Senate Recommends Adding “Temporary” Workers To Reflect True Immigration Numbers

Not too long ago, Canadians were fed the line that only 300,000 to 400,000 people were coming to Canada each year. The more “moderate” plan from the Conservatives supposedly was only 250,000 annually.

Is the Overton Window finally shifting? 5 years ago, this website reported that the true scale of people immigrating to Canada was vastly under reported. See here, here, here, here and here. In reality, the number is more like 1 million per year, and has been for a long time. The Annual Reports to Parliament from 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 are available. 2023 will be covered shortly. In order to have a meaningful discussion on policy, accurate information has to be included.

Specifically, public discourse about “immigration levels” had focused primarily on the number of new permanent residents. This is misleading because it glosses over so-called temporary categories, including:

  1. Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP)
  2. International Mobility Program (IMP)
  3. International Students

Each of these programs has options to transition to permanent resident, or at least to extend the stay via other means.

Finally, in the Spring of 2023, Statistics Canada finally began disclosing more realistic figures. The organization admitted that 2022 saw approximately 1 million people enter the country.

Now, the Senate has recommended changes in how the TFWP is reported. Does this mean that the TFWP will be scrapped, or greatly scaled down? Nope. What it does it include the numbers in the totals that are disclosed to the public.

The Temporary Foreign Worker Program was created in 1973 as a measure of last resort to bring foreign workers to Canada on a temporary basis to fill jobs for which qualified Canadians were not available. It is now clear that this program is essential and entrenched; it is therefore time to recognize this reality and adapt Canada’s migrant labour infrastructure accordingly.

In other words, it’s not going away.

However, to be more transparent with the totals, it’s not just the TFWP that needs to be addressed. There’s also the International Mobility Program, which is similar, but effectively an open work permit. Then there are the hundreds of thousands of student visas handed out every year.

RECOMMENDATION 3
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology recognizes that neither migrant work programs nor workers are truly temporary, and therefore, recommends that the Government of Canada:
.
implement the March 2024 commitment to include temporary residents in the annual Immigration Levels Plans;
-provide more transparent pre- and on-arrival information about transitioning from temporary work permits to permanent residence;
-review the language and education eligibility criteria required to apply for permanent residence;
expand the Provincial Nominee Program to allow more temporary and migrant workers to obtain permanent residence;
-make migrant workers eligible for integration services under the existing Settlement Program and increase funding to support the additional demand, including to community organizations already doing this work;
develop Settlement Program services specific to temporary residents’ needs including targeted language and education resources to support greater integration and reduce barriers to obtaining permanent residence; and
increase funding to the Migrant Workers Support Program and existing grassroots organizations to support dedicated services across the country to help migrant workers navigate Canadian bureaucracy before, during and after their stay, including accessing health care, social supports like Employment Insurance, and immigration needs.

While the bit about transparency is nice, the Senate also recommends increasing the number of temporary workers that obtain PR status. They also suggest increasing taxpayer funding across the board.

As for their recent report, (archived here), the Senate does show how many people are actually coming via “temporary” categories. Here are the official statistics, compiled from the last 20 years. Sources are the reports linked below.

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

2019 402,427 98,310 306,797 807,534

2020 256,740 84,609 242,130 583,452

2021 445,776 103,552 313,294 862,622

2022 550,187 135,818 470,033 1,156,038

From the way the reports are worded, it appears that these are new visas being issued. In fairness, some are people who had one category expire, and are applying for another.

However, the reports are confusing as to how many people are counted across multiple programs. A cynic may wonder if it’s done deliberately.

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. In 2014, following public backlash at the TFWP being abused, subsequent reports splits it off with the IMP, to help camouflage what was going on.

The Issue of Employer-Specific Work Permits
An overwhelming majority of migrant workers, migrant worker advocates, academics and economists told the committee that employer-specific work permits are the single most egregious condition of vulnerability. While employer-specific work permits are most often associated with the TFWP, Judy Fudge notes that “approximately one-third” of IMP participants also hold them.

Catherine Bryan summarized that the closed work permit is a primary concern for migrant workers because it imposes barriers on their ability to “contest any difficulties that they are encountering and it makes it almost impossible for them to leave.” Elizabeth Kwan added that these permits make “migrant workers vulnerable to abuse and exploitation and provide employers with a stable low-wage and compliant migrant workforce.”

Page 34 of the Senate report recommends scrapping the requirement that foreign workers stay with a single employer.

On some level, it’s nice to see an initiative from the Senate to reflect the true scale of people coming to Canada. However, they seem content with increasing the numbers overall. Not exactly a win.

There’s also the problem that Ottawa doesn’t know how many people remain in the Canada after their visas expire. It was just 2016 when it was announced that a proper entry/exit system would be implemented. Before this, there wasn’t really any passport tracking of who had left.

This Senate report will be followed up.

(1) https://sencanada.ca/en/committees/SOCI/44-1
(2) https://sencanada.ca/en/info-page/parl-44-1/soci-temporary-and-migrant-labour/
(3) https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/441/SOCI/reports/2024-05-17_SOCI_Migrant_Report_e.pdf
(4) Canada Senate SOCI Report 2024
(5) https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-to-begin-collecting-exit-passport-data-1.2947418

ANNUAL IMMIGRATON REPORTS TO PARLIAMENT:
(1) 2004 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(2) 2005 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(3) 2006 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(4) 2007 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(5) 2008 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(6) 2009 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(7) 2010 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(8) 2011 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(9) 2012 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(10) 2013 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(11) 2014 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(12) 2015 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(13) 2016 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(14) 2017 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(15) 2018 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(16) 2019 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(17) 2020 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(18) 2021 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(19) 2022 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
(20) 2023 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament

B.C. Bill 23: Whites Prohibited From Serving On “Anti-Racism” Committee

A few days ago, Bill 23 was introduced in the British Columbia Legislature. This is the so-called “Anti-Racism Act”, and it’s every bit as bad as can be expected.

It was introduced by Josie Osborne, who is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. It’s unclear why she would be doing this, as it appears to have nothing to do with her portfolio.

What are the goals of this Act?

2 This Act must be administered and interpreted in accordance with the following principles:
.
(a) systemic racism, systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples and racial inequity are harming individuals and communities in British Columbia and require urgent action;
.
(b) actions to identify and eliminate systemic racism and systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples, and advance racial equity, in programs, services, policies and laws should be informed by data;
.
(c) in taking action to identify and eliminate systemic racism and advance racial equity, consideration must be given to the ways in which an individual’s intersecting identities, including, without limitation, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, sex or religion, or an individual’s physical or mental disability, result in unique experiences of, or an increased risk of experiencing, systemic racism and racial inequity;
.
(d) consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, acknowledging the rights, interests, priorities and concerns that are specific to First Nations peoples, Métis peoples and Inuit peoples, based on distinctions among them, is essential to the identification and elimination of systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples and the advancement of racial equity and the implementation of this Act;
.
(e) engagement with racialized communities in British Columbia is essential to the identification and elimination of systemic racism and the advancement of racial equity and the implementation of this Act;
.
(f) investment in programs and services is needed to support healing for individuals and communities harmed by systemic racism, systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples and racial inequity.

Even though “racial equity” is listed throughout the Bill’s principles, it isn’t actually defined. Best guess, it’s a push for some sort of affirmative action or quota system.

This sort of practice has long existed in employment and post secondary education. In theory, it could easily extend to other areas.

Section 5 of the Bill gets into the makeup of the Committee that will be reporting back to the Legislature. And it immediately becomes clear who isn’t welcome here.

Provincial Committee on Anti-Racism
5 (1) The minister must establish a Provincial Committee on Anti-Racism.
(2) The minister must appoint at least 7 and not more than 11 members to the committee.

(3) All members must be individuals who
(a) are racialized, and

(b) have expertise in working to eliminate systemic racism and advance racial equity.

(4) The committee must include the following as members:
(a) at least 2 individuals who represent organizations that support racialized individuals or communities;
(b) at least 2 individuals who have expertise in systems thinking theory and practice;
(c) at least 2 individuals who have expertise in the development and delivery of anti-racism training curricula.

Clause 5(3)(a) is very telling. In a Bill that claims to be fighting racism, the official policy is “whites need not apply”. Have to say, that sounds rather…. racist.

Clause 5(4)(b) is another one to wonder about. What are the “systems” that need to be implemented or changed? Will we be heading towards South Africa style apartheid?

It’s hard to tell at this point whether this will largely just result in slush funds being handed out to certain groups, or if it will be much worse.

Like many (or most) pieces of legislation in Canada, the B.C. Anti-Racism Act is backdoored with “regulations”. In practice, it means that major changes can be made without having to go back to the Legislature.

Regulations
31 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 [powers to make regulations] of the Interpretation Act.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows:
(a) respecting accessible formats for documents published under this Act;
(b) respecting anti-racism assessments and the anti-racism assessment framework developed under section 9 (1) (a) [duties of government] or 15 (1) (a) [duties of committee], including, without limitation, respecting
(i) the form and content of anti-racism assessments, and
(ii) the frequency with which anti-racism assessments must be carried out;
(c) respecting anti-racism training curricula and anti-racism training and the standards, targets and indicators set by the government under section 9 (1) (b) and (c) or by the committee under section 15 (1) (b) and (c);
(d) for the purposes of section 11 (4) (b) [actions against Indigenous-specific systemic racism], establishing requirements in relation to the receipt and use of information referred to in section 11 (3) (e);
(e) for the purposes of section 17 (4) (b) [actions against systemic racism], establishing requirements in relation to the receipt and use of information referred to in section 17 (3) (f);
(f) respecting grants under section 29 [minister may provide grant], including, without limitation,
(i) restricting the purposes, amounts or recipients of those grants, and
(ii) respecting the terms and conditions on which the grants may or must be given.

(3) A regulation under this Act may do one or more of the following:
(a) delegate a matter to a person;
(b) confer a discretion on a person;
(c) establish or define groups or categories of public bodies, persons, things, circumstances or other matters;
(d) make different regulations in relation to different public bodies, persons, things, circumstances or other matters, or for different groups or categories of public bodies, persons, things, circumstances or other matters.

Not only are the terms vague and undefined, but the details will be worked out in secret. Assuming this Bill is passed, then only afterwards will it all come out.

The obvious questions include: What sort of regulations will be coming in the near future? Who will be deciding what regulatory changes happen? Will there be any mechanism to challenge such measures? What kind of “discretion” will be handed out to other people or groups?

Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of BC
The Immigrant Services Society of BC

In the B.C. Lobbying Registry, a few names get flagged when searching anti-racism. Unsurprisingly, both groups receive large amounts of money from taxpayers.

Considering the NDP has a majority in the Province, the legislation will likely pass. Then again, it’s not like the Liberals are much of an opposition party anyway.

(1) https://bcndpcaucus.ca/mla/josie-osborne/
(2) https://www.leg.bc.ca/
(3) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/5th-session/bills
(4) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/5th-session/bills/progress-of-bills
(5) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/
(6) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3739&regId=56571325
(7) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=4629&regId=56572243

(U.S.) HR 61: Bill To Expand Scope Of Hate Crimes Introduced

Remember the mass shooting in Buffalo last year that was supposedly based on the “replacement theory”? It had been predicted that this would lead to more calls for gun control, and it did.

But the other shoe has dropped. House Resolution 61 has been introduced to expand hate crime laws within the U.S., and to specifically target a certain type of crime. It was sponsored by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas.

What’s particularly alarming is how many of the terms in this Bill are not clearly defined. (See archive.) This makes it difficult to enforce, but enables it to be selectively applied. In a practical sense: it has the potential to make debate much trickier, and easier to shut down.

Yes, this is in the United States, but something similar could easily come to Canada in the not too distant future. Don’t dismiss the possibility.

To state the obvious: this is only focused on one group of people.

A BILL
To prevent and prosecute white supremacy inspired hate
crime and conspiracy to commit white supremacy in-
spired hate crime and to amend title 18, United States
Code, to expand the scope of hate crimes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Leading Against White
5 Supremacy Act of 2023’’.
6 SEC. 2. WHITE SUPREMACY INSPIRED HATE CRIME.
7 (a) IN GENERAL.—A person engages in a white su-
8 premacy inspired hate crime when white supremacy
ide

2
1 ology has motivated the planning, development, prepara-
2 tion, or perpetration of actions that constituted a crime
3 or were undertaken in furtherance of activity that, if effec-
4 tuated, would have constituted a crime.
5 (b) CONSPIRACY.—A conspiracy to engage in white
6 supremacy inspired hate crime shall be determined to
7 exist—

8 (1) between two or more persons engaged in the
9 planning, development, preparation, or perpetration
10 of a white supremacy inspired hate crime
; or
11 (2) between two or more persons—
12 (A) at least one of whom engaged in the
13 planning, development, preparation, or per-
14 petration of a white supremacy inspired hate
15 crime;
and
16 (B) at least one of whom published mate-
17 rial advancing white supremacy, white suprema-
18 cist ideology, antagonism based on ‘‘replace-
19 ment theory’’
, or hate speech that vilifies or is
20 otherwise directed against any non-White per-
21 son or group, and such published material—
22 (i) was published on a social media
23 platform or by other means of publication
24 with the likelihood that it would be viewed
25 by persons who are predisposed to engag-

3
•HR 61 IH
1 ing in any action in furtherance of a white
2 supremacy inspired hate crime, or who are
3 susceptible to being encouraged to engage
4 in actions in furtherance of a white su-
5 premacy inspired hate crime;
6 (ii) could, as determined by a reason-
7 able person, motivate actions by a person
8 predisposed to engaging in a white suprem-
9 acy inspired hate crime or by a person who
10 is susceptible to being encouraged to en-
11 gage in actions relating to a white suprem-
12 acy inspired hate crime
; and
13 (iii) was read, heard, or viewed by a
14 person who engaged in the planning, devel-
15 opment, preparation, or perpetration of a
16 white supremacy inspired hate crime.
17 (c) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AUTHORITY, EN-
18 FORCEMENT, MONITORING, AND REPORTING.—The De-
19 partment shall have authority to conduct operations and
20 activities pursuant to this section, specifically—
21 (1) with regard to information or evidence ob-
22 tained by the Department of any action cited in this
23 section, the Department shall have the authority to
24 investigate, intercede, and undertake other actions
25 that it deems necessary and appropriate to interdict,

4
•HR 61 IH
1 mitigate, or prevent such action from culminating in
2 violent activity;
3 (2) the Department shall have the authority to
4 prosecute persons who engaged in actions cited in
5 this section
; and
6 (3) the Uniform Crime Reporting Program in
7 the Department of Justice shall maintain records of
8 white supremacy inspired hate crimes and related
9 actions cited in this section
, and enforcement actions
10 in response thereto.
11 The Department shall provide annual reports to the ap-
12 propriate committees in Congress that shall include infor-
13 mation cited in this paragraph.
14 SEC. 3. CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
15 Section 249(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
16 amended—
17 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)
18 by inserting after ‘‘race, color, religion, or national
19 origin of any person’’ the following: ‘‘, or because of
20 a white supremacy based motivation against any
21 person’’
; and
22 (2) in subparagraph (B)—
23 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the
24 end;

5
•HR 61 IH
1 (B) in clause (ii), by striking the period
2 and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and
3 (C) by adding at the end the following:
4 ‘‘(iii) the offense was in furtherance of
5 a white supremacy based motivation.’’.
6 SEC. 4. FINDINGS.
7 Section 4702 of the Matthew Shepard and James
8 Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 249
9 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
10 ‘‘(11) Mass shootings and other hate crimes
11 motivated by white supremacy
have been increasing
12 in frequency and intensity. These heinous and viru-
13 lent crimes are inspired by conspiracy theories, bla-
14 tant bigotry, and mythical falsehoods such as ‘‘re-
15 placement theory’’
. All instances must be prevented
16 and severe criminal penalties must be applied to
17 their perpetrators.’’.

There is a section in HR 61 that states: Department of Justice shall maintain records of white supremacy inspired hate crimes and related actions cited in this section. Does this mean that groups that talk about the ongoing replacement in the West will be looked at? (As if they aren’t already).

Also, will law enforcement to more than simply monitor and keep records? Will there be active involvement in setting up undercover operations or honeypots?

The Bill also talks about postings on the internet which people who are “susceptible to being encouraged” might read or view the content. This is another slippery slope. It seems designed to force authors to water down whatever they say because of what some random person “might” say or do.

Census data — Government distributed — in countries across the West have shown considerable demographic changes (or replacement, depending on your slant) over the last 60 or so years. Was it racist to have generated this information in the first place? Is it racist to openly and honestly discuss what is happening?

Moreover, the mainstream media has addressed this topic many times in the last few decades. It’s openly predicted that most countries in the West will be majority non-white by the end of this century, if not sooner. This is hardly a secret.

Hate crimes are already illegal in the U.S. So, why is this specific Bill necessary?

To play devil’s advocate here: this could simply be about grandstanding. It wouldn’t be the first time a politician put forth legislation they never planned to advance in order to score points. Then again, it may not be the case.

The vague and undefined definitions and explanations are possibly the worst part, as there are no actual standards to be applied.

(1) https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr61/BILLS-118hr61ih.pdf
(2) BILLS 118 House Resolution 61
(3) https://www.congress.gov/member/sheila-jackson-lee/J000032
(4) https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/1099034094/what-is-the-great-replacement-theory
(5) https://www.businessinsider.com/buffalo-mass-shooting-latest-linked-to-great-replacement-theory-2022-5?op=1

Review Of 2022 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament

With the end of this so-called “pandemic” in Canada, expect the agenda to move ahead. There were increases in every category in 2021 (compared to 2020). Expect this to get worse.

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. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

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
2020 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2021 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2022 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament

The information in this article, and similar ones, comes directly from information provided by the Government of Canada in their annual reports. These numbers, while likely not truly accurate, are at least a good starting point.

3. Immigration Largely Controlled By Provinces

Concurrent Powers of Legislation respecting Agriculture, etc.
.
95 In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from Time to Time make Laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any Law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.

Contrary to popular belief, immigration is largely set by the Provinces. This is laid out in Section 95 of the Constitution. While Ottawa may impose laws from time to time, the understanding seems to be that the Premiers will be mostly the decision makers. While it’s understandable to get angry at Trudeau, he’s far from the only deserving target.

Additionally, there are talks underway to launch a Municipal Nominee Program, which will allow cities to directly bring people in, and to sponsor their bids to become permanent residents. It’s unclear at this point how large it will ultimately be.

4. Key Highlights From The Year 2021

AS stated before, it’s not entirely clear how many people are staying after some kind of temporary visa, v.s. how many leave. We also don’t have hard data on the “inadmissibles” who don’t leave, and on the visitors who overstay. Consequently, take this as a rough estimate:

405,999 new permanent residents
-191,338 temps transitioning to PR
= 214,661 new permanent residents brought into Canada

Temporaries Brought Into Canada
445,776 (Student Visas Issued)
+103,552 (Temporary Foreign Worker Program)
+313,294 (International Mobility Program)
= 862,622 (in the temporary classes)

6,687 “inadmissibles” allowed under Rule 24(1) of IRPA
95 “inadmissibles” allowed under Rule 25.2(1) of IRPA

813,306 eTAs (electronic travel authorizations)
+654,027 TRV (temporary resident visas)
1,467,333 combined eTAs and TRV

221,919 permanent residents became citizens in 2021. That’s interesting, considering it’s far lower than the number of people who got their PR. Perhaps the population of Canada is much larger than we think, with a huge number who remain as PR, and don’t officially become citizens.

How many people remained in Canada? Who knows?

Other immigration (PR pathway) plans to take note of:

  • 2 pathways for Hong Kong residents (June 1, 2021 to August 31, 2026)
  • PR for TRP holders and their families (May 6, 2021 to November 5, 2021)
  • Families of air crashes PS 752 and EA302 can get PR
  • 500 people (+families) amnesty for illegals to work in construction
  • “Refugees” willing to work in health care settings can get PR

The Government brags about expediting work permits for “essential workers”, even as Canada experienced record high unemployment. They even created a program for “refugees” to get accelerated permanent residence if they work in health care settings. This comes at a time when Canadian workers are being let go for refusing the experimental shots.

Foreign students (under a rule change) became exempt from the 20 hour/week work limit that their visas typically imposed. Supposedly, this was to enable them to provide essential services. Again, this seems screwed up given how many Canadians were forced out of work.

Foreign students also received emergency benefits designed for Canadians, although the full extent of this is not yet published.

In January 2020, the G.T.A./IIRC started their program to give out permanent residencies to 500 people — and their families — who had overstayed their initial visas. This could be interpreted as an amnesty-for-illegals program, and we’ll have to see how much it expands.

IIRC also extended the Interim Federal Health Program, or IFHP, which is a plan that also covers so-called asylum claimants. This applies also to people who’ve illegally entered from the United States. Some 14% of claimants in 2020 had entered the country illegally, primarily via Roxham Road.

There’s also an initiative underway to bring in large numbers of people from Hong Kong, who claim to be fleeing persecution. Interesting, as Canada doesn’t seem to be run much better these days.

The Rainbow Refugee Assistance Program is supposed to grow. This is to resettle people alleging they are persecuted because of their questionable behaviours.

Canada also will allow people (women primarily) fleeing domestic violence to get a temporary permit, with a the possibility of becoming a permanent resident. There isn’t any information given about whether the abuser will be deported.

New initiatives have been announced to fast-track Afghans, Ukranians and Iranians into Canada. Expect details (and numbers) in the next annual report.

There is, of course, the usual GBA+ nonsense in the document.

5. Continued Population Replacement

(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)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(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)

(Page 50 of the 2022 Annual Report to Parliament)

Ever get the sense that people are European descent are being replaced? It’s no coincidence. The plan for decades has been to bring in large numbers of people from the 3rd World (mostly Asia and Africa), to remake society.

As usual, the top 3 are: (a) India; (b) China; and (c) The Philippines. No surprise that the enclaves in Canada are growing. More data from the recent census will be released later this year, and the results shouldn’t be a shock to anyone. India itself comprises nearly 1/3 of the total.

And keep in mind, these are just official statistics for Permanent Residents. This is by no means everyone who is coming into the country.

6. Temporary Visitors To Canada

TRV = Temporary Resident Visa
eTA = Electronic Travel Authorization

YEAR TRV Issued eTA Issued Totals
2016 1,347,898 2,605,077 3,952,975
2017 1,617,222 4,109,918 5,570,197
2018 1,898,324 4,125,909 6,024,233
2019 1,696,871 4,077,471 5,774,342
2020 257,330 648,789 906,119
2021 654,027 813,306 1,467,333

813,306 eTAs (electronic Travel Authorizations)
654,027 TRV (Temporary Resident Visa)

Travelers entering Canada increased by 62%, compared to 2020, according to the Government’s data. Expect the numbers in 2022 to come pretty close to 2018/2019 levels.

7. More “Inadmissibles” Let Into Canada

Broadly speaking, there are two provisions within IRPA, the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act, that allow people who were previously deemed inadmissible to Canada to be given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. Here are the totals from the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. Note: the first one listed only started in 2010.

Those allowed in under Rule 25.1(2) of IRPA

YEAR TRP Issued Cumulative
2010 17 17
2011 53 70
2012 53 123
2013 280 403
2014 385 788
2015 1,063 1,851
2016 596 2,447
2017 555 3002
2018 669 3,671
2019 527 4,198
2020 115 4,313
2021 95 4,408

From 2010 to 2021, a total of 4,408 people who were otherwise inadmissible to Canada were allowed in anyway under Rule 25.1(2) of IRPA. This is the category that Global News previously reported on. As for the other one, under Rule 24(1) of IRPA, Global News leaves that out:

Year Permits Cumulative
2002 12,630 12,630
2003 12,069 24,699
2004 13,598 38,297
2005 13,970 52,267
2006 13,412 65,679
2007 13,244 78,923
2008 12,821 91,744
2009 15,640 107,384
2010 12,452 119,836
2011 11,526 131,362
2012 13,564 144,926
2013 13,115 158,041
2014 10,624 168,665
2015 10,333 178,998
2016 10,568 189,566
2017 9,221 198,787
2018 7,132 205,919
2019 6,080 211,999
2020 2,044 214,043
2021 6,687 220,730

From 2002 to 2021 (inclusive), a total of 220,730 people previously deemed inadmissible to Canada were given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. This has almost certainly been going on for a lot longer, but is as far back as the reports go. Now let’s consider the reasons these people are initially refused entry.

SEC = Security (espionage, subversion, terrorism)
HRV = Human or International Rights Violations
CRIM = Criminal
S.CRIM = Serious Criminal
NC = Non Compliance
MR = Misrepresentation

YEAR Total SEC HRV Crim S.Crim NC MR
2002 12,630 ? ? ? ? ? ?
2003 12,069 17 25 5,530 869 4,855 39
2004 13,598 12 12 7,096 953 4,981 20
2005 13,970 27 15 7,917 981 4,635 21
2006 13,412 29 20 7,421 982 4,387 18
2007 13,244 25 8 7,539 977 4,109 14
2008 12,821 73 18 7,108 898 4,170 17
2009 15,640 32 23 6,619 880 7,512 10
2010 12,452 86 24 6,451 907 4,423 36
2011 11,526 37 14 6,227 899 3,932 11
2012 13,564 20 15 7,014 888 5,206 18
2013 13,115 17 10 6,816 843 5,135 8
2014 10,624 12 2 5,807 716 3,895 14
2015 10,333 3 3 5,305 578 4,315 28
2016 10,568 8 4 4,509 534 2,788 20
2017 9,221 10 5 5,035 591 3,412 121
2018 7,132 5 3 4,132 559 2,299 131
2019 6,080 2 0 3,202 546 2,139 175
2020 2,044 2 1 666 131 1,000 37
2021 6,687 1 2 602 134 1,552 48

In 2021, some 6,687 people barred were allowed in under Rule 24(1) of IRPA. That is triple what it was in 2020. Nevertheless, none of these people should be coming in.

Interestingly, even though the Government has wide discretion to let people into the country under 24(1) and 25.1(2) of IRPA, it chose not to use its discretion to prohibit anyone from entering.

Even if people are excluded from Canada — for a variety of valid reasons — often they will still be given temporary entrance into Canada. Will they ever leave? Who knows?

8. Students & Temporary Workers

After a steep decline in 2020, the number of student visas being issued has shot back up in 2021. Expect this to get worse in the coming years.

As for the “temporary” workers, the image here seems to imply that these are the total numbers of people with permits. However, it elsewhere states that these are the number issued in 2021. Of course, the International Mobility Visas (a.k.a. “working holiday”) are only 1-2 years in length.

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

2019 402,427 98,310 306,797 807,534

2020 256,740 84,609 242,130 583,452

2021 445,776 103,552 313,294 862,622

Stu = Student Visa
TFWP = Temporary Foreign Worker Program
IMP = International Mobility Program

Even during a “global pandemic” there were still 862,452 international student and temporary worker visas issued. This does represent an increase of about 48% from the 583,452 that came in 2020. Still, this is a staggering large number. As long as they were willing to take the shots, it seems anyone is welcome.

There are, of course, a number of pathways to remain in Canada longer and/or transition in permanent residence. Let’s not pretend that they’re all leaving afterwards. In fact, recent changes have allowed students to remain in their home countries while collecting time towards a PR designation here.

It would be nice to have more of a breakdown on the number of people who use more than 1 type of visa, but it doesn’t seem to be included here.

9. Refugee And Asylum Programs In Canada

The report claims to have resettled some 20,428 refugees in 2021. There isn’t a full breakdown. As far as the top 5 source countries, they are listed as:

(a) Afghanistan (6,105)
(b) Syria (4,195)
(c) Eritrea (3,674)
(d) Iraq (1,520)
(e) Democratic Republic of Somalia (1,297)

Expect far more Afghans, Ukranians and Iranians in the next few years.

10. “Anti-Racism” Initiatives To Be Advanced In Canada

The agenda endorsed by the Federal Government is to be implemented into immigration policy as well. It’s quite openly anti-white, and gaslights objections as racism and oppressions.

  • That racism against Indigenous Peoples, Black people and racialized groups has persisted over time; it exists to support, reinforce and build upon supremacy of one group over many. In our society, this is the elevation of (the) white people (or settler groups) above everyone else in many areas of Canadian life. The inertia continues to be upheld by access, privilege and indifference.
  • That colonialism, through our immigration system, has had an impact on Indigenous Peoples.
  • That global events, such as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Asian communities, fuel the rise of hate crimes in Canada. This has a profound effect on the safety and mental health of our racialized clients and employees.
  • That the experiences of many Indigenous Peoples, Black people and racialized groups intersect with sexism, ethnocentrism, classism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination, such as those experienced by persons with visible and non-visible disabilities. These intersections exacerbate an already difficult and in some cases precarious existence.
  • That, despite efforts and some progress made, IRCC has not yet achieved a fully diverse, equitable and inclusive workplace. Black employees remain in entry-level positions, and Indigenous employees, as well as employees from racialized groups, are not sufficiently represented at the executive level.
  • That many of our staff, as expressed in town halls, focus groups, trust circles and surveys, experience racism in the workplace, feel it impacts their career advancement and lack trust in senior management to address this.
  • That our fight against racism happens in solidarity with our fight against all forms of inequity.
  • That our renewed focus on Anti-Racism today builds on the tireless efforts of many unsung heroes who have long contributed to the fight against racism and all forms of inequity.
  • That racism spans beyond hate; it includes unconscious and unintended actions.

Interestingly, the idea of colonialism via immigration is mentioned. Of course, it’s primarily non-whites who are coming these days, which should throw the narrative for a loop.

When they speak of making workplaces more diverse and equitable, they really mean that the goal is to make them less white.

Pretty strange that people continue to come to Canada in record numbers, if this place really is the racist hellhole that’s being displayed.

11. Illegals Entering Via U.S./Canada Border

Although the report focused primarily on LEGAL immigration into Canada, the illegal brand is still worth talking about, since so few actually do. The United Nations gives detailed instructions and guidance on how to go about circumventing the border. The result, quite predictably, is that people keep trying to cross over.

YEAR: 2019
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA British Columbia OTHERS TOTAL
January 871 1 16 1 888
February 800 1 6 2 808
March 967 13 22 0 1,002
April 1,206 15 25 0 1,246
May 1,149 27 20 0 1,196
June 1,536 26 5 0 1,567
July 1,835 23 15 1 1,874
August 1,712 26 22 2 1,762
September 1,706 19 17 0 1,737
October 1,595 18 8 1 1,622
November 1,118 9 21 0 1,148
December 1,646 2 5 2 1,653
TOTAL 16,136 180 182 9 16,503
YEAR: 2020
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA British Columbia OTHERS TOTAL
January 1,086 7 7 0 1,100
February 976 2 2 0 980
March 930 7 18 0 955
April 1 0 5 0 6
May 17 0 4 0 21
June 28 1 3 1 33
July 29 2 17 0 48
August 15 3 0 0 18
September 30 4 7 0 41
October 27 0 4 0 31
November 24 0 8 0 32
December 26 2 8 0 36
TOTAL 3,189 28 84 1 3,302
YEAR: 2021
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA British Columbia OTHERS TOTAL
January 28 1 10 0 39
February 39 0 1 0 40
March 29 5 2 0 36
April 29 2 2 0 33
May 12 3 13 0 28
June 11 0 6 0 17
July 28 5 6 0 39
August 63 2 11 0 76
September 150 0 19 0 169
October 96 0 17 0 113
November 832 1 12 0 845
December 2,778 0 33 0 2,811
TOTAL 4,095 19 132 0 4,246

Although not listed in the Annual Immigration Report to Parliament, this is worth a mention. Illegal crossings from the U.S. did drop quite drastically in the Spring of 2020. Of course, the Government had to play along and make this “pandemic” seem real. In recent months, however, it seems the numbers are creeping back up again.

Keep in mind, the text of the Safe Third Country Agreement requires both Canada and the U.S. to consult with the UNHCR on refugees, and to get input from NGOs. We haven’t had meaningful borders in a long time.

As a reminder: the Trudeau Government scrapped the DCO, or Designated Country of Origin, back in 2019. This would allow for claims from “safe” countries to be denied much more quickly. However, with things the way they are, it seems nowhere is really safe. While the issue was very mainstream from 2017 to 2019, it seems to have disappeared.

In June 2020, a new policy kicked in to finally track who is leaving the country. Even more strange that a Trudeau would bring it in when he did. Probably to make it harder for people fleeing his regime.

Overall, the replacement agenda slowed down in 2020, but it rebounded significantly in 2021. Expect it to resume in full swing for 2022 and beyond.

Parliament’s Guidelines On Euthanizing The Mentally Ill

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), a.k.a. euthanasia or assisted suicide, had been touted as proponents as having an extremely limited scope. In other words, it would be available to people with terminal illnesses, who were otherwise living in extreme pain.

Bill C-14 was supposed to be limited to terminal cases. In the next session, Bill C-7 increased the eligibility options. Suddenly, even people with serious mental illnesses were able to obtain euthanasia, provided the mental problem wasn’t the sole reason.

And now, we reach the point where people whose SOLE problem is a mental illness can be put down with the help of so-called medical professionals. The people pushing the slippery slope argument have been proven correct once again.

An interim report was released in June 2022, and it’s widely expected that expanding the scope will become law very soon.

MAID PRACTICE STANDARDS

Recommendation 1: Development of MAiD practice standards
The federal, provincial and territorial governments should facilitate the collaboration of physician and nurse regulatory bodies in the development of Standards of Practice for physicians and nurse practitioners for the assessment of MAiD requests in situations that raise questions about incurability, irreversibility, capacity, suicidality, and the impact of structural vulnerabilities. These standards should elaborate upon the subject matter of recommendations 2–13.

INTERPRETING GRIEVOUS AND IRREMEDIABLE MEDICAL CONDITION

Recommendation 2: Establishing incurability
MAiD assessors should establish incurability with reference to treatment attempts made up to that point, outcomes of those treatments, and severity and duration of illness, disease or disability. It is not possible to provide fixed rules for how many treatment attempts, how many kinds of treatments, and over what period of time as this will vary according to the nature and severity of medical conditions the person has and their overall health status. This must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Panel is of the view that the requester and assessors must come to a shared understanding that the person has a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability. As with many chronic conditions, the incurability of a mental disorder cannot be established in the absence of multiple attempts at interventions with therapeutic aims.

Recommendation 3: Establishing irreversibility
MAiD assessors should establish irreversibility with reference to interventions tried that are designed to improve function, including: recognized rehabilitative and supportive measures that have been tried up to that point, outcomes of those interventions, and the duration of decline. It is not possible to provide fixed rules for how many attempts at interventions, how many types of interventions, and over how much time, as this will vary according to a requester’s baseline function as well as life goals. Therefore, this must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Panel is of the view that the requester and assessors must come to a shared understanding that the person is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability.

Recommendation 4: Understanding enduring and Intolerable suffering
MAiD assessors should come to an understanding with the requester that the illness, disease or disability or functional decline causes the requester enduring and intolerable physical or psychological suffering.

VULNERABILITIES

Recommendation 5: Comprehensive capacity assessments
MAiD assessors should undertake thorough and, where appropriate, serial assessments of a requester’s decision-making capacity in accordance with clinical standards and legal criteria. These assessments should be consistent with approaches laid out in standardized capacity evaluation tools.

Recommendation 6: Means available to relieve suffering
To ensure all requesters have access to the fullest possible range of social supports which could potentially contribute to reducing suffering, the Panel recommends that ’community services’ in Track 2 Safeguard 241.2(3.1)(g) should be interpreted as including housing and income supports as means available to relieve suffering and should be offered to MAiD requesters, where appropriate.

Recommendation 7: Interpretation of track 2 safeguard 241.2(3.1)(h) the person has given serious consideration to those means
Serious consideration should be interpreted to mean genuine openness to the means available to relieve suffering and how they could make a difference in the person’s life.

Recommendation 8: Consistency, durability, and well-considered nature of a maid request
Assessors should ensure that the requester’s wish for death is consistent with the person’s values and beliefs, unambiguous and rationally considered during a period of stability, not during a period of crisis.

Recommendation 9: Situations of involuntariness
Persons in situations of involuntariness for periods shorter than six months should be assessed following this period to minimize the potential contribution of the involuntariness on the request for MAiD. For those who are repeatedly or continuously in situations of involuntariness, (e.g., six months or longer, or repeated periods of less than six months), the institutions responsible for the person should ensure that assessments for MAiD are performed by assessors who do not work within or are associated with the institution.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Recommendation 10: Independent assessor with expertise
The requester should be assessed by at least one assessor with expertise in the condition(s). In cases involving MAiD MD-SUMC, the assessor with expertise in the condition should be a psychiatrist independent from the treating team/provider. Assessors with expertise in the person’s condition(s) should review the diagnosis, and ensure the requester is aware of all reasonable options for treatment and has given them serious consideration.

Recommendation 11: Involvement of other healthcare professionals
Assessors should involve medical subspecialists and other healthcare professionals for consultations and additional expertise where necessary.

Recommendation 12: Discussion with treating team and collateral information
• If the requester’s primary healthcare provider is not one of the assessors, assessors should obtain input from that person. When the requester’s clinical care is shared by members of a multidisciplinary healthcare team, assessors should solicit their input as well.
• With a requester’s consent, assessors and providers shall obtain collateral information relevant to eligibility and capacity assessment. This should include reviewing medical records, prior MAiD assessments, and discussions with family members or significant others. Care must be taken to determine that obtaining collateral information will not be harmful to the requester.

Recommendation 13: Challenging interpersonal dynamics
Assessors and providers should be self-reflective and examine their reactions to those they assess. If their reactions compromise their ability to carry out the assessment in accordance with professional norms, they should seek supervision from mentors and colleagues, and/or discontinue involvement in the assessment process. The practitioner should adhere to any local policies concerning withdrawal from a MAiD assessment and onward referral.

IMPLEMENTATION

Recommendation 14: Consultations with first nations, inuit and métis peoples
Consultation between health regulatory bodies in each province and territory with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples must aim to create practice standards with respect to MAiD MD-SUMC, and MAiD more generally, that incorporate Indigenous perspectives and are relevant to their communities.

Recommendation 15: Training of assessors and providers in specialized topics
To support consistent application of the law and to ensure high quality and culturally sensitive care, assessors and providers should participate in training opportunities that address topics of particular salience to MAiD MD-SUMC. These include, but are not limited to: capacity assessment, trauma-informed care and cultural safety.

Recommendation 16: Prospective oversight
Given its concurrent jurisdiction in relation to MAiD, the federal government should play an active role in supporting the development of a model of prospective oversight for all or some Track 2 cases that could be adapted by provinces and territories.

Recommendation 17: Case-based quality assurance and education
The federal government should play an active role in supporting the development of provincial/territorial systems of MAiD case review for educational and quality improvement purposes.

Recommendation 18: Modifications to data collection under the federal maid monitoring system
Data related to specific topics (eligibility, supported decision-making, means available to relieve suffering, refusal of means available, and residence and legal status) should be collected in the MAiD monitoring system in addition to data already collected under the 2018 Regulations. These data can be used to assess whether key areas of concern raised about MAiD MD-SUMC and complex Track 2 cases discussed in this report are being addressed by the clinical practices recommended.

Recommendation 19: Periodic, federally funded research
The federal government should fund both targeted and investigator-initiated periodic research on questions relating to the practice of MAiD (including but not only MAiD MD-SUMC).

If nothing else, Recommendation #8 points out that this should only be an option during a period of stability, and not during a crisis.

Keep in mind, this is only an interim report. There’s nothing to suggest this won’t be expanded on at some later point.

Since its inception, the rates of people receiving assistance in suicide has increased year over year. This will surely raise those numbers even more.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/Work
(2) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/AMAD/report-1/
(3) https://parl.ca/Content/Committee/441/AMAD/Reports/RP11896958/amadrp01/amadrp01-e.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/canadas-bill-c-14-assisted-suicide/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/euthanasia-3-bill-c-7-to-expand-scope-of-assisted-suicide/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/recent-statistics-on-euthanasia-assisted-suicide-in-canada/

Replacement Migration In Canada: 1966 To 1979 Data

Here’s some data going back to the 1960s. These years feature quite differently than more recent reports. The United States and United Kingdom were consistently at the top of the source countries list. That has since been replaced by China, India and the Philippines. White genocide (a.k.a “replacement”) is a very real thing.

According to the United Nations, enacting policies designed to bring about the destruction of an ethnic, racial, or religious group (in all or in part), is considered genocide. Consequently, forced multiculturalism and population replacement should be viewed through that lens.

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. Source Countries From 1966 To 1979

Let’s look at the “official” numbers from 1966 to 1979. The U.S. and U.K. are still featured prominently, something that will change in the coming years.

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1966
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 63,291 32.5 1
Italy 31,625 16.2 2
United States 17,514 9.0 3
Germany 9,263 4.8 4
Portugal 7,930 4.0 5
France 7,872 4.0 6
Greece 7,174 3.7 7
China 4,094 2.1 8
West Indies 3,935 2.0 9
Netherlands 3,794 1.9 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 156,492 80.4
TOTAL — OTHERS 38,251 19.6
GRAND TOTAL 194,743 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1967
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 62,420 28.0 1
Italy 30,055 13.4 2
United States 19,038 8.6 3
Germany 11,779 5.3 4
Greece 10,650 4.6 5
France 10,122 4.5 6
Portugal 9,500 4.2 7
West Indies 8,403 3.8 8
China 6,409 2.9 9
Australia 4,967 2.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 173,343 77.8
TOTAL — OTHERS 49,533 22.2
GRAND TOTAL 222,876 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1968
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 37,889 20.6 1
United States 20,422 11.1 2
Italy 19,774 10.8 3
Germany 8,966 4.8 4
China 8,382 4.6 5
France 8,184 4.4 6
Austria 8,125 4.4 7
Greece 7,739 4.2 8
Portugal 7,738 4.2 9
West Indies 7,563 4.1 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 104,782 57.0
TOTAL — OTHERS 79,192 43.0
GRAND TOTAL 183,974 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1969
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 31,977 19.8 1
United States 22,785 14.1 2
West Indies 13,093 8.1 3
Italy 10,383 6.4 4
China 8,272 5.1 5
Portugal 7,182 4.4 6
Greece 6,937 4.3 7
Germany 5,880 3.6 8
France 5,549 3.4 9
India 5,395 3.3 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 117,453 72.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 44,078 27.3
GRAND TOTAL 161,531 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1970
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 26,497 18.7 1
United States 24,424 16.5 2
West Indies 12,456 8.4 3
Italy 8,533 5.8 4
Portugal 7,902 5.4 5
Greece 6,327 4.3 6
Yugoslavia 5,672 3.8 7
India 5,670 3.8 8
China 5,377 3.6 9
France 4,410 2.9 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 101,596 68.8
TOTAL — OTHERS 46,118 31.2
GRAND TOTAL 147,714 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1971
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 24,366 20.0 1
United Kingdom 15,451 12.8 2
Portugal 9,157 7.5 3
Italy 5,790 4.8 4
India 5,313 4.4 5
China 5,009 4.1 6
Greece 4,769 3.9 7
Philippines 4,180 3.4 8
Yugoslavia 2,997 2.4 9
France 2,966 2.4 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 79,998 66.6
TOTAL — OTHERS 41,902 34.4
GRAND TOTAL 121,900 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1972
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 22,618 18.5 1
United Kingdom 18,197 14.9 2
Portugal 8,737 7.2 3
Hong Kong 6,297 5.2 4
India 5,049 4.1 5
Uganda 5,021 4.1 6
Italy 4,608 3.8 7
Greece 4,016 3.3 8
Philippines 3,946 3.2 9
France 2,742 2.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 81,231 66.6
TOTAL — OTHERS 40,775 33.4
GRAND TOTAL 122,006 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1973
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 26,973 14.6 1
United States 25,242 13.7 2
Hong Kong 14,662 8.0 3
Portugal 13,483 7.3 4
Jamaica 9,363 5.1 5
India 9,203 5.0 6
Philippines 6,757 3.7 7
Greece 5,833 3.2 8
Italy 5,468 3.0 9
Trinidad-Tobago 5,138 2.8 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 122,122 66.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 62,078 33.7
GRAND TOTAL 184,200 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1974
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 38,456 17.6 1
United States 26,541 12.1 2
Portugal 16,333 7.5 3
India 12,868 5.9 4
Hong Kong 12,704 5.8 5
Jamaica 11,286 5.2 6
Philippines 9,564 4.4 7
Greece 5,632 2.6 8
Italy 5,226 2.4 9
Haiti 4,857 2.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 143,467 65.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 74,998 34.3
GRAND TOTAL 218,465 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1975
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 34,978 18.6 1
United States 20,155 10.7 2
Hong Kong 11,132 5.9 3
India 10,144 5.4 4
Portugal 8,390 4.5 5
Jamaica 8,211 4.4 6
Philippines 7,364 3.9 7
Italy 5,078 2.7 8
Guyana 4,394 2.3 9
South Korea 4,314 2.3 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 114,163 60.8
TOTAL — OTHERS 73,718 39.2
GRAND TOTAL 187,881 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1976
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 21,548 14.4 1
United States 17,315 11.6 2
Hong Kong 10,725 7.2 3
Jamaica 7,282 4.9 4
Lebanon 7,161 4.8 5
India 6,733 4.5 6
Philippines 5,939 4.0 7
Portugal 5,344 3.6 8
Italy 4,530 3.0 9
Guyana 3,430 2.3 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 90,007 60.2
TOTAL — OTHERS 59,422 39.8
GRAND TOTAL 149,429 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1977
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 17,977 15.6 1
United States 12,888 11.2 3
Hong Kong 6,371 5.5 3
Philippines 6,232 5.4 4
India 5,555 4.8 5
Lebanon 3,847 3.3 6
Portugal 3,579 3.1 7
Italy 3,411 3.0 8
France 2,757 2.4 9
Guyana 2,472 2.4 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 65,089 56.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 49,825 43.3
GRAND TOTAL 114,914 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1978
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 11,801 13.7 1
United States 9,945 11.5 2
India 5,110 5.9 3
Hong Kong 4,740 5.5 4
Philippines 4,370 5.1 5
Portugal 3,086 3.6 6
Italy 2,976 .43 7
France 1,754 2.9 8
South Africa 1,653 1.9 9
Lebanon 1,454 1.7 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 46,880 54.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 39,424 45.7
GRAND TOTAL 86,313 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1979
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Vietnam 19,859 17.7 1
United Kingdom 12,853 11.5 2
United States 9,617 8.6 3
Hong Kong 5,966 5.3 4
India 4,517 4.0 5
Laos 3,903 3.5 6
Philippines 3,873 3.5 7
Jamaica 3,213 2.9 8
Guyana 2,473 2.2 9
China 2,058 2.1 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 68,332 61.0
TOTAL — OTHERS 43,764 39.0
GRAND TOTAL 112,096 100

Permanent Residents: U.S., Europe and Australia as a percentage of overall migration globally. The vast majority of people getting PR in recent years aren’t from those areas.

YEAR # U.S. % U.S. # Eur. % Eur. # Aust % Austr # Other % Other
1973 25,242 13.7 71,883 39.0 2,096 1.1 84,979 46.1
1974 26,541 12.1 88,694 40.6 2,022 0.1 102,208 46.3
1975 20,155 10.7 72,898 38.8 1,654 0.1 87,174 46.4
1976 17,315 11.5 49,908 33.3 1,387 0.1 80,819 54.1
1977 12,888 11.2 40,747 35.5 1,063 0.1 60,216 52.4
1978 9,945 11.5 30,075 34.8 1,233 1.4 45,060 52.2
1979 9,617 8.6 32,858 29.3 808 0.1 68,813 61.4

3. More Recent Statistics On Immigration Source Countries

The above may not seem too bad, but keep in mind that the trends are about to get a whole lot worse. Here are numbers from within the last decade. Of course, this doesn’t include the hordes of students and “temporary” workers who come and don’t leave.

(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)

Notice any major changes? The U.K. and U.S. are nowhere near as prominent as they once were, and the demographic replacement is accelerating.

Of course, this doesn’t address the levels of student visas and “temporary” workers, which would increase drastically in the coming years.

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

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
2020.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament