Gov’t Recommends More Pathways For Hong Kong Residents To Come

The Canadian Government has posted its take on the report by the Immigration Committee in Parliament. This concerns the topic: “Safe Haven in Canada: Special Immigration and Refugee Measures are Urgently Needed for the People of Hong Kong”.

The responses are not encouraging. Overall, Ottawa seems to favour more people coming to Canada, and less accountability overall. While most of the recommendations are specific to Hong Kong, there’s little interest in legitimate security concerns related to China.

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. Recommendations From June 2022 Report

Recommendation 1
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada issue study permits to Hong Kong applicants who have been accepted in a study program at an institution with a COVID-19 readiness plan, regardless of their age.

Recommendation 2
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada undertake to extend the young professionals Working Holiday work permit for Hong Kong residents to two years and to include persons up to 35 years of age.

Recommendation 3
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada extend the criteria for eligibility for the three-year open work permit to include all persons with a minimum of 60 credits or its equivalent of post-secondary education regardless of when this education was completed.

Disagreed with, if only because there are already of pathways available. This is a response that will come up over and over again.

Recommendations 4 and 5
#4 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada adopt an inclusive approach and develop a pathway to permanent residence for former Hong Kong residents based on a broad range of work experience, and requiring minimal language and education levels.
#5 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada quickly develop and implement a pathway to permanent residence for Hong Kong residents who complete their post-secondary studies in Canada, ensuring that this pathway remains available to all Hong Kong residents studying at designated learning institutions.

Recommendations 6 and 7
#6 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada create a temporary public policy to grant refugee status to pro-democracy activists within Hong Kong and within third countries, which will enable their resettlement to Canada.
#7 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada implement a temporary public policy to bring Hong Kong residents at risk to Canada on temporary resident visas regardless of their age.

Recommendation 8
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada partner with designated non-governmental organizations to identify Hong Kong pro-democracy activists in need of safe haven in Canada on a temporary resident visa, to certify Hong Kong refugees, and to facilitate both classes of Hong Kong residents at risk to travel from Hong Kong to third countries and to Canada, and redevelop a refugee stream similar to the former source country program.

Recommendation 9
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada acknowledge the urgency of the situation and that, given the exit ban will take effect on 1 August 2021, the Minister immediately respond with an expansion of humanitarian measures to the current immigration and refugee measures to support the people of Hong Kong.

Recommendation 10
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada issue travel documents to residents of Hong Kong at risk of persecution and exempt them from non-essential pandemic travel restrictions, following all public health guidelines.

Recommendation 11
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada implement a temporary public policy to create an expedited pathway to permanent residence for Hong Kong residents in Canada or abroad before the exit ban comes into effect on 1 August 2021.

Recommendation 12
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada promote its family reunification stream to family members of Hong Kong residents looking to come to Canada and create a temporary public policy to also include extended family members of Canadian citizens and of pro-democracy activists living in Canada.

Recommendation 13
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada develop a temporary public policy to allow former Canadian citizens to return to Canada as permanent residents.

Recommendation 14
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, in partnership with Public Services and Procurement Canada, and, as needed, other departments and agencies, investigate Canada’s Visa Application Centres in China, especially in regard to personal data leaks due to employee coercion, and that it tables its findings with the Committee.

Recommendation 15
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada terminate its contract with VFS Global in China and bring the services back in-house at Canadian diplomatic missions in China.

The Government disagrees with recommendations #14 and #15, which is interesting. There seems to be little urgency to investigate, or replace a private agency (despite concerns) that is processing the visas for Chinese nationals.

Doesn’t seem like there is much interest in protecting Canadian borders or sovereignty.

3. Important Links

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/CIMM/report-1/
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/CIMM/report-1/response-8512-441-10
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/441/CIMM/GovResponse/RP11842881/441_CIMM_Rpt01_GR/DepartmentOfCitizenshipAndImmigration-e.pdf
(4) Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Hong Kong

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

M-44: Parliament Votes To Accelerate TFW/Student-To-PR Pipeline

Motion M-44 has recently passed. The House of Commons voted to demand that the Trudeau Government come up with new ways to accelerate the transition of “temporary” foreign workers and international students into Permanent Residents.

The legislation was advanced by Liberal Randeep Sarai. This isn’t at all surprising, considering the largest group coming to Canada in recent years has been Indians.

The final vote was 324-0. This means each Member of Parliament who voted did so in favour of this Motion, regardless of partisan affiliation. Every single “Conservative” voted in favour of speeding up demographic replacement by supporting this.

Even worse: they condemn the truthful description of what’s happening as racist conspiracy theories.

It’s interesting that there’s no hurry by Federal politicians to get rid of masks or vaccine passports. However, all of Parliament agreed that there should be a plan within the next 4 months to expand and speed up pathways to creating more Permanent Residents.

MOTION TEXT
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should develop and publicly release within 120 days following the adoption of this motion a comprehensive plan to expand the economic immigration stream to allow workers of all skill levels to meet the full range of labour needs and pathways to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers, including international students, with significant Canadian work experience in sectors with persistent labour shortages, and such plan should incorporate the following elements:
.
(a) amending eligibility criteria under economic immigration programs to give more weight to significant in-Canada work experience and expand the eligible occupational categories and work experience at various skills levels;
.
(b) examining evidence and data gathered from recent programs such as Temporary Resident to Permanent Resident Pathway, Atlantic Immigration Program (AIP), Rural and Northern Immigration Program (RNIP), and Agri-Food Pilot, and Provincial Nominee Process (PNP);
.
(c) incorporating data on labour market and skills shortages to align policy on immigrant-selection with persistent labour gaps;
.
(d) assessing ways to increase geographic distribution of immigration and encourage immigrant retention in smaller communities, as well as increase Francophone immigration outside Quebec;
.
(e) identifying mechanisms for ensuring flexibility in immigration-selection tools to react quicker to changes in labour market needs and regional economic priorities; and
.
(f) specifically considering occupations and essential sectors that are underrepresented in current economic immigration programs, such as health services, caregivers, agriculture, manufacturing, service industry, trades, and transportation.

What specific sectors will be targeted? Included are: health services, caregivers, agriculture, manufacturing, service industry, trades, and transportation. Of course, it’s much easier to support a family if they are living in a country with a much lower cost of living.

Sure, one could argue that it’s just to demand a plan. However, Trudeau is extremely accommodating when it comes to finding new ways to bring people into Canada.

Another development saw the Government extend the work visas for graduates get extended by 18 months. Now, students who complete a diploma or degree are typically eligible for a 3 year open work visa (via the Post Graduate Work Program). For those involved, it effectively makes those permits 4 1/2 years. It’s unclear if this is just a one-off.

In 2020, the Government quietly made changes to allow people on student visas to work an unlimited amount of hours — while still in school. This policy existed to ensure that students were in fact focused on studying, and not just using it as a backdoor work permit. See page 12 of 2021 Report. Guess we’ll see if it ever goes back.

It seems unlikely that the average Canadian has any idea just how many students and “temporary” workers come to Canada. This should demonstrate the trend, at least for recent years.

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

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

Data for this table was compiled from the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament, from 2004 through 2021. These cover the years 2003 to 2020. Keep in mind, this is just what’s on the books.

How many of them actually stay? It’s hard to say. Either the Government doesn’t keep data on this this, or they do, but just don’t make it easily available.

About the change from 2013 to 2014: the Harper Government got a lot of flack for flooding Canada with TFWs. The solution they came up with was not to reduce the number of them. Instead, they broke up the program into different areas to better conceal what was happening. This has been addressed elsewhere on this site.

Simply beyond pumping up the people who are getting PR status, the Canadian Parliament has also been holding hearings since February on the topic of boosting the number of international students coming in the first place.

More people coming + more staying = faster rate of change

The lie has been heavily promoted that it’s only 300,000 or 400,000 people coming to Canada per year. It’s not. Whether it’s ignorance or malice, very few report the truth, including those in alternative media. Here’s a recent review of the numbers in Canada. It’s shocking, or at least it should be.

While politicians here facilitate open borders, it’s worth mentioning that over 4.2 million babies have been aborted since 1970. Then of course, they’re feminism and the globohomo agenda doing a number on birth rates. The solution then becomes to bring more people over, to compensate for a declining population.

Are things starting to make sense now?

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

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/89339/motions/11528727
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/randeep-sarai(89339)
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/85
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/CIMM/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11473703
(5) https://kitchener.citynews.ca/national-news/federal-government-will-let-international-graduates-stay-in-canada-another-18-months-5291183
(6) https://www.cp24.com/news/tory-leadership-candidate-pierre-poilievre-denounces-white-replacement-theory-1.5906421

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

Recycling Used “Covid” Masks Apparently A Thing Now

If you (or your children) go to college or university, you’ll undoubtedly remember that there were mask mandates until very recently. Of course, there are many places that still have them to this day. The justification was that there was some deadly virus, and that the masks — and vaccine passports — were necessary.

Notwithstanding the fact that “Covid-19” doesn’t exist, and that germ theory is pretty much based on lies, one would think that schools would be taking this seriously. After all, shouldn’t there be biohazardous containers everywhere to dispose of used masks?

Not only is that not the case, but it seems that recycling masks is also a fairly common thing. Not sure how exactly this works, but wouldn’t that endanger everyone?

This isn’t an attempt to justify endless waste. However, any adult capable of rational thought should be asking why this is being done. After all, this (alleged) virus is (allegedly) what caused the biggest economic crash in generations. Why pinch pennies just to recycle biohazardous waste?

For anyone curious, check the college in your area to see if they have these bins.

It’s almost as if there’s no virus at all.

Colleges/Universities: Heavily Subsidized Charities, Playing Along With Mask, Vaccine Orders

Yes, these numbers are higher than the amounts of colleges and universities in Canada. However, many of them have more than one registered charity operating under their name. It also includes some student unions, religious sects, and graduate student groups.

Visit this earlier piece for some of the grant money received on behalf of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This isn’t difficult to find.

If the audio sounds a bit off in the video, it had to be compressed in order to be uploaded to this site. The original is available here.

While the video is by no means exhaustive, there were some key takeaways:

  • College and universities are registered charities with the C.R.A.
  • They’re eligible for rent subsidies, CERS, from their status as charities
  • The schools (or at least some groups within) have received CEWS, the wage subsidy
  • They take money from private donors, which includes pharmaceutical pushers
  • Canadian taxpayers forced to subsidize FOREIGN universities through C.R.A.

Although not in this video, it’s worth mentioning that universities regularly receive large grants from groups like CIHR, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. For many professors, this funding is essential to do research. Are they really going to debunk their Government masters? Of course, that’s a major topic that deserves its own piece.

Of course, NSERC (Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council), and SSHRC (Social Studies & Humanities Research Council), distribute money to other parts of universities. It’s fair to assume that these schools are well aware of the outcomes that are expected.

What is the result of this? There are significant financial interests in having post secondary institutions play along with the “pandemic” narrative. Consequently, there has been no real opposition to imposing masks and vaccine passports in the schools.

Also consider that virtually all schools have nursing and other health programs. Many universities have medical schools. There’s too much tied up in the status quo to pose a genuine threat.

Vital questions are not asked as a result of these policies. Issues such as no virus ever being isolated, (see Fluoride Free Peel’s work) should be front and center in this discussion. But they aren’t.

Another important question is how the World Health Organization defines a “Covid death”. The result would be funny, if not for the real world consequences.

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. (See archive here). It’s been covered elsewhere on this site, and is worth bringing up again.

These are just a few of the basic questions that colleges and universities should be having their students think about. After all, they pitch themselves as institutions of higher learning. Instead, they serve to promote the status quo.

Come to think of it: plenty of schools offer some kind of media or journalism program. However, the “next generation” of journalists and reporters don’t seem interested in doing real research. Sadly, that’s not too surprising anymore.

This continues the list of institutions that are getting funded to shill the “pandemic” narrative. These include: restaurants and hotels, political parties, law firms, more law firms, churches, trucking associations, chambers of commerce, financial institutions, the publishing industry, and gyms, just to name a few of them.

As with so many groups supporting these “pandemic measures”, just follow the money. It explains a lot about their actions. Yes, it sounds cynical to equate these decisions with selling out, but what other explanations are there?

(1) https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/cra-arc/serv-info/tax/business/topics/cers/statistics/cers_tbl2.pdf
(2) Canada Emergency Rental Subsidy
(3) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/wage-rent-subsidies/emergency-rent-subsidy/cers-statistics.html
(4) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(5) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch?request_locale=en
(6) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch

(A.1) Hotel, Restaurant Groups Getting Wage/Rental Subsidies
(A.2) Liberals, Conservatives, NDP All Getting Bailout Money
(A.3) Lawyers, Bar Associations Receiving CEWS Money
(A.4) Conflicting Out? Lawyers Getting More Than Just CEWS
(A.5) Churches Are Charities, Getting CEWS, Subsidies & Promoting Vaccines
(A.6) Trucking Alliance Grants Raising many Eyebrows
(A.7) Chambers Of Commerce Subsidized By Canadians, Want Open Borders
(A.8) Banks, Credit Unions, Media Outlets All Getting CEWS
(A.9) Publishing Industry Subsidized By Taxpayer Money
(A.10) Gyms, Fitness Centres Getting CEWS As They Mandate Masks, Vaxx Passports
(A.11) CERS, The Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy For Businesses

%d bloggers like this: