
2004 143,444
2005 147,204
2006 156,622
2007 174,361
2008 229,834
2009 272,028
2010 263,618
2011 278,433
2012 289,225
2013 318,383
2014 333,175
2015 420,708
2016 468,126
2017 551,342
2018 620,149

DISCLAIMER: It is true that not all TFW, students and International Mobility Program participants will stay. Many will leave. But a lot will either transition into permanent resident, or find another way to stay in Canada.

11. Stated V.S. Actual Intake

Report Year Stated Imm Temporary Actual Imm
2004 221,352 143,444 364,796
2005 235,824 147,204 383,028
2006 262,236 156,622 418,858
2007 251,649 174,361 426,010
2008 236,758 229,834 466,592
2009 247,243 272,028 519,271
2010 252,179 263,618 515,797
2011 280,681 278,433 559,114
2012 248,748 289,225 537,973
2013 257,887 318,383 576,270
2014 258,953 333,175 592,128
2015 260,404 420,708 681,112
2016 271,845 468,126 739,971
2017 296,346 551,342 847,688
2018 331,226 620,149 951,375

Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

Note: The International Mobility Program was operational prior to 2014, but was not specifically mentioned in the “temporary” category.

12. CPC Supports Temps Becoming PR

Official policy of the Conservative Party of Canada is to transition “temporary” workers into permanent residents wherever possible. Furthermore, party policy is to endorse CANZUK, the globalist free-movement agreement which will erase borders between as many as 50 nations.

Currently, there are no specific policies to address immigration rates in 2019.

13. PPC Doesn’t Address This

Thing is: immigration was NEVER ~250,000/year when Harper was PM. With all of the “temporary” groups which lead to permanent resident status, it has always been double that. After 3 years of campaigning on Harper-level immigration, Bernier has decided to “reduce from 350K to 100-150K. But again, immigration levels aren’t 250-350K, so this pledge must be taken with an ounce of salt.

14. Some Do Address True Rates

(Stephen Garvey, of National Citizens Alliance, is willing to address the full scale of mass migration into Canada)

Honourable mention to Rants Derek, Immigration Watch Canada, and Spencer Fernando. Faith Goldy, did address it, but the video has since been taken down.

15. Final Thoughts

This is an unpleasant subject to cover, but it has to be done. People need to know the full truth about the replacement agenda going on in Canada.

Worth noting, that each of these reports to parliament includes a lengthy preamble about multiculturalism and diversity. However, it never talks about cohesiveness and a common culture. It is a common IDENTITY that bonds people (race, culture, ethnicity, language, religion, customs, heritage, etc….). Civic nationalism, or VALUES based societies, are doomed to crumble.

While TFW were much higher under the CPC, the Liberals have decided to crank up the student visas and begin issuing more International Mobility Visas. Guess globalists have their preferences.

Conservatism and Libertarianism are globalist ideologies. So arguing over who is the “real” conservative or libertarian serves no real purpose.

It’s difficult to swallow that the aim of these policies is to break up the country along ethnic and cultural lines. But it’s the most logical explanation.

The real immigration rates need to be discussed openly. It’s not 250,000 under Harper, and it’s not 350,000 under Trudeau. You are being lied to.

Posted on

IBC #4: Response From Finance Department Questions On National Debt

(30% of Canada’s debt held by foreigners)

(Archived debt information is available)

(If data hard to see, written information in Section #4)

(Will Abram explains the issues here)

CLICK HERE, for response from Elections Canada

1. First Email Back

Hello ****,
.
1) Budget documents going back to 1995, they are available here: https://www.budget.gc.ca/pdfarch/index-eng.html
2) The Debt Management Reports and Fiscal Reference Tables may be useful. I am still looking to see if I can find more. You may want to try reaching out to the Bank of Canada for more information.
.
Regards,

2. Second Email Back

Hello again ****,
.
After asking around, here is what I was told regarding your second question:
.
Government of Canada marketable debt, which includes treasury bills and marketable bonds, is distributed cost-effectively through competitive auctions to Government Securities Distributors, a group of banks and investment dealers in the domestic market. These Government Securities Distributors then resell securities bought at auctions to their wholesale and retail clients in the secondary market.
.
Ultimately, the majority of Government of Canada debt is held by Canadian households, institutions and governments. The participation of international investors in Government of Canada securities markets is of benefit to Canadians, as they serve to increase competition, increase the diversity of the Government’s investor base, and ultimately reduce borrowing costs for Canadian taxpayers.
.
For more information, you may also wish to review the Debt Management Report 2017-2018 (e.g., Chart 9) at https://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/dmr-rgd/index-eng.asp.
.
Hope this helps.
.
Regards,

3. Information On Debt Summary

This chart, and the information from it is provided by the sources which the Ministry of Finance has provided here.

Chart 1
Snapshot of the Federal Balance Sheet, as at March 31, 2018
Unmatured debt
.
Market debt
$704.3 billion
.
(marketable bonds, treasury bills, retail debt, and foreign currency debt)
Market debt value adjustments and capital lease obligations
$16.9 billion
.
Other liabilities
.
Pensions and other liabilities
$281.4 billion
.
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
$154.8 billion
.
Total Liabilities $1,157.4 billion
.
Less financial assets
$398.6 billion (cash, reserves, loans)
.
Net debt
$758.8 billion
.
Less non-financial assets
$87.5 billion (capital assets)
.
Federal debt
$671.3 billion (accumulated deficit)

4. Looking At The Debt Tables

Recent report is here. See page 9.

The staff was helpful enough to direct me to this table, and hence, the data within it. Now, let’s see how much interest or “Public Debt Charges” we have been paying off since 1966.

Year Interest ($Mil) Cum. Since 1966
1966-67 1,162 1,162
1967-68 1,286 2,448
1968-69 1,464 3,912
1969-70 1,694 5,606
1970-71 1,887 7,493
1971-72 2,110 9,603
1972-73 2,110 11,703
1973-74 2,565 14,278
1974-75 3,238 17,516
1975-76 3,970 21,486
1976-77 4,708 26,194
1977-78 5,531 31,725
1978-79 7,024 38,749
1979-80 8,494 47,243
1980-81 10,658 57,901
1981-82 15,114 73,015
1982-83 16,903 89,918
1983-84 20,430 110,348
1984-85 20,430 110,348
1985-86 27,657 138,005
1986-87 28,718 166,723
1987-88 31,233 197,956
1988-89 35,532 233,488
1989-90 41,246 274,734
1990-91 45,034 319,768
1991-92 43,861 363,629
1992-93 41,332 404,961
1993-94 40,099 445,060
1994-95 44,185 489,245
1995-96 49,407 538,652
1996-97 47,281 585,933
1997-98 43,120 629,053
1998-99 43,303 672,356
1999-00 43,384 715,740
2000-01 43,384 715,740
2001-02 39,651 755,391
2002-03 37,270 792,661
2003-04 35,769 828,430
2004-05 43,384 871,814
2005-06 33,772 905,586
2006-07 33,945 939,531
2007-08 33,325 972,856
2008-09 28,269 1,001,125
2009-10 26,652 1,027,687
2010-11 28,610 1,056,297
2011-12 29,038 1,085,335
2012-13 25,533 1,110,868
2013-14 24,729 1,135,597
2014-15 24,207 1,159,804
2015-16 21,837 1,181,641
2016-17 21,232 1,202,873
2017-18 21,889 1,224,762

Note: This only applies to interest payments on the NATIONAL debt. The Provinces, particularly Ontario and Quebec, have been piling on their own debt.

To be fair, we can largely exclude the payments before 1974, which is when Trudeau Sr. forced fiat banking on Canada. That would remove $14,278M. leaving Canada with $1,210,484 in interest paid as of 2018. $1.21 trillion, just in interest (or public debt charges).

Although I didn’t get names of specific bond holders, it was not a total loss. Our debt is bought an sold, just like a collections agent would do, and about 30% is sold to foreign buyers.

5. No Political Will To End Debt

Although political parties pay lip service to the idea of balancing a budget, they tap-dance around the idea of paying it off.

Why though? If merely “balancing the budget” means paying interest payments forever, why is that all that is talked about? Why is this open-ended drain on the public purse not discussed?

Anyone who has ever held a credit card knows that it is senseless to let the charges keep accumulating. Eventually, the interest and fees will exceed the cost of the initial charge.

So why DON’T politicians want to get rid of our debt? Are these “interest” payments really a form of money laundering? Are they being told (or paid off) not to get rid of the debt?

6. Reason Behind The Debt: PRIVATE Borrowing

The idea of dumping central (fiat banking) is never brought up. Even so called “deficit hawks” never address the reason of why this exists is the first place. They never talk about the Bank for International Settlements, nor do they discuss the Basel Committee.

In 1974, Pierre Trudeau changed Canada’s monetary system, and did so without a democratic mandate. Since the 1934 Bank of Canada Act, the Federal Government had effectively been borrowing money from itself. This meant that interest payments amounted to the Canadian public being paid. See PART 1 of the series for more information.

However, since 1974, Canada has been borrowing from private lenders. Quite simply, we now have to pay other parties, instead of ourselves.

The reason for doing this has never been made clear. Vague claims have been made about stability of currency and inflation control. But a cause-and-effect has never actually been demonstrated. Nor has any benefit been shown that would counter the endless repayments, and ever growing debt.

And while this article is aimed at the Federal Government, the Provinces do not get a pass. More on them in another article.

7. Who’s Pushing For Continuation Of Scheme?

Remember this quote from the Ministry of Finance. Though specific people, institutions and parties were not named, it is reasonable to assume that this is a profitable business. After all, it is buying and selling — and reselling — national debt on the open market.

Government of Canada marketable debt, which includes treasury bills and marketable bonds, is distributed cost-effectively through competitive auctions to Government Securities Distributors, a group of banks and investment dealers in the domestic market. These Government Securities Distributors then resell securities bought at auctions to their wholesale and retail clients in the secondary market.

Ultimately, the majority of Government of Canada debt is held by Canadian households, institutions and governments. The participation of international investors in Government of Canada securities markets is of benefit to Canadians, as they serve to increase competition, increase the diversity of the Government’s investor base, and ultimately reduce borrowing costs for Canadian taxpayers.

The Ministry has been contacted again asking for specific names. If they won’t release any, then perhaps a freedom of information request will be needed. However, it’s unwise to drop names without any proof.

It’s reasonable to believe that the people profiting the most from this scheme are the ones pushing to keep fiat going. If any specifics are provided, they will be added as an update.

(1) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1010004801#timeframe
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_for_International_Settlements
(3) https://www.bis.org
(4) https://www.bis.org/about/member_cb.htm
(5) https://www.bis.org/bcbs/organ_and_gov.htm
(6) https://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/dmr-rgd/index-eng.asp
(7) https://www.budget.gc.ca/pdfarch/index-eng.html
(8) https://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/frt-trf/index-eng.asp

Posted on

Max Boykoff’s Revenge On Science: Creative Climate Communications, Part I

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord

2. US & Canadian Copyright Laws

Disclaimer #1: The Canadian Copyright Act has a “fair dealing” provision, which allows for copyrighted material to at times be used for specific purposes: research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review and news reporting. Click Here and also Click Here for more information.

Disclaimer #2: The U.S. Copyright Act has a “fair use” provision, which states that the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Click Here to read the text.

This should be obvious, but just to clarify, this article is about criticizing, commenting on, teaching and researching purposes.

3. About The Author, Maxwell Boykoff

His professional biography is available here.

Max’s research and creative work has developed primarily in two arenas:
(1) cultural politics of science, climate change and environmental issues = this refers to ways that attitudes, intentions, beliefs and behaviors of individuals and groups shape (and are shaped by) the perceived spectrum of possible action in the context of science-policy, climate change and environmental issues.
.
(2) transformations of carbon-based economies and societies (with emphasis on the interface of science and practical action) = this refers to decarbonization politics, policies and decision-making, with particular interest in how these activities find meaning in people’s everyday lives, as well as how they, in turn, feed back into science-policy decision-making.

Feel free to check into his other works.
Now for the book itself.

4. Table Of Contents

(1) Here And Now
(2) How We Know What We Know
(3) Do The Right Thing
(4) Ways Of Learning, Ways Of Knowing
(5) It’s Not You, It’s Me…. Actually It’s Us
(6) Academic Climate Advocacy & Activism
(7) Silver Buckshot
(8) Search For Meaning

5. Quoting Creative Climate Communications

(From back cover) Conversations about climate change at the science-policy interface and in our lives have been stuck for some time. This handbook integrates lessons from the social sciences and humanities to more effectively make connections through issues, people and things that everyday citizens care about. Readers will come away with an enhanced understanding that there is no “silver bullet” to communications about climate change; instead a “silver buckshot” approach is needed where strategies effectively reach different audiences in different contexts.

One thing that will be clear right away: this is not about using scientific methods to PROVE that climate change is a serious threat. Rather, it is about using scientific methods to CONVINCE people that climate change is a serious threat. Very different things.

We live in remarkable times. Amidst high-quality and well-funded research into the causes and consequences of climate change, conversations in our lives — and climate communications — are stuck. Consciously or unconsciously, a feeling of complacency has often weighed on our collective and our individual selves.

Another point made early on, Boykoff expresses no doubt whatsoever in the “scientific findings” of the climate change movement. The entire focus of the book is about using social science and humanities research to persuade people this is a problem.

(Page 2) Responding to these emergent needs, in recent years has been a blossoming of valuable research in the peer-review literature addressing various elements of this larger challenge. More research groups, organizations, institutions and practitioners around the world have increasingly explored creative spaces of climate communication to better understand what works where, with whom (what audiences), when and why.

Boykoff makes an important note here. He is not by any means a revolutionary here. “Climate communications” is a growing field, with people all over the world trying to determine better methods for “selling” the climate change claims. In short, this is research about marketing. Not science.

(Page 2) Creative approaches involve the deployment of multimodal communications. A mode is a system of choices used to communicate meaning. What might count as a mode is an open-ended set, ranging cross a number of systems, including but not limited to language, image, color, typography, music, voice, quality, dress, posture, gestures, special resources, perfume and cuisine.

What superficial points are listed?

  • language
  • image
  • colour
  • typography
  • music
  • voice
  • quality
  • dress
  • posture
  • gestures
  • special resources
  • perfume
  • cuisine

We are still just on the second page, and already getting an introduction into the very superficial traits which can subtly be used to convince people of our arguments.

Forget facts, research, data, and logic. This is all about presenting a good sales pitch.

(Page 3) Among many elements seeping into the environments, I consider the dynamics that shape creative and potentially effective messages as well as messengers of those climate change communications. Over time, broad references to communications through media platforms have generally pointed to television, films, books, fliers, magazines, radio and internet for pathways for largescale communications.

Additional modes and manifestations of communications also include (analyses of) documentary films about dystopian futures, stand-up comedy about climate and cultures, podcasts about climate science and policy interactions.

Boykoff notes the traditional forms of media, but laments that they are not enough by themselves to do the job. The job of course, is “pitching” the climate change agenda.

(Page 4) Meeting people where they are takes carefully planned and methodical work. It does not mean “dumbing things down” for different audiences. Through this process of assessment of research and practice in these areas, conversations can more capably seek answers to a provocative question Mike Hulme posted in 2009, “How does the idea of climate change the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations and our collective social goals?”

(Page 5) KNOW THY AUDIENCE
These creative (climate) communication endeavors must start with consideration of the audience. These may be imagined, (un)intended or actual audiences. Researchers and practitioners have increasingly paid attention to differentiated audiences as key components to deliberate development of effective communication.

Knowing who your audience is actually a useful piece of advice, regardless of circumstances. However, in context of this book, it comes across as manipulation.

(Page 6) Audience segmentation and consequent message alteration has been a part of marketing and associated communications strategies since the 1950s (Smith 1956, Slater 1996). Audience segmentation endeavours as they relate to climate change communications, have proliferated over the last decade (Leal Finho 2019).

This book is about marketing strategies of climate change “communications”. Nothing more. It is about manipulative techniques designed to persuade by non-factual means.

6. Where Things Go From Here

The book is 300 pages, the last 60 of which are references. No doubt that an awful lot of work has gone into this. Yes, the intro article is relatively short, but it is setting the stage for later. Sequels will be longer and quote much more.

As alluded to earlier, this is really a book about marketing. It’s not about research done to prove that humans are causing climate change, but rather research to CONVINCE people that they are.

Rather than going into environmental research, the book delves in sociological and social psychological research methods. It looks at work previously done in the fields of persuasion, and applies those principles to “climate communications”.

Boykoff appears to have no doubts about humans causing climate change. Nor does he seem to have any reservations about using these social studies techniques to pursue what is essentially a political goal. He straightforwardly admits that it’s a growing field, and many have contributed to this area of research.

Boykoff admits that this area is “selling” or “pitching” the climate change narrative. While acknowledging it is a start, he has no problems with it. Seems the scientists have given up on the research area of climate science, and are throwing their resources into the marketing aspect.

It’s both nefarious and creepy.

Posted on

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, Bill C-79

(Government link for TPP, now referred to as CPTPP)

(Canada’s Bill C-79, October 2018)

1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; and (f) losses to communities when major employers leave. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.

2. Important Links

(1) ttps://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=9970461&View=5
(2) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cptpp-ptpgp/index.aspx?lang=eng
(3) https://www.epi.org/publication/the-china-toll-deepens-growth-in-the-bilateral-trade-deficit-between-2001-and-2017-cost-3-4-million-u-s-jobs-with-losses-in-every-state-and-congressional-district/
(4) https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_12102003/
(5) https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/
(6) https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_11052003/

Note: After the US withdrew from the agreement, it was renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

3. Trading Partner Brunei, Stoning Gays

On a side note, Brunei, a small nation governed by Islamic law, announced it would stone gays to death in accordance with religious law. It seems extremely hypocritical for the virtue-signaling Prime Minister Trudeau to have such a trading partner. However, under public pressure, Brunei has apparently backed down from the measure.

4. Portions Of Bill C-79

Causes of action under sections 9 to 13
.
8 (1) No person has any cause of action and no proceedings of any kind are to be taken, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, to enforce or determine any right or obligation that is claimed or arises solely under or by virtue of sections 9 to 13 or an order made under those sections.

Causes of action under Agreement
.
(2) No person has any cause of action and no proceedings of any kind are to be taken, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, to enforce or determine any right or obligation that is claimed or arises solely under or by virtue of the Agreement.
.
Exception
.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply with respect to causes of action arising out of, and proceedings taken under, Section B of Chapter 9 or Article 11.‍22 of the TPP.

Right away is a red flag. If you are a private party, there may be instances where litigation is required to protect your interests (from unfair trade practices perhaps). However, the wording makes it clear that legal action is not possible here unless the Attorney General signs off on it.

As for the exceptions, Chapter 9, Section B refers to disputes among investors, and encourages the parties to resolve the problems themselves. Article 11.22 outlines dispute mechanisms for financial services.

Payment of expenditures
.
12 The Government of Canada is to pay its appropriate share of the aggregate of
(a) any expenditures incurred by or on behalf of the Commission,
(b) the general expenses incurred by the committees, working groups and other bodies established under the Agreement and the remuneration and expenses payable to representatives on the Commission and those committees and to members of those working groups and other bodies, and
(c) the expenses incurred by panels and arbitration tribunals established under the Agreement and the remuneration and expenses payable to the panellists on those panels, to arbitrators and to any experts retained by those panels or arbitration tribunals.

Not only will Canada be forced to pay its “share” for Commission expenses, but will in effect pay to set up an alternative quasi-judicial system. Not only will Canada have to pay for that, but legal and expert expenses, and any judgements awarded against.

Orders — Article 28.‍20 of TPP
.
13 (1) The Governor in Council may, for the purpose of suspending benefits in accordance with Article 28.‍20 of the TPP, by order, do any of the following:
(a) suspend rights or privileges granted by Canada to another party to the Agreement or to goods, service suppliers, investors or investments of investors of that party under the Agreement or any federal law;
(b) modify or suspend the application of any federal law, with respect to a party to the Agreement other than Canada or to goods, service suppliers, investors or investments of investors of that party;
(c) extend the application of any federal law to a party to the Agreement other than Canada or to goods, service suppliers, investors or investments of investors of that party; or
(d) take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary.

The Governor in Council can apparently:

  • Suspend rights or privileges
  • modify or suspend application of Federal law
  • extend Federal law to others not previously included
  • Do anything else deemed necessary

Without clarification or at least guidance of the topic, this is extremely vague. Worse, is the Governor in Council can make these changes without requiring consent of the public.

Most of the rest of the Bill goes into detail about how tariffs on many different items will be reduced to zero.

However, like with most free trade agreements, Bill C-79 does not address an important topic: protection of jobs for people at home. That will be addressed later.

5. Sections Of CPTPP Text

While the agreement is very long, let’s look mainly at Article 9, as it has some of the more unsettling information in it. To be blunt, it removes nations’ abilities to protect their people from foreign competition. The downside to free trade.

Article 9.4: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
2. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments in its territory of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. For greater certainty, the treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a regional level of government, treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that regional level of government to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.

This is basically the same language used in NAFTA, where no preference could be given to host countries. In short, it doesn’t matter if another party can outbid and outcompete you. Terms just as favourable must be given.

Article 9.5: Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investors of any other Party or of any non-Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
2. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments in its territory of investors of any other Party or of any non-Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. For greater certainty, the treatment referred to in this Article does not encompass international dispute resolution procedures or mechanisms, such as those included in Section B (Investor-State Dispute Settlement).

This is much the same idea. If you treat a non-party (someone outside the agreement) a certain way, then a party within the agreement must get at least the same, if not better, treatment.

A bit misleading is the use of the term investment. Most people think of stocks and bonds as investments. While true, this agreement considers basically anything to be an investment. Here is a quote from the definitions section of Article 9.

investment means every asset that an investor owns or controls, directly or indirectly, that has the characteristics of an investment, including such characteristics as the commitment of capital or other resources, the expectation of gain or profit, or the assumption of risk. Forms that an investment may take include:
(a) an enterprise;
(b) shares, stock and other forms of equity participation in an enterprise;
(c) bonds, debentures, other debt instruments and loans;
(d) futures, options and other derivatives;
(e) turnkey, construction, management, production, concession, revenue-sharing and other similar contracts;
(f) intellectual property rights;
(g) licences, authorisations, permits and similar rights conferred pursuant to the Party’s law; and
(h) other tangible or intangible, movable or immovable property, and related property rights, such as leases, mortgages, liens and pledges,

Beyond the traditional sense of investments there is more. Any business itself, business contracts, property, or tangible or intangible items are also considered investments.

And what about countries wanting to nationalise (take public ownership), of their “investments”? Remember, under the definition provided, an investment is pretty much anything.

Article 9.8: Expropriation and Compensation
1. No Party shall expropriate or nationalise a covered investment either directly or indirectly through measures equivalent to expropriation or nationalisation (expropriation), except:
(a) for a public purpose
(b) in a non-discriminatory manner;
(c) on payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; and
(d) in accordance with due process of law.
2. Compensation shall:
(a) be paid without delay;
(b) be equivalent to the fair market value of the expropriated investment immediately before the expropriation took place (the date of expropriation);
(c) not reflect any change in value occurring because the intended expropriation had become known earlier; and
(d) be fully realisable and freely transferable.
3. If the fair market value is denominated in a freely usable currency, the compensation paid shall be no less than the fair market value on the date of expropriation, plus interest at a commercially reasonable rate for that currency, accrued from the date of expropriation until the date of payment.
4. If the fair market value is denominated in a currency that is not freely usable, the compensation paid, converted into the currency of payment at the market rate of exchange prevailing on the date of payment, shall be no less than:
(a) the fair market value on the date of expropriation, converted into a freely usable currency at the market rate of exchange prevailing on that date; plus
(b) interest, at a commercially reasonable rate for that freely usable currency, accrued from the date of expropriation until the date of payment.

This actually does make some sense, as it provides some protections to companies and insures that their property won’t just be converted into the government’s.

However, the wording is such that any legitimate measures a nation might make to go about its business might be construed as “expropriating” or as “nationalising”. The language seems worded poorly on purpose.

And it doesn’t mention that nations have legitimate interests in protecting the jobs of its people, and the local economy. Governments are supposed to protect their people first and foremost.

Article 9.9: Transfers
1. Each Party shall permit all transfers relating to a covered investment to be made freely and without delay into and out of its territory. Such transfers include:
(a) contributions to capital;
(b) profits, dividends, interest, capital gains, royalty payments, management fees, technical assistance fees and other fees;
(c) proceeds from the sale of all or any part of the covered investment or from
the partial or complete liquidation of the covered investment;
(d) payments made under a contract, including a loan agreement;
(e) payments made pursuant to Article 9.7 (Treatment in Case of Armed Conflict or Civil Strife) and Article 9.8 (Expropriation and Compensation); and
(f) payments arising out of a dispute.

Pull the covered investments freely and without delay? Again, almost anything is an investment under this agreement. This actually has the potential to do serious harm. Businesses wishing to leave could pull all of their “investments” and drain the country of its wealth quite quickly.

Article 9.11: Senior Management and Boards of Directors
1. No Party shall require that an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment appoint to a senior management position a natural person of any particular nationality.
2. A Party may require that a majority of the board of directors, or any committee thereof, of an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment, be of a particular nationality or resident in the territory of the Party, provided that the requirement does not materially impair the ability of the investor to exercise control over its investment.

This ignores a basic reality. People are loyal first and foremost to their homes and their tribes. Do people want a bunch of foreigners, with in-group preference for their homelands to be controlling so much? Probably not, but free trade deals do not deal with nations, but “economic zones”.

Inserting a condition that it not “materially impair” is vague and open to interpretation. As such, it seems almost worthless.

Article 9 is the most troubling in the agreement. But it is worth addressing one point in Article 28, which covers dispute resolution.

Article 28.4: Choice of Forum
1. If a dispute regarding any matter arises under this Agreement and under another international trade agreement to which the disputing Parties are party, including the WTO Agreement, the complaining Party may select the forum in which to settle the dispute.
2. Once a complaining Party has requested the establishment of, or referred a matter to, a panel or other tribunal under an agreement referred to in paragraph 1, the forum selected shall be used to the exclusion of other fora.

An interesting detail, parties filing complaints can shop around. There is no fixed place to do so. While this sounds fine on the surface, such could be open to gaming the system.

6. Potential For Huge Job Losses

Companies close down and new ones start up. That is normal in a capitalist society. However, free trade deals in general pose a complication. When it becomes more advantageous (ie “cheaper”) to produce a good in another country, there is always a risk. What will stop a company from closing down, laying off all its staff, and relocating in the foreign nation? Legally, nothing, at least in many cases.

The previous pieces on NAFTA addressed some on the downsides to free trade deals. The CPTPP would likely cause the same sorts of issues.

Let’s use the United States as an example. It lost 3.4 million jobs to China between 2001 and 2017 due to “liberalized trade”. Further, another 879,000 jobs have been lost as a direct result of NAFTA.

Beyond the direct job losses, trade deals have the effect of driving down wages. This is especially true for manufacturing jobs, which are traditionally well paid. The reason is leverage. If a company can threaten to relocate in order to pay its (new) workers much less, then current employees can be forced to accept significantly less compensation. One reason tariffs are applied to goods is to counter the vast discrepancies that can exist between nations.

In very lopsided trading arrangements, the benefits are not equal. Again, referring to the US, trade deficits can balloon very quickly. While some surplus or deficit is inevitable, the trading relations cannot continue unless the parties benefit fairly equally. Large trade deficits drain wealth from a nation. This is money being taken out of the country and not being spent on people here.

The CPTPP addresses NONE of these issues. Is this a form of protectionism? Yes, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

7. Conclusions Regarding C-79 & CPTPP

NAFTA was tricky enough, even with just 3 nations, all on one continent. CPTPP has more, and it covers a much larger geographic area. The wealth discrepancies are even larger.

While this is touted as an economy growth tool, the CPTPP doesn’t indicate at all how the citizens will benefit. Under the “National Treatment” provisions, foreigners must be given the same considerations as locals. If it becomes more economical to lay off people and move assets, then it’s done. There can be no protection for locals, which is what a government should be doing.

Free trade agreements tend to create a “race to the bottom”. If it becomes more profitable to ship work and jobs to another country, it is done. Locals will have to accept far less in order to compete, driving down their standards of living.

Communities benefit when there is work and wealth. Exporting it for overall economic growth is cold, and reduces people to mere cogs in a machine.

Difficult to see how average people will benefit from CPTPP.