International Mobility Programme Data: 1994-2013

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

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. International Mobility Programme: Permit Holders 1994-2013

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

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

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

3. Source Countries For International Mobility: 2004 To 2013

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

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

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

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

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

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

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

Source Countries For “Temporary” Workers: 2004-2013

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

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Changes Made To Temporary Foreign Worker Program

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

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

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

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

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

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

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

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

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

Taking That Last Step To See Through The Lies….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are just a few of the core problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action4Canada Finally Has Hearing Over Application To Strike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The issues with the Claim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source Countries For International Students: 2004-2013

Ever wonder how many international students are in Canada, and where they come from? Well, we have some data available, courtesy of the Federal Government. Let’s take a look at this troubling pattern.

The replacement agenda (a.k.a. the Kalergi Plan) is alive and well. And flooding the country with students from abroad is just one way to help implement it. Colleges and universities get much needed cash, and students get access to life in the West.

One thing to note: it appears that the data from these tables, page 44, refers to the TOTAL number of international students within Canada. This is not the same as the number of visas issued annually.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2004
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 39,954 23.7 1
South Korea 26,700 15.8 2
United States 12,807 7.6 3
Japan 8,983 5.3 4
United Kingdom, Colonies 6,685 4.0 5
India 6,680 4.0 6
France 6,677 4.0 7
Taiwan 5,247 3.1 8
Mexico 3,384 2.0 9
Germany 2,294 1.4 10
Iran 2,110 1.4 11
Hong Kong 1,993 1.2 12
Pakistan 1,836 1.1 13
Vietnam 1,751 1.0 14
Bangladesh 1,731 1.0 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 122,147 72.4
TOTAL — OTHERS 46,492 27.6
GRAND TOTAL 168,639 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2005
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 40,021 23.5 1
South Korea 27,596 16.2 2
United States 13,130 7.7 3
Japan 9,057 5.3 4
India 7,153 4.2 5
France 6,952 4.1 6
United Kingdom, Colonies 5,944 3.5 7
Taiwan 4,928 2.9 8
Mexico 3,601 2.1 9
Iran 2,558 1.5 10
Germany 2,462 1.4 11
Hong Kong 2,397 1.4 12
Pakistan 1,795 1.1 13
Bangladesh 1,718 1.0 14
Vietnam 1,695 1.0 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 131,007 76.9
TOTAL — OTHERS 39,461 23.1
GRAND TOTAL 170,468 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2006
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 39,993 23.2 1
South Korea 29,551 17.1 2
United States 12,920 7.5 3
Japan 8,310 4.8 4
France 8,125 4.7 5
India 7,464 4.3 6
United Kingdom, Colonies 5,404 3.1 7
Taiwan 4,853 2.8 8
Mexico 3,839 2.2 9
Hong Kong 2,663 1.5 10
Germany 2,588 1.5 11
Iran 2,342 1.4 12
Pakistan 1,839 1.1 13
Morocco 1,723 1.0 14
Bangladesh 1,651 0.9 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 133,265 77.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 39,110 22.7
GRAND TOTAL 172,375 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2007
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 41,113 22.9 1
South Korea 30,676 17.1 2
United States 12,835 7.2 3
France 9,005 5.0 4
India 7,929 4.4 5
Japan 7,662 4.3 6
United Kingdom, Colonies 5,021 2.8 7
Taiwan 4,683 2.6 8
Mexico 3,861 2.2 9
Germany 2,947 1.6 10
Hong Kong 2,812 1.5 11
Iran 2,390 1.3 12
Brazil 1,959 1.1 13
Morocco 1,930 1.1 14
Nigeria 1,919 1.1 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 136,742 76.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 42,413 23.7
GRAND TOTAL 179,155 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2008
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 43,101 23.4 1
South Korea 28,976 15.7 2
United States 12,226 6.6 3
France 9,377 5.1 4
India 8,286 4.5 5
Japan 6,592 3.6 6
United Kingdom 4,627 2.5 7
Saudi Arabia 4,463 2.4 8
Taiwan 4,122 2.2 9
Mexico 3,879 2.1 10
Germany 3,141 1.7 11
Hong Kong 2,912 1.6 12
Iran 2,649 1.4 13
Brazil 2,396 1.3 14
Nigeria 2,178 1.2 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 138,925 75.4
TOTAL — OTHERS 45,254 24.6
GRAND TOTAL 184,179 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2009
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 50,446 24.7 1
South Korea 27,166 13.3 2
United States 12,128 5.9 3
India 11,682 5.7 4
France 10,358 5.1 5
Saudi Arabia 8,413 4.1 6
Japan 6,113 3.0 7
Mexico 4,184 2.1 8
United Kingdom, Colonies 4,151 2.0 9
Taiwan 3,816 1.9 10
Iran 3,507 1.7 11
Germany 3,102 1.5 12
Hong Kong 2,956 1.4 13
Nigeria 2,820 1.4 14
Brazil 2,415 1.2 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 153,257 75.1
TOTAL — OTHERS 50,795 24.9
GRAND TOTAL 204,052 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2010
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 57,339 25.4 1
South Korea 25,301 11.2 2
India 20,281 9.0 3
Saudi Arabia 12,267 5.4 4
United States 12,156 5.4 5
France 11,365 5.0 6
Japan 5,874 2.6 7
Mexico 4,384 1.9 8
Iran 3,930 1.7 9
Nigeria 3,648 1.6 10
Taiwan 3,639 1.6 11
United Kingdom, Colonies 3,563 1.5 12
Germany 3,142 1.4 13
Hong Kong 2,864 1.3 14
Brazil 2,722 1.2 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 172,475 76.5
TOTAL — OTHERS 52,920 23.5
GRAND TOTAL 225,395 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2011
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 68,469 27.5 1
India 27,339 11.0 2
South Korea 22,631 9.1 3
Saudi Arabia 14,180 5.7 4
France 12,715 5.1 5
United States 12,191 4.9 6
Japan 6,018 2.4 7
Mexico 4,801 1.9 8
Iran 4,755 1.9 9
Nigeria 4,432 1.8 10
Taiwan 3,370 1.4 11
United Kingdom, Colonies 3,360 1.4 12
Brazil 3,270 1.3 13
Pakistan 3,161 1.3 14
Vietnam 3,110 1.3 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 190,432 76.5
TOTAL — OTHERS 58,395 23.5
GRAND TOTAL 248,827 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2012
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 81,444 29.5 1
India 32,243 11.7 2
South Korea 20,285 7.4 3
France 14,748 5.3 4
Saudi Arabia 13,930 5.0 5
United States 12,302 4.5 6
Japan 6,486 2.4 7
Nigeria 5,481 2.0 8
Iran 5,229 1.9 9
Brazil 5,126 1.8 10
Mexio 4,977 1.8 11
Pakistan 3,588 1.3 12
Vietnam 3,523 1.3 13
Taiwan 3,358 1.2 14
United Kingdom, Colonies 3,352 1.2 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 208,961 75.6
TOTAL — OTHERS 66,922 24.5
GRAND TOTAL 275,883 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2013
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 95,731 31.4 1
India 34,887 11.4 2
South Korea 19,123 6.3 3
France 16,486 5.4 4
Saudi Arabia 13,955 4.6 5
United States 12,263 4.0 6
Brazil 7,757 2.5 7
Nigeria 6,903 2.3 8
Japan 6,604 2.2 9
Mexico 5,306 1.7 10
Iran 5,177 1.7 11
Vietnam 4,173 1.4 12
Pakistan 4,045 1.3 13
Taiwan 3,500 1.1 14
United Kingdom, Colonies 3,462 1.1 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 239,372 78.6
TOTAL — OTHERS 65,504 21.4
GRAND TOTAL 304,876 100

Again, this refers to the total number of students in the country, not the amount of visas issued in any given year. Needless to say, those numbers continue to climb as well. Note: page 48 of the same document gives even higher totals for the same years.

For a reference point, consider page 15 of the 2020 Canada Annual Immigration Report to Parliament. It was reported that:

“In 2019, 827,586 international students held valid study permits in Canada. Of these, 402,427 new study permits were issued (a 15% increase from 2018).”

This means that the number of foreign students has nearly tripled from 2013 to 2019/2020. This is a major source of people entering the country.

Keep in mind, there are many, MANY pathways for international students to stay longer, or transition into permanent residents. The probable reason for not being open about this is to minimize the backlash from the already high immigration rates.

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

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

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

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

Replacement Migration In Canada: 1980 – 2020 Statistics

Note: This is a continuation of the recent piece, which covered the years from 1989 through 1998. The data needs to be shown in order to fully demonstrate what’s really going on.

This piece does come with an obvious disclaimer: it doesn’t take the hordes of “temporary” workers and student visas in account. That will be addressed elsewhere.

The Kalergi Plan was laid out for Europe a century ago. The goal was to ultimately get rid of all the whites, with a combination of open doors immigration, depressed local birth rates, and miscegenation. That said, the plot it not limited to Europe, but to all white countries.

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. Replacement Migration Fits U.N. Definition Of Genocide

Isn’t trying to replace or displace a population considered genocide by the United Nations? Well, it does fit their own definitions….

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(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.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article V
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

It’s also worth asking if pluralism (imposed without the consent of the people) would amount to genocide under the terms as laid out by the U.N. in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide After all, if pluralism results in at least a partial replacement of a group, isn’t that bringing about its destruction?

3. Genocidal Population Replacement Long Time Problem

Let’s have a look at some of those recent years. While 2003 to 2020 has already been covered pretty extensively on this site, the problem extends much further than that.

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1980
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Vietnam 25,541 17.8 1
United Kingdom 18,245 12.8 2
United States 9,926 6.9 3
India 8,483 5.9 4
Hong Kong 6,309 4.4 5
Laos 6,206 4.4 6
Philippines 6,051 4.2 7
China 4,936 3.5 8
Portugal 4,228 3.0 9
TOTAL — TOP 9 89,955 62.9
TOTAL — OTHERS 53,132 37.1
GRAND TOTAL 143,087 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1980
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa 4,330 3.0
Asia 71,062 50.0
South America 5,433 3.8
Caribbean/Antilles 7,362 5.2
United States 9,926 6.9
Europe and the United Kingdom 41,168 28.8
Others 3,297 2.8
Total 143,087 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1981
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 21,154 16.5 1
United States 10,559 8.2 2
India 8,256 6.4 3
Vietnam 8,251 6.4 4
China 6,550 5.1 5
Hong Kong 6,451 5.0 6
Philippines 5,859 4.6 7
Poland 3,850 3.0 8
Haiti 3,667 2.8 9
TOTAL — TOP 9 74,594 58
TOTAL — OTHERS 54,021 42.0
GRAND TOTAL 128,618 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1981
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa 4,887 3.8
Asia 48,830 38.0
South America 6,136 4.8
Caribbean/Antilles 8,633 6.7
United States 10,559 8.2
Europe and the United Kingdom 46,295 36.0
Others 3,278 2.5
Total 128,618 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1982
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 16,445 13.6 1
United States 9,360 7.7 2
Poland 8,278 6.8 3
India 7,776 6.4 4
Hong Kong 6,542 5.4 5
Vietnam 5,935 4.9 6
Philippines 5,062 4.2 7
Germany 4,425 3.7 8
China 3,571 2.9 9
TOTAL — TOP 9 67,414 55.6
TOTAL — OTHERS 57,753 44.4
GRAND TOTAL 121,167 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1982
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa 4,510 3.7
Asia 41,617 34.3
South America 6,870 5.7
Caribbean/Antilles 8,674 7.2
United States 9,360 7.7
Europe and the United Kingdom 46,150 38.1
Others 3,966 3.3
Total 121,167 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1983
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 7,381 8.3 1
India 7,041 7.9 2
Hong Kong 6,710 7.5 3
Vietnam 6,451 7.2 4
United Kingdom 5,737 6.4 5
Poland 5,094 5.7 6
Philippines 4,454 5.1 7
Haiti 2,827 3.2 8
Guyana 2,605 2.9 9
TOTAL — TOP 9 48,300 54.2
TOTAL — OTHERS 40,857 45.8
GRAND TOTAL 89,157 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1983
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa 3,659 4.1
Asia 36,906 41.4
South America 4,816 5.4
Caribbean/Antilles 7,216 8.1
United States 7,381 8.3
Europe and the United Kingdom 24,312 27.3
Others 4,867 5.4
Total 89,157 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1984
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Vietnam 10,950 12.4 1
Hong Kong 7,696 8.7 2
United States 6,922 7.8 3
India 5,502 6.2 4
United Kingdom 5,104 5.8 5
Poland 4,499 5.1 6
Philippines 3,748 4.2 7
El Salvador 2,569 2.9 8
Jamaica 2,479 2.8 9
TOTAL — TOP 9 49,479 56.1
TOTAL — OTHERS 38,760 43.9
GRAND TOTAL 88,239 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1984
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 3,552 4.0
Asia 41,920 47.5
South America 4,085 4.6
Caribbean/Antilles 5,630 6.4
United States 6,922 7.8
Europe and the United Kingdom 20,901 23.7
Others 5,229 5.9
Total 88,239 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1985
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Vietnam 10,404 12.3 1
Hong Kong 7,380 8.8 2
United States 6,669 7.9 3
United Kingdom 4,454 5.3 4
India 4,028 4.8 5
Poland 3,617 4.3 6
Philippines 3,076 3.6 7
Jamaica 2,922 3.5 8
El Salvador 2,881 3.4 9
Guyana 2,301 2.7 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 47,732 56.6
TOTAL — OTHERS 36,570 43.4
GRAND TOTAL 84,302 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1985
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 3,545 4.2
Asia and Pacific 38,597 45.8
South America 4,356 4.2
North/Central America 5,016 6.0
Caribbean/Antilles 6,132 7.2
United States 6,669 7.2
Europe and the United Kingdom 18,859 22.4
Others 1,128 1.2
Total 84,302 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1986
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 7,275 7.3 1
India 6,940 7.0 2
Vietnam 6,622 6.7 3
Hong Kong 5,893 5.9 4
Poland 5,231 5.3 5
United Kingdom 5,088 5.1 6
Jamaica 4,652 4.7 7
Philippines 4,102 4.1 8
Guyana 3,905 4.0 9
El Salvador 3,167 3.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 52,875 53.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 46,344 46.7
GRAND TOTAL 99,219 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1986
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 4,770 4.8
Asia and Pacific 41,600 41.9
South America 6,686 6.7
North/Central America 6,078 6.1
Caribbean/Antilles 8,874 9.0
United States 7,275 7.4
Europe and the United Kingdom 22,709 22.9
Others 1,227 1.2
Total 99,219 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1987
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 16,170 10.6 1
India 9,692 6.4 2
United Kingdom 8,547 5.6 3
United States 7,967 5.2 4
Philippines 7,343 4.8 5
Portugal 7,300 4.8 6
Poland 7,036 4.7 7
Guyana 6,073 4.0 8
Vietnam 5,668 3.7 9
Jamaica 5,422 3.6 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 81,218 53.4
TOTAL — OTHERS 70,880 46,6
GRAND TOTAL 152,098 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1987
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 8,501 5.6
Asia and Pacific 67,337 44.3
South America 10,801 7.1
North/Central America 6,873 4.5
Caribbean/Antilles 11,227 7.4
United States 7,967 5.2
Europe and the United Kingdom 37,563 24.7
Others 1,829 1.2
Total 152,098 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1988
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 23,281 14.4 1
India 10,409 6.4 2
Poland 9,231 5.7 3
United Kingdom 9,172 5.7 4
Philippines 8,310 5.1 5
United States 6,537 4.0 6
Portugal 6,467 4.0 7
Vietnam 6,196 3.8 8
Jamaica 3,923 2.4 9
Iran 3,669 2.3 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 87,195 53.8
TOTAL — OTHERS 74,734 46.2
GRAND TOTAL 161,929 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1988
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 9,380 5.8
Asia and Pacific 81,136 50.1
South America 7,255 4.5
North/Central America 5,671 3.5
Caribbean/Antilles 9,439 5.9
United States 6,537 4.0
Europe and the United Kingdom 40,689 25.1
Others 1,822 1.1
Total 161,929 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1989
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 19,908 10.4 1
Poland 15,985 8.3 2
Philippines 11,383 5.9 3
Vietnam 9,425 4.9 4
India 8,819 4.6 5
United Kingdom 8,420 4.4 6
Portugal 8,189 4.3 7
United States 6,931 3.6 8
Lebanon 6,179 3.2 9
China 4,430 2.3 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 99,679 51.9
TOTAL — OTHERS 92,322 48.1
GRAND TOTAL 193,001 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1989
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 12,199 6.3
Asia and Pacific 93,261 48.6
South America 8,685 4.5
United States 6,931 3.6
Europe and the United Kingdom 52,107 27.1
North/Central America 5,870 3.1
Caribbean/Antilles 10,909 5.7
Others 2,041 1.1
Total 193,001 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1990
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 29,261 13.7 1
Poland 16,579 7.7 2
Lebanon 12,462 5.8 3
Philippines 12,042 5.6 4
India 10,624 5.1 5
Vietnam 9,081 4.2 6
United Kingdom 8,217 3.8 7
China 7,987 3.7 8
Portugal 7,917 3.7 9
United 6,084 2.8 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 120,256 56.1
TOTAL — OTHERS 93,974 43.9
GRAND TOTAL 214,230 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1990
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 13,440 6.3
Asia and Pacific 111,739 52.2
South America 8,898 4.2
United States 6,084 2.8
Europe and the United Kingdom 51,945 24.3
North/Central America 7,781 3.6
Caribbean/Antilles 11,689 5.5
Others 2,654 1.2
Total 214,230 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1991
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 22,340 9.7 1
Poland 15,731 6.8 2
China 13,915 6.0 3
India 12,848 5.6 4
Philippines 12,335 5.3 5
Lebanon 11,987 5.2 6
Vietnam 8,963 3.9 7
United Kingdom 7,543 3.3 8
El Salvador 6,977 3.0 9
Sri Lanka 6,826 3.0 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 119,465 51.8
TOTAL — OTHERS 111,316 48.2
GRAND TOTAL 230,781 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1991
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 16,087 7.0
Asia and Pacific 119,955 52.0
South America 10,582 4.6
United States 6,597 2.9
Europe and the United Kingdom 48,055 20.8
North/Central America 13,404 5.8
Caribbean/Antilles 12,922 5.6
Others 3,179 1.4
Total 230,781 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1992
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 38,910 15.4 1
Philippines 13,273 5.2 2
India 12,675 5.0 3
Sri Lanka 12,635 5.0 4
Poland 11,878 4.7 5
China 10,429 4.1 6
Vietnam 7,681 3.2 7
United States 7,537 3.0 8
Taiwan 7,456 2.9 9
United Kingdom 7,138 2.8 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 129,612 51.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 123,230 48.7
GRAND TOTAL 252,842 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1992
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 19,633 7.7
Asia and Pacific 139,216 54.4
South America 10,389 4.1
United States 7,537 2.9
Europe and the United Kingdom 44,871 17.5
North/Central America 12,526 4.9
Caribbean/Antilles 14,952 5.8
Others 3,718 1.5
Total 252,842 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1993
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 36,574 14.3 1
India 20,472 8.0 2
Philippines 19,772 7.7 3
Taiwan 9,867 3.9 4
China 9,466 3.7 5
Sri Lanka 9,103 3.6 6
Vietnam 8,301 3.2 7
United States 8,014 3.1 8
United Kingdom 7,159 2.8 9
Poland 6,877 2.7 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 135,605 53.0
TOTAL — OTHERS 120,214 47.0
GRAND TOTAL 255,819 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1993
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 16,918 6.6
Asia and Pacific 147,323 57.6
South America 9,580 3.7
United States 8,014 3.1
Europe and the United Kingdom 46,602 18.2
North/Central America 7,737 3.0
Caribbean/Antilles 16,563 6.5
Others 3,082 1.2
Total 255,819 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1994
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 44,169 19.7 1
Philippines 19,097 8.5 2
India 17,225 7.7 3
China 12,486 5.6 4
Taiwan 7,411 3.3 5
Sri Lanka 6,671 3.0 6
United States 6,234 2.8 7
Vietnam 6,230 2.8 8
United Kingdom 5,971 2.8 9
Bosnia-Hercegovina 4,905 2.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 130,399 58.2
TOTAL — OTHERS 93,476 41.8
GRAND TOTAL 223,875 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1994
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 13,706 6.1
Asia and Pacific 141,587 63.2
South America 7,919 3.5
United States 6,234 2.8
Europe and the United Kingdom 38,641 17.3
North/Central America 3,503 1.6
Caribbean/Antilles 9,980 4.5
Others 2,215 1.0
Total 223,875 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1995
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 31,746 14.9 1
India 16,215 7.6 2
Philippines 15,149 7.1 3
China 13,291 6.3 4
Sri Lanka 8,926 4.2 5
Taiwan 7,691 3.6 6
Bosnia-Hercegovina 6,270 3.0 7
United Kingdom 6,161 2.9 8
United States 5,185 2.4 9
Pakistan 3,996 1.9 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 114,630 53.9
TOTAL — OTHERS 97,874 46.1
GRAND TOTAL 212,504 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1995
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 14,631 6.9
Asia and Pacific 129,106 60.8
South America 7,538 3.5
United States 5,185 2.4
Europe and the United Kingdom 41,266 19.4
North/Central America 2,842 1.3
Caribbean/Antilles 10,056 4.5
Others 1,880 0.8
Total 212,504 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1996
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 29,966 13.3 1
India 21,276 9.4 2
China 17,516 7.8 3
Taiwan 13,207 5.8 4
Philippines 13,132 5.8 5
Pakistan 7,753 3.4 6
Sri Lanka 6,151 2.7 7
United States 5,837 2.6 8
Iran 5,828 2.6 9
United Kingdom 5,585 2.5 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 126,251 55.9
TOTAL — OTHERS 99,522 44.1
GRAND TOTAL 225,773 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1996
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 36,503 16.15
Asia and Pacific 124,771 55.20
South and Central America 18,878 8.35
United States 5,869 2.60
Europe and the United Kingdom 40,009 17.70
Not Stated 20 0.01
Total 225,773 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1997
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 22,242 10.30 1
India 19,614 9.08 2
China 18,530 8.58 3
Taiwan 13,321 6.17 4
Pakistan 11,233 5.20 5
Philippines 10,873 5.03 6
Iran 7,477 3.46 7
Sri Lanka 5,069 2.35 8
United States 5,043 2.33 9
United Kingdom 4,659 2.16 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 118,061 54.65
TOTAL — OTHERS 97,983 45.35
GRAND TOTAL 216,044 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1997
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 37,794 17.49
Asia and Pacific 117,076 54.19
South and Central America 17,425 8.07
United States 5,043 2.33
Europe and the United Kingdom 38,673 17.90
Not Stated 33 0.02
Total 216,044 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1998
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 19,749 11.34 1
India 11.34 8.80 2
Philippines 8,172 4.69 3
Hong Kong 8,083 4.64 4
Pakistan 8,081 4.64 5
Taiwan 7,164 4.11 6
Iran 6,772 3.89 7
South Korea 4,910 2.82 8
United States 4,764 2.74 9
Russia 4,299 2.47 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 87,321 50.16
TOTAL — OTHERS 86,779 49.84
GRAND TOTAL 174,100 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1998
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 32,534 18.69
Asia and Pacific 84,036 48.27
South and Central America 14,003 8.04
United States 4,764 2.74
Europe and the United Kingdom 38,477 22.10
Not Stated 286 0.16
Total 174,100 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1999
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 29,095 15.33 1
India 17,415 9.17 2
Pakistan 9,285 4.89 3
Philippines 9,285 4.89 4
South Korea 7,212 3.80 5
Iran 5,903 3.11 6
United States 5,514 2.90 7
Taiwan 5,461 2.88 8
Sri Lanka 4,719 2.49 9
United Kingdom 4,476 2.36 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 98,240 51.76
TOTAL — OTHERS 91,576 48.24
GRAND TOTAL 189,816 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1999
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 33,441 17.62
Asia and Pacific 96,370 50.77
South and Central America 15,188 8.00
United States 5,514 2.90
Europe and the United Kingdom 38,912 20.50
Not Stated 391 0.21
Total 189,816 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 2000
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 36,715 16.15 1
India 26,086 11.48 2
Pakistan 14,182 6.24 3
Philippines 10,086 4.44 4
South Korea 7,626 3.35 5
Sri Lanka 5,841 2.57 6
United States 5,814 2.56 7
Iran 5,608 2.47 8
Yugoslavia 4,723 2.08 9
United Kingdom 4,647 2.04 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 121,328 53.38
TOTAL — OTHERS 105,985 46.62
GRAND TOTAL 227,313 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2000
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 40,815 17.96
Asia and Pacific 120,539 53.03
South and Central America 16,944 7.45
United States 5,814 2.56
Europe and the United Kingdom 42,885 18.87
Not Stated 316 0.14
Total 227,313 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 2001
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 40,315 16.09 1
India 27,848 11.12 2
Pakistan 15,341 6.12 3
Philippines 12,914 5.16 4
South Korea 9,604 3.83 5
United States 5,902 2.36 6
Iran 5,737 2.29 7
Romania 5,585 2.23 8
Sri Lanka 5,514 2.20 9
United Kingdom 5,350 2.14 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 134,110 53.54
TOTAL — OTHERS 116,374 46.46
GRAND TOTAL 250,484 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2001
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 48,078 19.20
Asia and Pacific 132,711 53.01
South and Central America 20,129 8.04
United States 5,894 2.35
Europe and the United Kingdom 43,204 17.26
Not Stated 330 0.13
Total 250,346 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 2002
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 33,231 14.51 1
India 28,815 12.58 2
Pakistan 14,164 6.18 3
Philippines 11,000 4.80 4
Iran 7,742 3.38 5
South Korea 7,326 3.20 6
Romania 5,692 2.48 7
United States 5,288 2.31 8
Sri Lanka 4,961 2.17 9
United Kingdom 4,720 2.06 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 122,939 53.67
TOTAL — OTHERS 106,152 46.33
GRAND TOTAL 229,091 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2002
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 46,113 20.13
Asia and Pacific 118,899 51.90
South and Central America 19,417 8.48
United States 5,288 2.31
Europe and the United Kingdom 38,841 16.95
Not Stated 533 0.23
Total 229,091 100

https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.505817/publication.html
Source for 1995/1996:
Source for 1996-1998

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2008
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 51,313 20.8
Asia and Pacific 117,480 47.5
South and Central America 26,493 10.7
United States 11,216 4.5
Europe and the United Kingdom 40,649 16.4
Not Stated 96 0.0
Total 247,247 100

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2009
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 56,151 22.2
Asia and Pacific 117,174 46.5
South and Central America 26,776 10.6
United States 9,723 3.9
Europe and the United Kingdom 42,311 16.8
Not Stated 37 0.0
Total 252,172 100

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2010
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 66,692 23.8
Asia and Pacific 135,008 48.1
South and Central America 28,357 10.1
United States 9,242 3.3
Europe and the United Kingdom 41,317 14.7
Not Stated 73 0.0
Total 280,689 100

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2011
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 59,323 23.8
Asia and Pacific 120,330 48.4
South and Central America 27,447 11.0
United States 8,830 3.5
Europe and the United Kingdom 32,755 13.2
Not Stated 63 0.0
Total 248,748 100

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2012
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 56,060 21.7
Asia and Pacific 129,592 50.3
South and Central America 26,864 10.4
United States 9,414 3.7
Europe and the United Kingdom 35,828 13.9
Not Stated 129 0.0
Total 257,887 100

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 33 of the 2020 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2021 Annual Report to Parliament)

Are things starting to make sense? Immigration policies for the last 50+ years have focused on Asians and Africans, replacing (to a large degree) the overwhelmingly European makeup that was Canada for many years.

Of course, speaking up about what’s apparent will lead to cries of racism.

One thing people really need to get clear: so-called “conservatives” have no interest whatsoever in preserving demographics or the makeup of a country. They fully support the genocide agenda, but try to pitch it from a more economic perspective.

White replacement is a very real thing. Only the most obtuse or unobservant cannot see what’s going on, especially given how blatant it is..

While Liberals are generally quite open for their disdain of Europeans, “Conservatives” behave in a stealthier and more subversive manner. They camouflage their true intentions, making them more dangerous.

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

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

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

(B.0) https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.505817/publication.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/statistics-open-data.html
(B.1) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/cic/MP43-333-1999-eng.pdf
Canada Immigration Facts And Figures 1998
(B.2) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/MP43-333-2000E.pdf
(B.3) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/MP43-333-2002E.pdf
(B.4) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/cic/Ci1-8-2003-eng.pdf
(B.5) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/Ci1-8-2004E.pdf
(B.6) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/Ci1-8-2005E.pdf
(B.7) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2009/cic/Ci1-8-2006E.pdf
(B.8) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2009/cic/Ci1-8-2007E.pdf
(B.9) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2009/cic/Ci1-8-2008E.pdf
(B.10) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/cic/Ci1-8-2009-eng.pdf
(B.11) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/cic/Ci1-8-2010-eng.pdf
(B.12) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/cic/Ci1-8-2011-eng.pdf
(B.13) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/cic/Ci1-8-2012-eng.pdf
(B.14) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/cic/Ci1-8-9-2013-eng.pdf
(B.15) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/cic/Ci1-8-9-2014-eng.pdf

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

%d bloggers like this: