NACIA, And Insect Consumption, Alternative Protein Market

“Eat the bugs” is a global effort to change the consumption habits of people and animals across the world. It’s also part of a larger movement towards “alternative” sources of protein. And a significant piece of this is being financed with public money. Let’s get into some of the details.

For clarity: the $152.8 million to Protein Industries Canada is to fund the “Supercluster” as outlined in the 2017 Federal Budget. The money is then redistributed to various grantees.

There are also significant grants being handed out for various plant-based meats and alternatives. So, it’s not all about just the bugs. Merit is a new food processor on the north end of Winnipeg and works with plant proteins. Seems that Government really is trying to kill traditional farming.

Isn’t it strange that so much money is spent on pesticides and other things to wipe out insects, but now, they are to be breed on a massive scale?

Note: some of these entries were included in a previous piece on the subject of subsidies for cricket farming. However, the issue is far bigger than just that.

COMPANY DATE SUBJECT AMOUNT
2066879 Alberta Ltd. May 17, 2018 Baked Products W/Insect Proteins $10,000.00
2589002 Ontario Inc. Jun 1, 2020 Raw Insect-Based Protein For Pets $43,812.00
Aspire Food Group Ltd. Jul 10, 2020 Build Comm. Demonstration Facility $8,500,000.00
Aspire Food Group Ltd. Nov 1, 2021 Cricket Production, Processing Facility $50,000.00
Casa Bonita Foods, Inc. Aug 9, 2021 Protein Snacks With Cricket Flour $39,000.00
Dalhousie University Mar 30, 2021 Hemp/Cannabis Waste $25,000.00
Enterra Feed Corp. May 1, 2020 Alternative Proteins For Animals $24,000.00
Entologik Inc Jun 18, 2020 Continuity Of Operations $58,979.00
Entologik Inc Aug 3, 2020 Automate The Rearing Process $30,000.00
Ferme Bogemans Inc. Dec 3, 2018 Animal Nutrition From Insects, Fertilizer $40,430.00
Gaia Protein Ltd. Apr 1, 2021 Cricket Production Technology $42,000.00
Grévio Inc. May 11, 2020 Egg Laying, Hatching, Rearing Crickets $48,800.00
Griffith Foods Limited May 1, 2019 Alternative Protein Products $61,000.00
McGill University Nov 5, 2021 Cricket Rearing, Collection, Transformation $30,000.00
Merit Functional Foods Feb 24, 2020 Plant-Based Proteins From Peas/Canola $10,000,000.00
Näak Inc. Oct 29, 2018 Products Cooked W/Cricket Powder $48,517.00
Näak Inc. Sep 23, 2020 Low-Powder Cricket Energy Bars $123,178.00
OECD Mar 20, 2020 Market Research, Alt Proteins $97,460.00
PEI Bioalliance Nov 18, 2020 Sustainable Protein Production Program $601,817.00
Pholoho Biotechnology Jan 24, 2022 Equipment For Insect-Based Proteins $115,000.00
Protein Industries Canada Mar 15, 2018 Protein Industries Supercluster $152,843,759.00
Queen’s University Mar 30, 2020 Insect/Plant-Based Proteins $132,158.00
Sustento Inc. Dec 1, 2021 Dog Food With Novel Ingredients $50,000.00
Veterinarians W/O Borders Dec 16, 2021 Innovation, Cricket Farming $1,999,999.00

Of course, all of the listings here can be verified by checking the Federal Government’s own database on grant money issued.

The alternative protein section is just 1 out of 5 initiatives undertaken in this program. Pretty convenient that we had shutdowns over the last 2 years decimating undesirable industries.

Aspire Food Group, did recently announce that its cricket production plant in London, Ontario was finally finished. A large part of this was financed by Canadian taxpayers. Additionally, Aspire is part of NACIA, the North American Coalition for Insect Agriculture. This is big business.

Insects are an untapped natural resource with the potential to change our agricultural systems to be safer and more sustainable.

Anchored by Founding Member companies, Aspire Food Group, Beta Hatch, EnviroFlight, InnovaFeed, and Ynsect, NACIA members are currently 200 strong, based in 12 countries, 50 companies, and 23 universities.

NACIA members include insect producers, product makers in food, animal feed, pet food and soil health, as well as technology and service providers for agriculture and food. Researcher and university student members are examining how to improve the insect agriculture industry through scientific inquiry.

NACIA is currently working to improve the regulatory environment in North America, connect our members with industry stakeholders, and the knowledge they need to grow. We also work to inform key stakeholders about the potential for insects to provide environmentally sustainable, highly nutritious ingredients that can be produced as part of circular and regenerative agriculture.

It’s interesting that their “mission statement” talks about creating more sustainable agriculture systems. This suggests that the goal isn’t just to supplement more traditional farming, but to replace it altogether. Hard to disregard the food processing plants being destroyed, in light of this.

NACIA partners with similar organizations in Asia and Australia, and with the pet-food industry. It’s not just about getting humans to eat the bugs, but their dogs and cats too.

NACIA retweeted this February 9 article from the World Economic Forum on how eating bug can help reduce climate change. That is a very common talking point: that converting from a meat diet to a bug or plant based diet will reduce greenhouse gases.

NACIA’s Twitter account was created in 2017. Although not terribly active, it does boost other groups and individuals connected in the industry.

In April 2022, NACIA co-hosted a webinar with IPIFF about trans-Atlantic business opportunities for farmed insects both for human and animal consumption. Bugs were also to be used in fertilizer. Interestingly, they cite the corona “pandemic” and conflict in Ukraine as reasons to accelerate. Watch the clip from the start of the video.

Now, what if things were even more organized than that?

This agreement seemed so harmless when Stephen Harper signed it in 2015, doesn’t it? Now, Trudeau is domestically implementing it, showing there’s really just 1 party.

Kudos as well to Jordan Peterson. He did a great job at the U.N. for those 3 years, removing the ideological clap-trap (his terminology), to make the contents less obvious to readers.

Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
2.1 By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round
2.2 By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons
2.3 By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment
2.4 By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality
2.5 By 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at the national, regional and international levels, and promote access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreed
2.a Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks in order to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular least developed countries
2.b Correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets, including through the parallel elimination of all forms of agricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development Round
2.c Adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets and their derivatives and facilitate timely access to market information, including on food reserves, in order to help limit extreme food price volatility

Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries
13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning
13.a Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible
13.b Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities
.
* Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

Consider Goal #2 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda, or Agenda 2030. All of this sounds harmless on the surface, until you realize that “sustainable food systems” means replacing what we have now in the West.

As for Goal #13: if we take the notion at face value that climate change is a dire threat, and bug-based agriculture and manufactured proteins can offset that, then this new type of food supply could be seen as a solution. Of course, this is just an excuse to sabotage existing systems.

It’s a common sales pitch that insect farming leads to a higher protein yield than with more traditional ones (like with livestock). Other sources of protein can be manufactured. The goal is simply to boost production overall, but reducing the quality of the protein sources available. Did anyone here really want bug diets?

It has been widely speculated that pandemic restrictions (particularly restrictions on travel and movement) would be brought back. However, the next iteration would be climate lockdowns. This is a variation of removing freedoms. But instead of losing the ability to travel, the autonomy over diet could be restricted. After all, we can’t have people eating meat when there is a climate crisis.

Re-watch the video above. It’s clear that pushing insect consumption is being done — at least in part — under the guise of UN Agenda 2030. There’s lots of “non-meat” alternatives being pushed.

Of course, it seems very unlikely that the elites who rule us will ever have to eat the bugs. Exceptions will be made for those essential people.

(1) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/
(2) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/innovation-superclusters-initiative/en/about-canadas-innovation-superclusters-initiative
(3) https://nacia.org/
(4) https://nacia.org/partners
(5) https://twitter.com/NACIA_org
(6) https://twitter.com/CEIF_InsectAg/status/1491508619740917763
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIHbSE_1–g
(8) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/how-insects-positively-impact-climate-change/
(9) https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

Holomodor 2.0 Coming, Or All Just A Coincidence?

Thanks to the people who have been compiling this data. A recent version is available from the Gateway Pundit. Seems odd that so many “independent” events have happened lately, threatening the food supply of the West. Could there be more to it?

Note: the leg work wasn’t done here.

Holodomor is of course a reference to the starvation of Ukrainians in 1932/1933. This is widely believed to have been orchestrated by Stalin, in an effort to put down an independence movement.

Of course, by phasing out meats, and subsiding the mass production of insects, it seems like our rulers have other plans.

  1. 1/11/21 A fire that destroyed 75,000-square-foot processing plant in Fayetteville
  2. 4/30/21 A fire ignited inside the Smithfield Foods pork processing plant in Monmouth, IL
  3. 7/25/21 Three-alarm fire at Kellogg plant in Memphis, 170 emergency personnel responded to the call
  4. 7/30/21 Firefighters on Friday battled a large fire at Tyson’s River Valley Ingredients plant in Hanceville, Alabama
  5. 8/23/21 Fire crews were called to the Patak Meat Production company on Ewing Road in Austell
  6. 9/13/21 A fire at the JBS beef plant in Grand Island, Neb., on Sunday night forced a halt to slaughter and fabrication lines
  7. 10/13/21 A five-alarm fire ripped through the Darigold butter production plant in Caldwell, ID
  8. 11/15/21 A woman is in custody following a fire at the Garrard County Food Pantry
  9. 11/29/21 A fire broke out around 5:30 p.m. at the Maid-Rite Steak Company meat processing plant
  10. 12/13/21 West Side food processing plant in San Antonio left with smoke damage after a fire
  11. 1/7/22 Damage to a poultry processing plant on Hamilton’s Mountain following an overnight fire
  12. 1/13/22 Firefighters worked for 12 hours to put a fire out at the Cargill-Nutrena plant in Lecompte, LA
  13. 1/31/22 a fertilizer plant with 600 tons of ammonium nitrate inside caught on fire on Cherry Street in Winston-Salem
  14. 2/3/22 A massive fire swept through Wisconsin River Meats in Mauston
  15. 2/3/22 At least 130 cows were killed in a fire at Percy Farm in Stowe
  16. 2/15/22 Bonanza Meat Company goes up in flames in El Paso, Texas
  17. 2/15/22 Nearly a week after the fire destroyed most of the Shearer’s Foods plant in Hermiston
  18. 2/16/22 A fire had broken at US largest soybean processing and biodiesel plant in Claypool, Indiana
  19. 2/18/22 An early morning fire tore through the milk parlor at Bess View Farm
  20. 2/19/22 Three people were injured, and one was hospitalized, after an ammonia leak at Lincoln Premium Poultry in Fremont
  21. 2/22/22 The Shearer’s Foods plant in Hermiston caught fire after a propane boiler exploded
  22. 2/28/22 A smoldering pile of sulfur quickly became a raging chemical fire at Nutrien Ag Solutions
  23. 2/28/22 A man was hurt after a fire broke out at the Shadow Brook Farm and Dutch Girl Creamery
  24. 3/4/22 294,800 chickens destroyed at farm in Stoddard, Missouri
  25. 3/4/22 644,000 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Cecil, Maryland
  26. 3/8/22 243,900 chickens destroyed at egg farm in New Castle, Delaware
  27. 3/10/22 663,400 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Cecil, MD
  28. 3/10/22 915,900 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Taylor, IA
  29. 3/14/22 The blaze at 244 Meadow Drive was discovered shortly after 5 p.m. by farm owner Wayne Hoover
  30. 3/14/22 2,750,700 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Jefferson, Wisconsin
  31. 3/16/22 A fire at a Walmart warehouse distribution center in Plainfield, Indiana has cast a large plume of smoke visible throughout Indianapolis.
  32. 3/16/22 Nestle Food Plant extensively damaged in fire and new production destroyed Jonesboro, Arkansas
  33. 3/17/22 5,347,500 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Buena Vista, Iowa
  34. 3/17/22 147,600 chickens destroyed at farm in Kent, Delaware
  35. 3/18/22 315,400 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Cecil, Maryland
  36. 3/22/22 172,000 Turkeys destroyed on farms in South Dakota
  37. 3/22/22 570,000 chickens destroyed at farm in Butler, Nebraska
  38. 3/24/22 Fire fighters from numerous towns are battling a major fire at the McCrum potato processing facility in Belfast, Maine.
  39. 3/24/22 418,500 chickens destroyed at farm in Butler, Nebraska
  40. 3/25/22 250,300 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Franklin, Iowa
  41. 3/26/22 311,000 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
  42. 3/27/22 126,300 Turkeys destroyed in South Dakota
  43. 3/28/22 1,460,000 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Guthrie, Iowa
  44. 3/29/22 A massive fire burned 40,000 pounds of food meant to feed people in a food desert near Maricopa
  45. 3/31/22 A structure fire caused significant damage to a large portion of key fresh onion packing facilities in south Texas
  46. 3/31/22 76,400 Turkeys destroyed in Osceola, Iowa
  47. 3/31/22 5,011,700 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Osceola, Iowa
  48. 4/6/22 281,600 chickens destroyed at farm in Wayne, North Carolina
  49. 4/9/22 76,400 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
  50. 4/9/22 208,900 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
  51. 4/12/22 89,700 chickens destroyed at farm in Wayne, North Carolina
  52. 4/12/22 1,746,900 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Dixon, Nebraska
  53. 4/12/22 259,000 chickens destroyed at farm in Minnesota
  54. 4/13/22 Fire destroys East Conway Beef & Pork Meat Market in Conway, New Hampshire
  55. 4/13/22 Plane crashes into Gem State Processing, Idaho potato and food processing plant
  56. 4/13/22 77,000 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
  57. 4/14/22 Taylor Farms Food Processing plant burns down Salinas, California.
  58. 4/14/22 99,600 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
  59. 4/15/22 1,380,500 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Lancaster, Minnesota
  60. 4/19/22 Azure Standard nation’s premier independent distributor of organic and healthy food, was destroyed by fire in Dufur, Oregon
  61. 4/19/22 339,000 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
  62. 4/19/22 58,000 chickens destroyed at farm in Montrose, Color
  63. 4/20/22 2,000,000 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Minnesota
  64. 4/21/22 A small plane crashed in the lot of a General Mills plant in Covington, Georgia
  65. 4/22/22 197,000 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
  66. 4/23/22 200,000 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
  67. 4/25/22 1,501,200 chickens destroyed at egg farm Cache, Utah
  68. 4/26/22 307,400 chickens destroyed at farm Lancaster Pennsylvania
  69. 4/27/22 2,118,000 chickens destroyed at farm Knox, Nebraska
  70. 4/28/22 Egg-laying facility in Iowa kills 5.3 million chickens, fires 200-plus workers
  71. 4/28/22 Allen Harim Foods processing plant killed nearly 2M chickens in Delaware
  72. 4/2822 110,700 Turkeys destroyed Barron Wisconsin
  73. 4/29/22 5 million honeybees are dead after a flight carrying the pollinator insects from California to Alaska got diverted to Georgia (New)
  74. 4/29/22 1,366,200 chickens destroyed at farm Weld Colorado
  75. 4/30/22 13,800 chickens destroyed at farm Sequoia Oklahoma
  76. 5/3/22 58,000 Turkeys destroyed Barron Wisconsin
  77. 5/3/22 118,900 Turkeys destroyed Beadle S Dakota
  78. 5/3/22 114,000 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania
  79. 5/3/22 118,900 Turkeys destroyed Lyon Minnesota
  80. 5/7/22 20,100 Turkeys destroyed Barron Wisconsin
  81. 5/10/22 72,300 chickens destroyed at farm Lancaster Pennsylvania
  82. 5/10/22 61,000 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania
  83. 5/10/22 35,100 Turkeys destroyed Muskegon, Michigan
  84. 5/13/22 10,500 Turkeys destroyed Barron Wisconsin
  85. 5/14/22 83,400 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania
  86. 5/17/22 79,00 chickens destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania
  87. 5/18/22 7,200 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania
  88. 5/19/22 Train carrying limestone derailed Jensen Beach FL
  89. 5/21/22 57,000 Turkeys destroyed on farm in Dakota Minnesota
  90. 5/23/22 4,000 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania
  91. 5/29/22 A Saturday night fire destroyed a poultry building at Forsman Farms in Howard Lake, Minnesota
  92. 5/31/22 3,000,000 chickens destroyed by fire at Forsman facility in Stockholm Township, Minnesota
  93. 6/2/22 30,000 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania
  94. 6/7/22 A fire occurred Tuesday evening at the JBS meat packing plant in Green Bay, Wisconsin
  95. 6/8/22 Firefighters from Tangipahoa Fire District 1 respond to a fire at the Purina Feed Mill in Arcola, Louisiana
  96. 6/9/22 Irrigation water was canceled in California (the #1 producer of food in the US) and storage water flushed directly out to the delta.
  97. 6/12/22 Largest Pork Company in the US Shuts Down California Plant Due to High Costs
  98. 6/13/22 Fire Breaks Out at a Food Processing Plant West of Waupaca County in Wisconsin
  99. 6/14/22 Over 10,000 head of cattle have reportedly died in the recent Kansas heat wave (New)

Thanks as well for Lioness of Judah for covering this too. An interesting comment from that post reads:

“Regarding the destruction of processing plants, it would be more impactful if we could see insurance data about how many have been destroyed compared previous years. Just like an sudden increase in 2021 all-cause mortality is very disturbing and indisputable, we need to see a percentage of destroyed plants as compared to a typical year. That data has to be tracked by some insurance companies, right?”

Yes, it would definitely be interesting to see the overall insurance data, as many people have done such things over the years for financial gain.

That being said, this appears on the surface to be a bit too common lately.

Budget 2017: Subsidizing The Phase Out Of Meat In Canada

It was announced in the 2017 Federal budget that there would be millions in spending for so-called “superclusters“. These are just areas of research. One of those was Agri-Foods, which turned out to just be ways to get rid of meat altogether.

At the time of writing this, there are several projects on the go, including:

Strangely, there don’t seem to be many — or any — initiatives to get Canadians into farming, raising animals for food. It’s almost as if things are going in a different direction.

ACCELERATING INNOVATION
THROUGH SUPERCLUSTERS
Clusters—dense areas of business activity that contain large and small companies, post-secondary institutions and specialized talent and infrastructure—energize economies and act as engines of growth. They create jobs, encourage knowledge sharing, drive business specialization and help to attract “anchor” companies from around the world. Successful clusters like the ones in Silicon Valley, Berlin, Tel Aviv and the Toronto-Waterloo corridor contribute significantly to both regional and national economies.

Budget 2017 proposes to invest up to $950 million over five years, starting in 2017–18, to be provided on a competitive basis in support of a small number of business-led innovation “superclusters” that have the greatest potential to accelerate economic growth.

The competition will launch in 2017 and focus on superclusters that enhance Canada’s global competitiveness by focusing on highly innovative industries such as advanced manufacturing, agri-food, clean technology, digital technology, health/bio-sciences and clean resources, as well as infrastructure and transportation.

This is from page 79 of the 2017 budget. So, this wasn’t just some spur of the moment idea. It’s been in the works for a long time. The goal is apparently to generate at least $25 billion per year from sales in plant based foods and materials, according to the 2022-2023 Annual Report from Protein Industries Canada.

It’s fair to assume that production will only ramp up as far as the plant based industry goes. Again, there’s little to no enthusiasm to increase meat production.

Other “superclusters” include: digital technology, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and oceans (presumably a climate initiative).

On the issue of intellectual property, the following is stated:

“The IP strategy sets out how each Supercluster will strike a balance between providing its members with access to project-generated IP, while protecting the commercial interests of individual project partners, including small-and-medium-sized businesses. This encourages more collaboration and innovation, leading to good commercial outcomes.”

In other words, Canadians are paying to subsidize companies that will keep at least a portion of the IP that they create. It would be interesting to know how exactly this balance would be struck.

Also, this program is open to foreign companies, provided they do at least some business in Canada. However, there aren’t any minimum requirements stated.

And what other money has been handed out lately?

COMPANY DATE SUBJECT AMOUNT
The Alfalfa Inc. Sep 14, 2018 Insecticidal Plant-Based Product $200,997.00
Gfi Brands Inc. Nov 16, 2021 High Nutrition Plant Based Foods $375,018.00
Ingredion Aug 12, 2019 Plant-Based Ingredient Markets $2,145,000.00
Innovation Virentia Inc. Sep 14, 2018 Insecticidal Plant-Based Product $200,997.00
Jewish CC Montreal Aug 9, 2019 Global Certification For Plant-Based Products $819,638.00
Konscious Foods Canada Nov 18, 2021 Plant-Based Seafood Products $36,000.00
Novagevity Inc. Apr 1, 2020 Plant Based Meal Replacement $78,805.00
Novagevity Inc. Dec 22, 2021 Plant Based Beverage $200,311.00
Rps Biologiques Inc. Oct 26, 2021 Plant-Based Fish Meal Additive $23,360.00
Spiderwort Inc. Oct 11, 2021 Plant-Based Fish Fillet $280,000.00
UBC Mar 1, 2022 Pea Proteins, Plant-Based Foods $142,946.00
Vivus Pets Inc. Jan 18, 2022 Gluten Free Plant Based Dog Food $50,000.00

Are we noticing a pattern here?

There are, of course, plenty of eco-nuts who claim that meat must be done away with in order to prevent global warming. It’s almost as if there are different excuses and lies being promoted to drastically change human behaviour. More on that another time.

For some extra reading, here is the last piece on cricket production and subsidies being handed out by the Federal Government.

(1) https://www.proteinindustriescanada.ca/news/how-a-plant-based-seafood-alternative-is-helping-canada-reduce-its-carbon-footprint
(2) https://www.proteinindustriescanada.ca/news/increasing-plant-based-food-and-beverage-options-through-oat-ingredient-innovation
(3) https://www.proteinindustriescanada.ca/news/strategically-increasing-eastern-canadas-processing-capacity
(4) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/innovation-superclusters-initiative/en/frequently-asked-questions
(5) https://www.budget.gc.ca/2017/docs/plan/budget-2017-en.pdf
(6) Canada Budget 2017 Superclusters
(7) https://www.proteinindustriescanada.ca/uploads/Corporate-Plan-2022-23.pdf
(8) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/cricket-production-subsidies-aspire-food-group/

Cricket Production Subsidies; Aspire Food Group’s New Plant

With food shortages being predicted in the near future (not that this was planned), it’s interesting to see what exactly is being used to fill the void. Will more production plants be built, or will new “alternatives” become available for the peons?

Not only is “Eat the bugs, bigot” more than just a meme, it seems that Canadian tax dollars are being used to subsidize these ideas. Here are some recent grants from the Federal Government.

COMPANY DATE SUBJECT AMOUNT
Aspire Food Group Ltd. Jul 10, 2020 Build Comm. Demonstration Facility $8,500,000.00
Aspire Food Group Ltd. Nov 1, 2021 Cricket Production, Processing Facility $50,000.00
Casa Bonita Foods, Inc. Aug 9, 2021 Protein Snacks With Cricket Flour $39,000.00
Entologik Inc Jun 18, 2020 Continuity Of Operations $58,979.00
Entologik Inc Aug 3, 2020 Automate The Rearing Process $30,000.00
Gaia Protein Ltd. Apr 1, 2021 Cricket Production Technology $42,000.00
Grévio Inc. May 11, 2020 Egg Laying, Hatching, Rearing Crickets $48,800.00
Mcgill University Nov 5, 2021 Cricket Rearing, Collection, Transformation $30,000.00
Näak Inc. Oct 29, 2018 Products Cooked W/Cricket Powder $48,517.00
Näak Inc. Sep 23, 2020 Low-Powder Cricket Energy Bars $123,178.00
Veterinarians W/O Borders Dec 16, 2021 Innovative Approaches, Cricket Farming $1,999,999.00

Of course, all of this can be found by checking the list of grants that has been handed out. Such information is considered public record.

Aspire Food Group, which received $8.5 million, has been lobbying Ottawa for that money. The money isn’t yet available on the Registry, but we’ll have to check for updates. Specific agencies include:

  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
  • Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev)
  • Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
  • Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)

Good to see public money spent so wisely.

Despite the Open Gov site lists $8.5 million, apparently, it obtained over $16 million in capital under Canada’s Innovation Supercluster Initiative. Other projects being funded are available on the Protein Industries webpage. Clearly, crickets is just one topic within this category, and much more will have to be done on it.

Protein Industries” is 1 of 5 areas which Ottawa is expected to pump money into. It seems they really are trying to get rid of meat — real meat — worldwide. Or is that just another conspiracy theory?

Although it went unnoticed by many, Aspire did announce in 2020 that it would soon have the largest cricket processing plant in the world. The new plant in London, Ontario was completed in May 2022. Apparently, some 9,000 metric tons of crickets will be produced annually, both for human and animal consumption.

Aspire won the Clinton Global Initiative Hult Prize in 2013. They’ve since posted an update on their YouTube channel about where the company is heading.

Eating bugs is hardly a new concept, and has been promoted by the U.N. for many years. Now, it’s just more obvious.

There will have to be updates on this topic, but it’s rather unsettling to see this direction.

(1) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/
(2) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=365064&regId=895467#regStart
(3) https://www.foodbev.com/news/aspire-and-collaborators-receive-13-2m-to-build-cricket-protein-facility/
(4) https://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/manufacturing/aspire-food-group-completes-production-of-manufacturing-facility-282031/
(5) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/innovation-superclusters-initiative/en/about-canadas-innovation-superclusters-initiative
(6) https://www.proteinindustriescanada.ca/projects
(7) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/worlds-largest-cricket-processing-plant-coming-to-london-1.5655813
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGeY3TRwLJo
(9) https://news.un.org/en/story/2008/02/249402-edible-insects-provide-food-thought-un-organized-meeting

U.N. Death Cult: 73 Million Abortions Annually Worldwide

The World Health Organization openly posts and discusses some pretty disturbing and messed up data on abortion worldwide. (See archive).

This expands on a recent Canuck Law article, which estimates that there have been over 4.2 million abortions just in Canada since 1970. This averages out to approximately 20% of pregnancies being willfully terminated. Few are aware of just how big this problem is.

Here are some claims W.H.O. promotes:

  • Abortion is a common health intervention. It is safe when carried out using a method recommended by WHO, appropriate to the pregnancy duration and by someone with the necessary skills.
  • Six out of 10 of all unintended pregnancies end in an induced abortion.
  • Around 45% of all abortions are unsafe, of which 97% take place in developing countries.
  • Unsafe abortion is a leading – but preventable – cause of maternal deaths and morbidities. It can lead to physical and mental health complications and social and financial burdens for women, communities and health systems.
  • Lack of access to safe, timely, affordable and respectful abortion care is a critical public health and human rights issue.

And this one is a doozy:

Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year. Six out of 10 (61%) of all unintended pregnancies, and 3 out of 10 (29%) of all pregnancies, end in induced abortion

This claim is based on work from Bearak J, Popinchalk A, Ganatra B, Moller A-B, Tunçalp Ö, Beavin C et al, which covered estimates from the years 1990 through 2019. They used a “Bayesian framework”, meaning dta on pregnancy intentions and abortion were compiled from country-based surveys, official statistics, and published studies found through a literature search. So, it’s not just a straight compilation, but estimates as well.

Of course, if this figure of 73 million, per year, is even remotely accurate, it would be somewhere between 2 and 5 billion children have been aborted since the 1970s, when the movement really took off.

Restrictive abortion regulation can cause distress and stigma, and risk constituting a violation of human rights of women and girls, including the right to privacy and the right to non-discrimination and equality, while also imposing financial burdens on women and girls. Regulations that force women to travel to attain legal care, or require mandatory counselling or waiting periods, lead to loss of income and other financial costs, and can make abortion inaccessible to women with low resources.

Estimates from 2006 show that complications of unsafe abortions cost health systems in developing countries US$ 553 million per year for post-abortion treatments. In addition, households experienced US$ 922 million in loss of income due to long-term disability related to unsafe abortion. Countries and health systems could make substantial monetary savings by providing greater access to modern contraception and quality induced abortion.

A set of scoping reviews from 2021 indicate that abortion regulations – by being linked to fertility – affect women’s education, participation on the labour market and positive contribution to GDP growth. The legal status of abortion can also affect children’s educational outcomes, and their earnings on the labour market later in life. For example, legalization of abortion – by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus increasing the likelihood that children are born wanted – can be linked to greater parental investments in children, including in girls’ schooling.

Does W.H.O. condemn the hundreds of millions — if not billions — of lives that are lost through this? Not exactly. The rights of the unborn never seem to factor into the equation.

W.H.O. attempts to make several economic arguments as to why abortion should be legal and as accessible as possible. Of course, they don’t seem to bother with addressing the long term physical and psychological impacts of women who do abort their children.

The World Health Organization also has its own division on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research (SRH). (See archive). It’s funded both by various governments and private companies, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (See archive). They always seem to be around whenever there are population reduction programs involved.

5.6 Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences

Enshrining abortion is also written right into Agenda 2030, which was signed by “Conservative” Stephen Harper in 2015. (See archive). It’s item #5.6 on the Treaty.

One might think it strange that population control groups are interested in keeping abortion legal and readily available. Then again, once one realizes the scale of this mass infanticide, things start to make a whole lot more sense.

Furthermore, the W.H.O. and U.N. link to the U.N. Population Fund, their 2014 Programme of Action, and to the Beijing Declaration And Platform For Action. (See archive). In a sick twist, abortion is promoted as women’s rights, and pregnancy an often unwanted evil.

Of course, 50% or so of the babies who are killed would have grown up to become women. This is something that many women’s rights groups don’t get, or at least pretend they don’t.

It’s interesting that groups like the United Nations claim to be against child exploitation and human trafficking. That said, they support encourage practices that ensure the deaths of countless unborn, while their remains can be sold off for a variety of purposes.

It’s even more disturbing that the U.N. keeps detailed and up-to-date records of abortion regulations across countries. Guess it’s one way of tracking where the most victims are likely to come from.

Has abortion been stopped, or slowed over the last 2 1/2 years during this so-called pandemic? Not at all. In fact, it’s one of the few things that were still available in Canada the entire time. Sure, weddings, churches, and funerals were “non-essential”. However, abortion, weed and liquor were still accessible.

SOURCE MATERIAL
(1) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/eugenics-in-canada-20-of-babies-aborted-in-pro-choice-movement/
(3) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32710833/
(4) https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research-(srh)/human-reproduction-programme
(5) https://archive.ph/uyd8J
(6) https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research-(srh)/human-reproduction-programme/donors
(7) https://archive.ph/7tb5Q
(8) https://www.un.org/ohrlls/sites/www.un.org.ohrlls/files/2030_agenda_for_sustainable_development_web.pdf
(9) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development web
(10) https://www.unfpa.org/publications/international-conference-population-and-development-programme-action
(11) https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/CSW/PFA_E_Final_WEB.pdf
(12) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/UN-Beijing-Declaration-And-Platform-For-Action.pdf
(13) https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/related-health-issues
(14) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331561/WHO-2019-nCoV-essential_health_services-2020.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(15) WHO-2019-nCoV Essential Health Services 2020 March 2020
(16) WHO-2019-nCoV-essential_health_services June 2020
(17) https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/policy/AbortionPoliciesReproductiveHealth.pdf

International Mobility Programme Data: 1994-2013

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

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. International Mobility Programme: Permit Holders 1994-2013

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

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

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

3. Source Countries For International Mobility: 2004 To 2013

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

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

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

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

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

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

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

%d bloggers like this: