Media #3: Post Media Controls MSM, Conservative & Alternative Media

(Post Media, which owns most “conservative” media outlets in Canada)

(Atlas Network, which funds 12 (was 13) groups in Canada, 140 in U.S.)

1. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption

CLICK HERE, for #1: Unifor in bed with Federal Gov’t
CLICK HERE, for #2: Global News’ selective truth on TRP granted.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Post Media’s website main page.
CLICK HERE, for major brands of Post Media.
http://archive.is/3XVkQ
CLICK HERE, for Post Media “communities”.
http://archive.is/vnQHe
CLICK HERE, for Post Media “specialties”.
http://archive.is/na2pj
CLICK HERE, for Post Media’s Board of Directors.
http://archive.is/kCJ2Q (current)
http://archive.is/FcCBZ (3 years ago)
CLICK HERE, for Post Media’s Senior Management.
http://archive.is/dLjPY

CLICK HERE, for Atlas Networks’s Canadian partners.
http://archive.is/3ytVX
CLICK HERE, for Atlas Network’s American Partners.
http://archive.is/faeRd
CLICK HERE, for Atlas Network’s European/C. Asian partners.
http://archive.is/jn4ik
CLICK HERE, for Atlas Network’s E. Asian/Pacific partners.
http://archive.is/WhgMl
CLICK HERE, for Atlas Network’s South American partners.
http://archive.is/OtI6o
CLICK HERE, for Atlas Network’s ME/N. African partners.
http://archive.is/nwWR0
CLICK HERE, for Atlas Network’s African partners.
http://archive.is/Rto7L
CLICK HERE, for Atlas Network’s South Asian partners.
http://archive.is/shhAo
CLICK HERE, for Atlas Network’s Australian/NZ partners.
http://archive.is/fTPfH

CLICK HERE, vor 2014 Liberty Forum & Freedom Dinner.
http://archive.is/C0Yjx/image

CLICK HERE, for Vanc Observer article on Koch money ==> Fraser.
http://archive.is/ewj9H
CLICK HERE, for Fraser Fellow & Campaign Manager, Tom Flanagan.
http://archive.is/pfjM8
CLICK HERE, for Fraser Intern, AB politician, & radio host, Danielle Smith.
http://archive.is/MBEY8
CLICK HERE, for Fraser Intern, Koch Foundation Summer Fellow, (now Rebel Media host), Ezra Levant
http://archive.is/y1im1
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Taxpayer’s Fed (AB) head, Derek Fildebrandt.
http://archive.is/HtiM6
CLICK HERE, for Nat’l Citizen Coalition Fellow, Spencer Fernando.
http://archive.is/4n5zg

3. Context For This Piece

It doesn’t really need much of an explanation. People should know who is really behind their media and how independent these organizations really are. Yes, it’s a bit hypocritical to run this site anonymously.

Taking Canada as an example: a lot of the “conservative” or right-leaning outfits are owned and controlled by Post Media. Yes, it is a virtual monopoly.

Also worth noting: many of the “right-leaning” think tanks are controlled by one organization, Atlas Network. The same people just resurface under different names. These groups help influence globalist policies such as mass migration and globalized trade.

And in going through the names, one ethnic group seemed to appear an awful lot, much more than its percentage of the population would suggest.

4. Post Media Owns A Lot

Here’s a quick rundown of some of the more mainstream media outlets in Canada. Most of these names should be familiar to people.

  • Calgary Herald
  • Calgary Sun
  • Canada.com
  • Canoe.com
  • Celebrating.com
  • Driving
  • Edmonton Journal
  • Growth Op
  • Healthing.ca
  • London Free Press
  • Montreal Gazette
  • National Post
  • Ottawa Citizen
  • Regina-Leader Post
  • Remembering.ca
  • Saskatoon StarPhoenix
  • The Province
  • Toronto Sun
  • Vancouver Sun
  • Windsor Star
  • Winnipeg Sun

Of course, this doesn’t cover countless smaller publications that this media giant owns. Scary, just how many “voices” are controlled by one source. Now, let’s show the Postmedia “communities”. A much longer list, and many have their websites included.

Alberta Outlets
Airdrie Echo
http://www.airdrieecho.com
Bow Valley Crag & Canyon (Banff)
http://www.banffcragandcanyon.com
Cochrane Times
http://www.cochranetimes.com
The Cold Lake Sun
http://www.coldlakesun.com
Devon Dispatch
https://www.devondispatch.ca
The Drayton Valley Western Review
http://www.draytonvalleywesternreview.com
Edmonton Examiner
http://www.edmontonexaminer.com
The Fairview Post
http://www.fairviewpost.com
Fort McMurray Today
http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com
The Grove Examiner (Spruce Grove)
http://www.sprucegroveexaminer.com
The Hanna Herald
http://www.hannaherald.com
The High River Times
http://www.highrivertimes.com/
La Nouvelle Beaumont News (Beaumont)
http://www.thebeaumontnews.ca/
Leduc Rep
http://www.leducrep.com/
The Leduc-Wetaskiwin County Market
http://www.countymarket.ca/
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer
http://www.mayerthorpefreelancer.com
The Nanton News
http://www.nantonnews.com
The Peace Country Sun (Grande Prairie)
http://www.peacecountrysun.com
Peace River Record-Gazette
http://www.prrecordgazette.com
Pincher Creek Echo
http://www.pinchercreekecho.com
The Record (Fort Saskatchewan)
http://www.fortsaskatchewanrecord.com
The Sherwood Park News
http://www.sherwoodparknews.com
The Stony Plain Reporter
http://stonyplainreporter.com/
The Vulcan Advocate
http://www.vulcanadvocate.com
Wetaskiwin Times
http://www.wetaskiwintimes.com/
The Whitecourt Star
http://www.whitecourtstar.com
Vermilion Standard
http://www.vermilionstandard.com

Saskatchewan Outlets
Bridges (Saskatoon)
http://thestarphoenix.com/category/life/bridges
Melfort Journal
http://www.melfortjournal.com
Nipawin Journal
http://www.nipawinjournal.com
Northeast Sun (Melfort)
http://www.melfortjournal.com
QC (Regina)
http://leaderpost.com/category/life/qc

Manitoba Outlets
The Graphic (Portage la Prairie)
http://www.portagedailygraphic.com
Herald Leader (Portage la Prairie)
http://www.cpheraldleader.com
The Interlake Spectator (Gimli)
http://www.interlakespectator.com
The Morden Times
http://www.mordentimes.com
The Red River Valley Echo (Altona)
http://www.altonaecho.com
The Selkirk Journal
http://www.selkirkjournal.com
The Stonewall Argus & Teulon Times
http://www.stonewallargusteulontimes.com
The Valley Leader (Carman)
http://www.carmanvalleyleader.com
Winkler Times
http://www.winklertimes.com

Ontario Outlets
Brockville & Prescott This Week
Chatham-Kent This Week
http://www.chathamthisweek.com
Clinton News-Record
http://www.clintonnewsrecord.com
Cochrane Times-Post
http://www.cochranetimespost.com
The Complimentary (Cornwall)
Community Press (Belleville)
http://www.communitypress.ca/
The County Weekly News (Picton)
http://www.countyweeklynews.ca/
The Courier Press (Wallaceburg)
http://www.wallaceburgcourierpress.com
The Delhi News-Record
http://www.delhinewsrecord.com
The Elgin County Market (St. Thomas)
http://www.elgincountymarket.com
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance
http://www.lakeshoreadvance.com
Frontenac This Week
Gananoque Reporter
http://www.gananoquereporter.com/
Goderich Signal-Star
http://www.goderichsignalstar.com
Goderich Super Saver
Grey Bruce This Week (Owen Sound)
http://www.greybrucethisweek.ca/
Kenora Miner & News
http://www.kenoradailyminerandnews.com
The Kincardine News
http://www.kincardinenews.com
Kingston This Week
http://www.kingstonthisweek.com/
Kingsville Extra
Kingsville Reporter
Lakeshore News
Lakeshore Shopper (Simcoe-Tillsonburg)
LaSalle Post
The Londoner
http://www.thelondoner.ca
Lucknow Sentinel
http://www.lucknowsentinel.com
The Mid-North Monitor (Espanola)
http://www.midnorthmonitor.com/
Mitchell Advocate
http://www.mitchelladvocate.com
Napanee Guide
http://www.napaneeguide.com/
The Nugget Extra
Northern News (Kirkland Lake)
http://www.northernnews.ca/
Northern News This Week(Kirkland Lake)
Oxford Review (Woodstock)
http://www.oxfordreview.com
Paris Star
http://www.parisstaronline.com
The Post (Hanover)
http://www.thepost.on.ca/
Press (Stirling)
http://www.communitypress.ca/
Sarnia & Lambton County This Week
http://www.sarniathisweek.com
Sault This Week (Sault Ste. Marie)
http://www.saultthisweek.com/
Seaforth Huron Expositor
http://www.seaforthhuronexpositor.com
Shoreline Beacon (Port Elgin)
http://www.shorelinebeacon.com
Shoreline Week
Simcoe Reformer (TMC)
http://www.simcoereformer.ca
The Standard (Elliot Lake)
http://www.elliotlakestandard.ca/
Stratford Marketplace
http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/marketplace
Strathroy Age Dispatch
http://www.strathroyagedispatch.com
Tecumseh Shoreline Week
The Standard Extra
The Tillsonburg News
http://www.tillsonburgnews.com
Tilsbury Times
The Timmins Times
http://www.timminstimes.com
The Trentonian (Trenton)
http://www.trentonian.ca/
Weekender Times-Advance (Exeter)
West Elgin Chronicle
http://www.thechronicle-online.com
Wiarton Echo
http://www.wiartonecho.com
Windsor Star Review

Again, all of this is just what Post Media lists as owning. Not only the major news outlets, but many smaller “community” organizations as well. All of it is owned by one conglomerate. Speaks volumes for the independence and choice that exists in Canada.

5. Post Media Board Of Directors

Paul Godfrey (Executive Chair)
Mr. Godfrey is the Executive Chair of Postmedia. Previously Mr. Godfrey has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Postmedia, President and Chief Executive Officer of National Post Inc., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club, and spent 16 years with Sun Media Corporation, eventually taking the role of President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Godfrey has a proud record of public service including a record four terms (11 years) as the Chairman of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. He served as the Chairman of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation from 2010 until 2013. He is Chairman of the board of RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust. He also serves on the board of Cargojet Inc. and serves as Vice Chairman of Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care.

Peter Sharpe (Lead Director)
Mr. Sharpe retired as President and Chief Executive Officer of Cadillac Fairview Corporation in 2010, having served with the company for over 25 years. Mr. Sharpe is currently a director of Morguard Corporation, First Industrial REIT (US), and Allied Property REIT. Mr. Sharpe is also a past Chairman and current Trustee of the International Council of Shopping Centers.

Andrew MacLeod (Director)
Mr. MacLeod is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Postmedia Network Inc. He joined Postmedia in 2014 as EVP and Chief Commercial Officer and served as President and Chief Operating Officer in 2017. Prior to joining Postmedia, Mr. MacLeod held a number of senior executive positions in the technology sector, including serving as the Senior Vice President & Regional Managing Director of North America at BlackBerry. Mr. MacLeod also currently serves as a Director on the board for Waterfront Toronto and Communitech. Mr. MacLeod is a graduate of Western University (BA).

John Bode (Director)
Mr. Bode is currently Chief Operating Officer at ReaderLink Distribution Services. Previously, Mr. Bode owned and operated a strategic consultancy practice focused on working with companies, primarily legacy print media companies, undertaking major transformation initiatives and transactions. Prior to his consultancy practice, Mr. Bode was Chief Financial Officer at Tribune Publishing.

Janet Ecker (Director)
Janet Ecker recently retired from the role of President and CEO of Toronto Financial Services Alliance, having served in the role for nearly 13 years. Ms. Ecker served as a member of provincial parliament in Ontario from 1995 to 2003 and held the portfolios of Minister of Finance, Minister of Education, Minister of Community and Social Services and Government House Leader. In 2002 she was the first woman to deliver a budget in Ontario.
In November 2016, Ms. Ecker was named a Member of the Order of Canada for being a leader in the financial industry.

Wendy Henkelman (Director)
Ms. Henkelman is a corporate director with extensive experience in all aspects of the finance function including accounting, treasury, taxation, information systems, internal controls and risk management. She has held executive positions in major oil and gas companies including the VP, Treasury and Compliance with Penn West Exploration and Country Tax Manager at Shell Canada Limited. She began her career with KPMG LLP, progressing from the audit function to manager in the income tax group. Ms. Henkelman is a member of the board and is Treasurer for the Cochrane and Area Humane Society and has chaired major pension trusts of public corporations. She is the past President of the Canadian Petroleum Tax Society and is a former member of the Tax Executives Institute and the Canadian Tax Foundation. Ms. Henkelman currently sits on the Board of ATB Financial, where she sits on both the Audit and Human Resources committees.

Mary Junck (Director)
Ms. Junck is Chairman of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated, a leading provider of local news, information and advertising in 49 primarily midsize markets in the United States. Ms. Junck began her career at the Charlotte Observer in 1972 as marketing research manager. She later held senior executive positions at the former Times Mirror Company, as executive vice president of Times Mirror and president of Times Mirror Eastern Newspapers. Ms. Junck is the retired Chairman of the board of directors of The Associated Press, the world’s oldest and largest newsgathering organization and serves on the board of Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois, a private liberal arts college.

Daniel Rotstein (Director)
Mr. Rotstein serves as the Director of Human Resources/Risk Management for the City of Pembroke Pines, Florida and provides human resources, risk management, and administrative consulting services to companies in various industries, including American Media, Inc. Prior to that, Mr. Rotstein was the Executive Vice President, Human Resources and Administration, for American Media, Inc. Mr. Rotstein has over 25 years of experience holding human resources management positions in the manufacturing, financial services and retail services industries and has successfully assisted organizations in all facets of human resources, risk management and administration.

Graham Savage (Director)
Mr. Savage is a corporate director, and from 1997 to 2007 he was Chairman and Founding Partner of Callisto Capital, a private equity firm. Prior to that, Mr. Savage spent 21 years as a senior officer at Rogers Communications Inc. Mr. Savage is currently the Chairman of Sears Canada Inc. and a director of Cott Corporation. Mr. Savage previously served as a director of Canadian Tire Corp., Rogers Communications Inc., Sun Media Corp., Royal Group Technologies Ltd., Hollinger International Inc., among others.

6. Atlas Network’s Canadian Partners

  • Alberta Institute
  • Canadian Constitution Foundation
  • Canadian Taxpayers Federation
  • Canadians For Democracy And Transparency
  • Fraser Institute
  • Frontier Center For Public Policy
  • Institute For Liberal Studies
  • Justice Center For Constitutional Freedoms
  • MacDonald-Laurier Institute For Public Policy
  • Manning Center
  • Montreal Economic Institute
  • World Taxpayers Federation

Why address Atlas Network? Because many of its operatives pretend to be objective and non-partisan in what they write and speak about.

While Atlas certainly does not have a monopoly on the paid shills in the media, there seem to be an awful lot of them who are connected. So let’s take a look into it. Note: Not all will be conservative, but a lot of them are. Just shows they’re all globalists.

7. Tom Flanagan: Author, Campaign Manager

In the political realm, he managed Stephen Harper’s campaigns for leadership of the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party of Canada, the 2004 Conservative national campaign, and the 2012 Wildrose Alberta provincial campaign.

When not involved in politics, Flanagan writes articles and books. Very prolific writer.

8. Danielle Smith: NewsTalk 770 Host

Smith interned for the Fraser Institute in 1996/1997. She also hosted Global Sunday and wrote for the Calgary Herald. After a stint in Alberta politics, she hosts an afternoon radio show.

9. Ezra Levant: Current “Rebel Commander”

I started attending Fraser Institute Student Seminars, not just in my own city, but I’d even travel to go to others in nearby cities. I then attended the Student Leaders Colloquium, and then became an FI summer intern, where I wrote a book called Youthquake. I was a Koch Foundation Summer Fellow in Washington, DC, and have attended various Institute for Humane Studies (HIS) and Liberty Fund events over the years. I’m a lawyer by profession; right after articling I worked for several years on Parliament Hill for Preston Manning and later for Stockwell Day. I joined the National Post’s editorial board for two years. After trying my own hand in politics, I wrote a book called Fight Kyoto and practiced law. Last January, with several other Fraser Institute alumni, I founded the Western Standard magazine, which publishes every two weeks in a classical liberal vein.

That’s right. Ezra Levant cut his teethfor the Koch Foundation and the Fraser Institute. He then got involved in conservative politics and media outlets. One such venture was founding the Western Standard.

10. Derek Fildebrant: Western Standard Editor

Fildebrandt used to be head of the Alberta Branch of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation. However, people weren’t happy when he used his training to privately sublet a publicly funded apartment. Now out of politics, he revived Ezra Levant’s old publication, the Western Standard.

Interesting situation: Both Levant and Fildebrandt have ties to Atlas Network and Koch. Levant worked at Fraser Institute, Fildebrandt at the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation. One big happy family.

11. Candice Malcolm: Koch, Fraser Institute

Candice worked for Koch and the Fraser Institute, before getting into journalism. She now runs True North Canada, which “identifies” as a non-profit group. Wonder who funds that.

12. Manny Montenegrino: Think Sharp

Manny works as a lobbyist, but comes on shows such as Rebel Media and promotes himself as a commentator. He is also an advisor for the Conservative Party of Canada.

13. Spencer Fernando: Nat’l Citizens Coalition

Fernando joined the National Citizen’s Coalition, which is the organization Stephen Harper used to run. While at one time an independent writer and journalist, he is reduced to a mouthpiece and shill.

14: Chantel Hebert: Trudeau Foundation

Quebec media figure Chantel Hebert is also a member of the Trudeau Foundation.

Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer with the Toronto Star and a guest columnist for Le Devoir and L’Actualité. She is a weekly participant on the political panel At Issue on the CBC’s The National as well as Radio-Canada’s Les Coulisses du pouvoir.
Ms Hébert began her career in Toronto as a reporter for the regional newsroom of Radio-Canada in 1975 before moving on to Parliament Hill for Radio-Canada radio. She has served as parliamentary bureau chief for Le Devoir and La Presse.
Hébert is a graduate of Glendon College, York University. She is a Senior Fellow of Massey College at the University of Toronto and hold an honorary doctorate from Bishop’s University. She is a recipient of two Asia-Pacific media fellowship (Malaysia and Japan). She is the 2005 recipient of the APEX Public Service Award. In 2006, she received the Hy Solomon award for excellence in journalism and public policy as well as York University’s Pinnacle Achievement Bryden Alumni award. She is the author of a 2007 book titled French Kiss: Stephen Harper’s Blind Date with Quebec.
Hébert is an Officer of the Order of Canada.

15. Alexandre Trudeau: Trudeau Foundation

If making Islamic propaganda films counts as “independent journalism“, then I guess this guy counts. Late brother of current Prime Minister, and son of former Prime Minister.

16. Canadian Media Is Controlled

Obviously, the list of media personalities with globalist ties is not exhaustive. There are more, but this article is getting long already. A few points to take away:

(A) Canada’s media is essentially controlled by 1 organization — Post Media. It owns not only the major outlet, but many smaller ones as well. It’s basically a monopoly.

(B) Even within so-called “conservative” and alt/indy media, there are many with globalist ties (such as with Koch, Atlas Network, or the Trudeau Foundation). As such, nothing they say can be taken at face value without doing research on the reporter.

(C) Looking at the names, a certain ethnic group appears a lot in the media, far more than it should. And no, it’s not white people. Whatever happened to promoting diversity?

IMM #7(C): Getting Legal Residency & Citizenship Via Fraud; Sunny Wang

(Documentary from the Fifth Estate on “Sunny Wang”. Quite good)

(Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program plagued with fraud)

(CBC: Fake job offers in Atlantic Canada)

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

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

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

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for CBC article on fake jobs in Atlantic Canada.
http://archive.is/AryL1
CLICK HERE, for Global News article on immigration fraud.
http://archive.is/0jpXE
CLICK HERE, for 2018 Parliamentary Report on IRB complaints.
CLICK HERE, for IRB complaint study evidence.
http://archive.is/3GA7T

3. Context For This Article

Mass migration into Canada is a huge problem. Without rehashing previous articles, it causes balkanization, demographic replacement, social tensions, breaks down cohesion, strains social services, drives up housing prices, pushes down wages, and results in large sums of money (remittances) being sent abroad.

All of that aside, there is a valid question to answer: how legitimate are these cases coming into Canada? How many people are following the rules, and how many are gaming the system? It’s also valid to look into oversight and how it can fail.

4. Court Cases For Immigration Fraud

Chen v Canada (PS&EP), 2017 CanLII 72967 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/NaVzp
Dai v Canada (PS&EP), 2017 CanLII 31963 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/cjRIr
Du v Canada (PS&EP), 2018 CanLII 67779 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/JMJvq
Huang v Canada (PS&EP), 2018 CanLII 137140 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/zvB5R
Ji v Canada (C&I), 2019 CanLII 37413 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/5FSaD
Li v Canada (PS&EP), 2018 CanLII 102184 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/CyEgv
Li v Canada (PS&EP), 2018 CanLII 102088 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/m1rqD
Li v. Canada (PS&EP), 2019 FC 1235 (CanLII)
http://archive.is/35hXq
Li v Canada (PS&EP), 2019 CanLII 54633 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/ztbgS
Li v Canada (PS&EP), 2019 CanLII 109016 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/Se5tm
Liheng v Canada (PS&EP), 2018 CanLII 14516 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/IglAi
Lin v Canada (PS&EP), 2018 CanLII 13950 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/fX0tW
Liu v Canada (PS&EP), 2017 CanLII 98345 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/PjMwZ
Liu v Canada (PS&EP), 2017 CanLII 98355 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/Ld5lE
Lou v Canada (PS&EP), 2019 CanLII 90447 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/2QCcU
Shi v Canada (PS&EP), 2018 CanLII 139479 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/clhDG
Shi v Canada (PS&EP), 2018 CanLII 140634 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/uOsLO
Sun v Canada (PS&EP), 2017 CanLII 98347 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/IubgR
Wang v Canada (PS&EP), 2018 CanLII 26840 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/QKs1k
Wang v Canada (PS&EP), 2018 CanLII 36952 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/bbeWz
Wang v Canada (PS&EP), 2018 CanLII 37839 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/W4m3b
Xiu v Canada (PS&EP), 2018 CanLII 72624 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/953Tq
Yan v Canada (PS&EP), 2019 CanLII 37396 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/wVTN9
Yang v. Canada (C&I), 2019 FC 1237 (CanLII)
http://archive.is/g5Cl4
Yang v. Canada (PS&EP), 2019 FC 1236 (CanLII)
http://archive.is/igrmm
Ye v Canada (PS&EP), 2018 CanLII 91630 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/FQddq
Ye v Canada (PS&EP), 2017 CanLII 96763 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/l97NS
Zhang v Canada (PS&EP), 2017 CanLII 94304 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/a73ye
Zhang v Canada (PS&EP), 2018 CanLII 102170 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/OI4XD
Zhao v Canada (PS&EP), 2018 CanLII 81821 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/AryL1
Zhou v Canada (PS&EP), 2019 CanLII 74554 (CA IRB)
http://archive.is/h7XyJ

Sunny Wang has been a very busy man, and there was considerable fallout after his fake immigration scheme was uncovered. All of the above cases are his, and that isn’t exhaustive at all.

Bear in mind that this is just a small sample of what is easily available to find on CanLII. There are many, many more cases on this topic. If there is one saving grace, it is that the IRB seems to be trying to clean up this mess.

However, as we will soon see, the IRB still allows people who defraud the system (sometimes) to stay in Canada anyway on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Garbage.

5. Some Fraudsters Still Allowed To Stay

While we would expect all of these fraudsters to be deported, that is not the case. Going through these court records, it shows that several were in fact allowed to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Guess it varies on how bleeding-heart the people are conducting the hearing.

Let’s take a look at a case, shall we?

6. Yang v. Canada: Fake Job Offer

[1] This application judicially reviews an Immigration Appeal Division [IAD] decision [Decision] that concluded there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] considerations to overcome the Applicant’s misrepresentation. The Applicant, Mr. Yang, is a citizen of China. He came to Canada in 2002 on a study permit. He is a permanent resident, while his wife and two daughters are Canadian citizens. His wife obtained permanent residence as Mr. Yang’s accompanying spouse on his application, which contained the misrepresentation, but she subsequently obtained Canadian citizenship. The Applicant’s two daughters were born in Canada.

[3] After Mr. Yang received his work permit, he was informed the position for which he had been hired did not exist. New Can indicated that he would pay his own salary and benefits to New Can, and Pacific Glory would issue him valid pay cheques and tax documents. Mr. Yang participated in this arrangement, worked without authorization in various jobs to cover his obligation to New Can, and filed taxes based on the false T4 statements.

[4] In 2008, Mr. Yang applied for permanent residence as part of the Federal Skilled Worker class based on this fraudulent employment and included his wife on his application as an accompanying spouse. At this point, Mr. Yang’s wife was aware of the fraudulent employment arrangement and was also violating her work permit, working as a sales clerk instead of as a marketing researcher.

[5] In 2009, a visa officer interviewed Mr. Yang regarding his application for permanent residence. Throughout the interview, Mr. Yang maintained the fiction that he was employed by Pacific Glory. In fact, New Can had coached Mr. Yang and one of his fictional co-workers to lie their way through this interview. Both Mr. Yang and his wife were granted permanent residence in 2010.

[6] In 2012, the Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA] undertook a large-scale immigration fraud investigation involving New Can and its owner, Xun “Sunny” Wang. As a result, CBSA opened investigations into a number of New Can’s clients, including Mr. Yang. In 2016, CBSA contacted Mr. Yang with concerns he had been granted permanent residence based on misrepresented facts. I note in passing that this is one of four cases argued before the Court over the span of two weeks in August 2019. Sunny Wang had represented all applicants in these various immigration applications, each of which resulted in misrepresentation findings. The other three decisions may be found at Yang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1237; Gao v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) 2019 FC 1238; and Li v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 1235.

[7] Mr. Yang’s case was referred to the Immigration Division [ID] pursuant to subsection 44(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], which found him inadmissible for misrepresentation. He then appealed to the IAD, conceding the misrepresentation and appealing only on H&C grounds.

III. Analysis
[10] The purpose of paragraph 40(1)(a) of IRPA “is to deter misrepresentation and maintain the integrity of the immigration process” (Sayedi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 420 at para 24). Further, an applicant’s duty of candour “is an overriding principle” of IRPA (Sidhu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FCA 169 at para 70). However, the IAD can still allow such an appeal if “taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision, sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case” (IRPA, paragraph 67(1)(c)).

[11] In conducting its H&C analysis, the IAD properly identified that the “Ribic” factors to be considered when exercising its discretionary jurisdiction for misrepresentation are specific to the individual (see also Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Li, 2017 FC 805 at paras 21-22). The relevant factors include the seriousness of the misrepresentation, degree of remorse, length of time and establishment in Canada, family and community support, impact of removal on family in Canada, degree of hardship caused, and bests interests of the children [BIOC]. Only the last of these factors is determinative, as explained next.

[23] Here, the IAD simply noted evidence that Mr. Yang and his family had visited China regularly, approximately once a year in the past, and from this gleaned that the children could visit their father in China after his removal. Unlike even in Gao, there was simply no analysis of the children’s current situation or of their father’s physical involvement in their lives and their evolving relationships with him, let alone what the impact would be if he were removed.

[24] Mr. Yang’s conduct was decidedly reprehensible. But that reality does not permit the IAD to sweep aside its duty. Indeed, where inadmissibility is conceded, such as in this case, H&C forms the sole basis of the IAD appeal. The children directly affected must be front and centre. They cannot be a sideshow. Despite the fact that their father sinned against the immigration system in a fundamental way, they did not. Serious though his conduct was, so too are their interests.

IV. Conclusion
[25] In failing to properly address the evidence raised concerning the impact on the children, the BIOC analysis fell short. For young children directly affected by a removal of a parent, their evidence and best interests must be assessed with particularity rather than in a general manner – that is, without addressing or assessing the evidence presented. Given the deficient BIOC analysis, the matter will be returned for redetermination.

JUDGMENT in IMM-910-19
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
.
The judicial review is granted.
.
This matter will be sent back for reconsideration.
.
No questions were raised for certification, and none arise.
.
No costs will issue.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few of these cases when CanLII is searched. Perhaps the lesson here is that if you are going to defraud Immigration Canada, make sure you have young children with you. You may then be allowed to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Another instance of an order for removal being overturned is here.

7. CBC Article On Fake Job Offers

For several weeks, CBC News posed as a Chinese couple in correspondence and phone calls with WonHonTa Immigration Service, a Toronto-based recruiting agency that claims to match potential immigrants with businesses in the Atlantic region.

WonHonTa had posted an article on WeChat, a social media and messaging platform popular in China, explaining how the “vast majority” of people use the Atlantic immigration pilot.

“Employers want profit, applicants want identity (PR residency), and both sides have their
demand in common,” said the article. “Well, you pay money, I hire you. Salary is also paid by applicants, and recorded on books monthly.”

How it works
Jiacheng Song, a manager with the China-based affiliate of WonHonTa Consulting Inc., told an undercover CBC journalist he works directly with businesses to ensure all transactions are done through personal bank accounts to avoid taxes.

“To be frank, we have employers who work with us,” Song wrote. “We pay them money, they are willing to sponsor our clients for immigration.”

The whole concept of Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program is to allow designated employers in need of workers to hire immigrants directly. The business is not charged a government fee, unlike other immigration programs. The program also differs from existing immigration channels because some language and education requirements are lower for applicants.

“If you know you get that job offer, then that’s a golden ticket to immigrate to Canada, which can be quite tempting for people. So they’re going to seek that out and they’re going to pay what they have to pay sometimes,” said Andrew VanSlyke of GV5 Consulting, a company that specializes in the pilot program.

Recruiting agencies outside Canada often help co-ordinate deals and take a large cut of the profit, according to VanSlyke.

So the jobs offers were completely fraudulent to begin with. It was all about cash for permanent residence. Make one wonder how widespread this is, and even beyond the AIPP.

Here is another article, this one from Global News, on immigration fraud coming our of Alberta.

8. Parliamentary Report On IRB Complaints

This is not entirely relevant to the issue of immigration fraud, but interesting nonetheless. Parliament has actually held hearings on the topic of whether the IRB staff was sensitive enough, and properly trained in SOGI (sexual orientation, gender identity). Great use of parliamentary resources. And here is the report that actually came out.

Guess when fake refugees and bogus immigrants start getting turned away, they can always claim discrimination. Seems to be a trend.

9. How Common Is This Fraud?

Unfortunately, if there is data compiled, the Government of Canada does not make it easy to find. In a sense that is understandable. The topic is embarrassing. Guess these court cases will have to do for now.

Let’s Outsource Canada’s Industries & C.F.M.O. a.k.a. “CANZUK”

(Bev Collins & NAFTA)

2. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

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

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the World Trade Organization (WTO), on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Gov’t trade deal listings.

CLICK HERE, for the modified version of T.P.P.
CLICK HERE, for Canada/Colombia FTA.
CLICK HERE, for Canada/Honduras FTA.
CLICK HERE, for Canada/Panama FTA.
CLICK HERE, for Canada/Korea FTA.
CLICK HERE, for CANZUK International.

3. Who’s Involved In Various Deals

(A) NAFTA includes: Mexico and the U.S.
(B) The Trans-Pacific Partnership includes: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam
(C) Canada-Colombia FTA includes: Colombia
(D) Canada-Honduras FTA includes: Honduras
(E) Canada-Panama FTA includes: Panama
(F) Canada-Korea FTA includes: S. Korea
(G) Commonwealth Free Movement (a.k.a “CANZUK”) includes:
-Anguilla
-Antigua
-The Bahamas
-Bangladesh
-Barbados
-Barbuda
-Belize
-Christmas Island
-the Cook Islands
-Guernsey
-India
-the Isle of Man
-Jamaica
-Jersey
-Nevis
-Nigeria
-Pakistan
-Papua New Guinea
-Saint Kitts

4. “National Treatment”, Chapter 11, NAFTA

The so-called “national treatment” provisions were a very harmful part of NAFTA, which was signed in 1995. It allowed governments and companies to sue other governments if their business plans or environmental laws were considered unprofitable. From Chapter 11 of NAFTA.

Article 1102: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. The treatment accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a state or province, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that state or province to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.
4. For greater certainty, no Party may:
(a) impose on an investor of another Party a requirement that a minimum level of equity in an enterprise in the territory of the Party be held by its nationals, other than nominal qualifying shares for directors or incorporators of corporations; or
(b) require an investor of another Party, by reason of its nationality, to sell or otherwise dispose of an investment in the territory of the Party.

This clause has caused all sorts of headaches in the name of “free trade”. (See Free Trade #2 for more details). No longer are there countries, but merely “economic zones”. In the case of NAFTA

5. “National Treatment”, Article 9, T.P.P.

Now take a look at the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This was addressed in parts 4 and 5. The U.S., quite sensibly dumped this agreement, but Canada has signed on.

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

Look familiar? It should. It is virtually the identical language that formed the basis of lawsuits (many successful), in Canada. This can lead to the same issues that still happen in NAFTA, just on a bigger scale.

6. Chapter 2 of Canada/Colombia FTA

Section A – National Treatment
Article 202: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of the other Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994, and to this end Article III of the GATT 1994 is incorporated into and made part of this Agreement, mutatis mutandis.
2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a sub-national government, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment that sub-national government accords to any like, directly competitive or substitutable goods, as the case may be, of the Party of which it forms a part.
3. Paragraph 1 does not apply to the measures set out in Annex 202.

The agreement was signed in November 2008, and been in effect since August 2011.

7. Chapter 3 of Canada/Honduras FTA

Section B – National Treatment
Article 3.3: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of the other Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994, and to this end Article III of the GATT 1994 is incorporated into and made part of this Agreement.
2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a sub-national government, treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded by that sub-national government to a like, directly competitive, or substitutable good of the Party of which it forms a part. For the purposes of this paragraph, “goods of a Party” includes goods produced in the territory of the sub-national government of that Party.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply to a measure set out in Annex 3.3.

8. Chapter 2 of Canada/Panama FTA

Section I – National treatment
Article 2.03: National treatment
Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of the other Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994, and to this end Article III of the GATT 1994 is incorporated into and made part of this Agreement.
The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a sub-national government, treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded by that sub-national government to a like, directly competitive or substitutable good, as the case may be, of the Party of which it forms a part.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply to a measure set out in Annex 2.03 (Exceptions to Articles 2.03 and 2.08).

9. Chapter 2 of Canada/S. Korea FTA

Section A – National Treatment
Article 2.2: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of the other Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994 and, for greater certainty, its interpretative notes, and to this end Article III of the GATT 1994 and, for greater certainty, its interpretative notes, or an equivalent provision of a successor agreement to which both Parties are party, are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement.
2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party pursuant to paragraph 1 means, with respect to a sub-national government, treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment that sub-national government accords to like, directly competitive or substitutable goods of the Party of which it forms a part.
3. Paragraph 1 does not apply to the measures set out in Annex 2-A.

Yes, the wordings here are identical. National treatment is a clause that prevents another country from taking any protectionist measures in order to protect its people.

Why should we care? Because many of these countries Canada has signed agreements with are able to produce goods at a much lower cost. As such, Canadian manufacturers are forced to compete with the third world. This has the effect of outsourcing jobs, and driving down the wages of jobs that remain.

These agreements are just a few. Please go through the more of the index.

10. Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation (Now “CANZUK”)

Note: This initiative is for both free trade, and free movement — a.k.a. erasing borders.

Originally the group was known as the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation, and were working towards open borders between nations of the British Commonwealth. It was later renamed CANZUK International (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom), most likely as it would be an easier sell.

It should be said that a new Commonwealth union would be welcoming of any potential members – with each being considered on a case-by-case basis – and that the CANZUK project is very much a work in progress; always receptive of fresh ideas and potential avenues to explore.

A useful way to begin is by taking a look at the CANZUK countries’ dependent territories, such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands and Anguilla, for example, which are dependencies of Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, respectively, as well as the UK’s Crown dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man).

Each area would naturally become full members of the new group along with the nations to which they are related. Some advocates claim that these small islands, and their generally sparse populations, are currently under-utilised, and that a CANZUK alliance would offer a tremendous opportunity for their communities to acquire a far more extensive set of rights by becoming equal partners in a union, while shaking off their somewhat colonial tint.

Widening our scope, we arrive at the Commonwealth realms. These realms are sovereign states who are members of the Commonwealth and who currently share Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch, of which, there are 16 including the CANZUK countries.

Although the rest of the realms are far less developed than their CANZUK counterparts, and while the new partnership wouldn’t act as a sort of transfer union, they would still enjoy a huge range of economic benefits. Unrestricted work and travel, as well as increased investment in transport and communications infrastructure, would make these tropical environments rather more attractive to potential tourists and retirees.

But, whether founded or not, the notion that free immigration was causing problems for the UK was undoubtedly a primary motivation for its departure from the European Union. A CANZUK union would seek to avoid such issues by moving slowly and steadily with the original four members, providing economic assistance to the realms before allowing their eventual membership.

A further concern, and no doubt the most pressing, is that a union involving most or all of the current Commonwealth would be a political impossibility, with almost every country having broken off colonial ties with the British in order to achieve their independence, which says nothing for the relationships between some of the nations (India and Pakistan or Bangladesh and Pakistan, for example). Of course, it would be entirely possible for individual Commonwealth countries to make a solo membership claim.

When weighing up the potential barriers to entry that many of these Commonwealth countries have, we’re often confronted with the challenge that this new alliance is concerned only with nations that are populated by white folk. Such criticism is fairly lazy and can be easily dealt with. Firstly, as we’ve just seen, there’s absolutely no reason why these countries couldn’t join in the future, so long as efforts were directed at bringing them up to par in the ways just discussed.

All in all, while some of the future membership candidates do carry some weight, it should be pretty clear that the original CANZUK coalition is by far the most practical place to begin. The innumerable similarities between these four countries is really where the magic of this movement will happen.

At first, the project will be challenging enough, and caution will be required. Having said that, and as previously mentioned, CANZUK’s immense potential truly knows no bounds, and, down the line, further options can always be explored.

Let’s be clear: the 4 members (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom) are just the starting point. This group has every intention of opening it up to other nations.

Even if there is only the free trade agreement (no replacement migration), it would still be a killer for Canadian jobs. We can’t possibly compete against nations which are able to produce so cheaply.

11. How Does This Help Our People?

As outlined in previous articles, so-called “free trade” agreements end up outsourcing jobs to the 3rd world, which can produce goods much more cheaply.

Jobs that remain are often lower wage, as employers are now forced to compete with far cheaper foreign players. It creates an incentive for even more employers to outsource, further eliminating jobs.

While touted as economic liberty and economy growing, such deals cause havoc to communities. It’s no comfort to people who suddenly find themselves unemployed.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, Bill C-79

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

(Canada’s Bill C-79, October 2018)

1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

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

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Bill C-79.
CLICK HERE, for the Government website on CPTPP

CLICK HERE, for EPI study: 3.4 million jobs lost between 2001 and 2017 due to liberalized trade with China.
CLICK HERE, for EPI study: 879K jobs lost due to NAFTA.
CLICK HERE, for EPI study: free trade drives down wages.
CLICK HERE, for EPI study: free trade and trade deficits.

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

3. Trading Partner Brunei, Stoning Gays

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

4. Portions Of Bill C-79

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Governor in Council can apparently:

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

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

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

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

5. Sections Of CPTPP Text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Potential For Huge Job Losses

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Conclusions Regarding C-79 & CPTPP

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

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

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

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

Difficult to see how average people will benefit from CPTPP.

(Not Quite) Infanticide #10: China’s Organ Harvesting Of Live People; TSCE #14

1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

CLICK HERE, for #1: universities fighting against pro-life groups.
CLICK HERE, for #2: citing abortion stats now considered violence.
CLICK HERE, for #3: up to birth abortion now legal in VA/NY.
CLICK HERE, for #4: letting babies who survive abortion die.
CLICK HERE, for #5: UN supports abortion rights, even for kids.
CLICK HERE, for #6: fallout and some pushback on abortion.
CLICK HERE, for #7: ONCA rules docs must provide service or referral.
CLICK HERE, for #8: hypocrisy in summer jobs grant, purity tests.
CLICK HERE, for #9: partial funding lost for planned parenthood.

CLICK HERE, for trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation series.

2. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for China Tribunal.
CLICK HERE, for China Tribunal, forced harvesting of organs from China’s political prisoners.
CLICK HERE, from China Tribunal’s December 2018 findings.
CLICK HERE, for firstthings.com, and then US Vice President Joe Biden’s attitude to what went on in China.
CLICK HERE, for 2015 on China’s organ trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for Lifesite article on China.
CLICK HERE, for NBC article, China promises to phase out practice.
CLICK HERE, for an NBC article on China’s practice.

3. China Tribunal’s Findings


From the December 2018 interim report:

“The Tribunal’s members are certain – unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt – that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”

That was part of the interim report. But now the final report goes on even further:

The Tribunal has considered evidence, in its many forms, and dealt with individual issues according to the evidence relating to each issue and nothing else and thereby reached a series of conclusions that are free of any influence caused by the PRC’s reputation or other potential causes of prejudice.
These were as follows;
• That there were extraordinarily short waiting times (promised by PRC doctors and hospitals) for organs to be available for transplantation;
• That there was torture of Falun Gong and Uyghurs;
• That there was accumulated numerical evidence (excluding spurious PRC data) which indicated:
o the number of transplant operations performed, and
o the impossibility of there being anything like sufficient ‘eligible donors’ under the recently formed PRC voluntary donor scheme for that number of transplant operations;
• That there was a massive infrastructure development of facilities and medical personnel for organ transplant operations, often started before any voluntary donor system was even planned; That there was direct and indirect evidence of forced organ harvesting.

And this led to the conclusion that:

forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one – and probably the main – source of organ supply. The concerted persecution and medical testing of the Uyghurs is more recent and it may be that evidence of forced organ harvesting of this group may emerge in due course. The Tribunal has had no evidence that the significant infrastructure associated with China’s transplantation industry has been dismantled and absent a satisfactory explanation as to the source of readily available organs concludes that forced organ harvesting continues till today.

However, on the topic of “genocide” China Tribunal pussyfoots around the issue and says they cannot conclude there is intent for genocide. This despite stating that the actions met the other elements.

The Tribunal considered whether this constituted a crime of Genocide; The Falun Gong and the Uyghurs in the PRC each qualify as a ‘group’ for purposes of the crime of Genocide. For the Falun Gong, the following elements of the crime of Genocide are clearly established:
• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
Thus, bar one element of the crime, Genocide is, on the basis of legal advice received, clearly proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. The remaining element required to prove the crime is the very specific intent for Genocide. Accepting legal advice about proving this intent, the Tribunal cannot be certain that the requisite intent is proved and thus cannot be certain that Genocide itself is proved.

That’s right. Due to legal advice, China Tribunal cannot actually conclude there is intent to commit genocide, despite the prolonged actions that would justify the claims.

China Tribunal then “appears” to condemn what happens to Falun Gong and the Uyghurs, but waters down the language to “criminality”, despite the included detail. The tribunal claims the “elements have been met for crimes against humanity”.

Commission of Crimes Against Humanity against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by proof of one or more of the following, legally required component acts:
• murder;
• extermination;
• imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
• torture;
• rape or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
• persecution on racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law ;
• enforced disappearance
in the course of a widespread and systematic attack or attacks against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs.

This seems to be splitting hairs. It meets the criteria for crimes against humanity. Yet China Tribunal, on advice from their lawyers, refuse to state there is intent to qualify as “genocide”.

The report ends with a very interesting comment about the power of media and citizen journalists.

Governments and international bodies must do their duty not only in regard to the possible charge of Genocide but also in regard to Crimes against Humanity, which the Tribunal does not allow to be any less heinous. Assuming they do not do their duty, the usually powerless citizen is, in the internet age, more powerful than s/he may recognise. Criminality of this order may allow individuals from around the world to act jointly in pressuring governments so that those governments and other international bodies are unable not to act.

The China Tribunal has no power to actually do anything. However, it seems to believe that by spreading word online it can put pressure on governments to act.

4. Firstthings.com Article


Firstthings.com quotes former VP Joe Biden, on his take on China’s one-child policy.

But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable. So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that.

In order to maintain the 1-child policy, China has had to result to extreme and inhuman measures:

  • forced abortion
  • sex-selective abortions against girls
  • sterilizations
  • eugenics

Biden seemed critical that the declining birth rate would be able to sustain the retired population. However he seemed to have no concern over the mass aborting and sterilizations that went on.

5. NBC Coverage Of Issue


American news outlet NBC reported here, and also reported that:

In 2014, state media reported that China would phase out the practice of taking organs from executed prisoners and said it would rely instead on a national organ donation system.

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday was not immediately available to comment on the tribunal’s findings.

In a statement released alongside the final judgment, the tribunal said many of those affected were practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline that China banned in the 1990s and has called an “evil cult.” The tribunal added that it was possible that Uighur Muslims — an ethnic minority who are currently being detained in vast numbers in western China — were also being targeted.

China had been promising for years to end this practice, but it doesn’t seem to have happened.

6. Lifesite Take On The Situation

Still, there has been too much reporting for too long about this profound human-rights abuse to ethically continue to look the other way. The question thus becomes: Will the U.S. specifically outlaw traveling to China for the purpose of buying an organ — just as we do participating in pedophilia tourism overseas? (Spain, Israel, Italy, and Taiwan have passed such laws already.) I can’t think of one argument against pursuing such a course.

If we don’t at least do what we can, it seems to me that we make ourselves complicit in allowing the demand for black-market organs forcibly harvested from murdered prisoners to continue unimpeded — and the blood of the slaughtered victims will also be on us.

(Lifesite article here) This echoes what China Tribunal has been saying: that political pressure is needed to put a stop to this practice.

7. My Take On This Story


If the allegations are true, and they seem to be, then this is abhorrent.

At some level this is no different that what abortion industries like Planned Parenthood do: snuff out lives in order to obtain a commodity, their organs. If we subscribe to the idea that life is valuable, then this is little — though more heinous — than a common murder and robbery.

While donation of organs (for after death), should be encouraged, this is an entirely different matter. This is premeditated mass murder in order to steal those parts. The practice is barbaric.

Consider the flack Canada has taken over the Government’s genocide claims over Indigenous women and girls. Most of the deaths and disappearances (at least where it is known) were at the hands of Indigenous men they knew. That is apparently a “genocide”. Yet what is going on in China is not really worth the attention apparently.

But good luck getting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to openly condemn the practice.

Free Trade #1: Thoughts On Potential Canada-China Free Trade Deal

(Tucker Carlson: Social Costs to Communities Most Important)

1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

CLICK HERE, for #1: thoughts on potential free trade with China.
CLICK HERE, for #2: NAFTA, lawsuits, job losses, sovereignty.
CLICK HERE, for #3: looking at NAFTA’s hidden/ignored costs.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Bill C-79, Trans-Pacific Partnership.
CLICK HERE, for #5: why Trump abandoned the T.P.P.
CLICK HERE, for #6: CANZUK erasing our sovereignty.
CLICK HERE, for #7: outsourcing, other trade deals, CANZUK.
CLICK HERE, for #8: professional outsourcing, wages, immigration.
CLICK HERE, for #9: EPI research on free trade social costs.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Canada’s trade deal consultations.
CLICK HERE, for archived link to Canada-China free trade.
CLICK HERE, for FAQ on Canada-China free trade deal.
CLICK HERE, for EPI study. Estimated 3.4M jobs lost from US to China 2001-2017.
CLICK HERE, for China’s currency manipulation.
CLICK HERE, for Stephen Harper supporting free trade with China.
CLICK HERE, for Justin Trudeau supporting free trade with China.
CLICK HERE, for Maxime Bernier endorsing free trade with China.
CLICK HERE, for NDP response to possible FTA.
CLICK HERE, for CATO Institute, Disciplining China.
CLICK HERE, for a CATO Institute brochure.

3. From Archived Pages

There have been many concerns with dealing with China. To name just some of them:

  1. Human rights abuses
  2. No respect for intellectual property
  3. Preferential treatment
  4. Unsafe products entering Canada

To put is bluntly, the answers are not reassuring. They are the political-talk we have come to expect that avoids giving concrete answers.

Canada has robust regulatory requirements and strong enforcement action can be taken on unsafe products entering the country. Regardless of country of origin, if the Canadian government identifies products that do not meet regulatory requirements, enforcement action will be taken. Enforcement action can take a number of forms, including recall.

Canada’s Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China works to protect Canadian investments in China, and is among the most ambitious investment agreements China has ever ratified.

A possible FTA could include provisions that would help to mitigate the risk of IP infringements. We would like to hear from you on your experience with IP rights in the context of the Canada-China commercial relationship. Additionally, Canadian firms are encouraged to raise any IP problems they have in China or other overseas market with the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service.

This all sounds lovely, but to a critical person, this seems more like an attempt to emotionally soothe than to persuade with facts.

4. Major Job Losses

Looking at the Economic Policy Institute Study, shown here, from 2001 to 2017, the US lost 3.4 million jobs to China as a result of a growing trade deficit. China can produce much cheaper and in much higher numbers.

Both increased imports and technical products have done a number on the US job market, who simply cannot compete.

While this is an American study, it would be wise to use it as a cautionary tale for Canada as well.

CURRENCY MANIPULATION EXPLAINED


One unfair way to gain an advantage over a foreign competitor is to manipulate the currency. China has been doing this for a long time, and it leads to an economic advantage that few can match. The Forbes article explains it well.

First, a bit of background. The Chinese currency, called the renminbi, is what’s known as a policy currency. That means that unlike the U.S. dollar, which rises and falls in value in free market trading, the currency’s value against the dollar is set by the People’s Bank of China, an arm of the Chinese government.

While the PBOC has gradually tried to make the value of the renminbi more reflective of market forces, setting trading bands in which the renminbi is allowed to fluctuate every day, in the last analysis it is still under government control. Put another way, the value of the renminbi is manipulated by the government and always has been. It’s just that when Beijing was manipulating the value so that the renminbi appreciated against the dollar in the last few years, nobody in Washington complained.

When the Chinese Government manipulates its currency, it does so in order to artificially cheapen the costs of its products, and to gain an advantage over competitors.

In a “free market” world, this sort of thing should never be allowed.

5. CATO Institute Hypocrisy

Note: CATO calls itself a public policy institute, dedicated to free trade, liberalization and free markets. It is based in the US. But its conflicting observations are disturbing. From their website, they post an article which contains these remarks:

The Trump administration believes that the international dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization (WTO) offers no effective remedy for these practices, and prefers an approach that relies mostly on unilateral tariffs. The administration sees the issue as follows. China’s mercantilist state systematically discriminates against foreign products and foreign producers in China while forcing foreign companies to hand over their intellectual property (IP) as the price of access to China’s large and growing market. China engages in widespread cheating in its trade practices, including not only high tariffs, domestic content requirements, and other traditional forms of protectionism, but also rigged regulations that erect trade barriers by favoring Chinese companies and outright theft of foreign IP. And, Trump and his trade cohorts say repeatedly, there is virtually nothing the United States can do under current WTO rules to stop this predatory Chinese behavior.

Worth noting is that CATO doesn’t dispute the accuracy or factual basis of Donald Trump’s claims. They don’t dispute the one sided advantage that is posed here. However, there is an interesting brochure that CATO released:

Supporting China’s membership in the WTO in 2001 was not a mistake by the United States. All 163 other members of the WTO, including the United States, are much better off because China is inside the rules-based global trading system and has not been left outside it. China has made great strides since 2001 toward full compliance with the rules of the WTO trading system.

An organization which promotes liberalized trade is okay when one of its members blatantly acts against the rules and its principles. Okay.

6. Main Canadian Parties Support This

Despite all the problems outline above, it is:
SUPPORTED, by People’s Party.
SUPPORTED, by the Conservative Party.
SUPPORTED, by the Liberal Party

However, NDP acts <a href=”https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-pms-trade-trip-china”” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”>as the voice of reason.

A potential free trade agreement raises many questions that are yet unanswered. China has no free press, torture is widespread, workers do not have a right to collective bargaining, and hundreds of human rights defenders and dissidents have been detained.

Environmental protections, labour standards, and human rights must be at the forefront of any trade and investment discussions, and any trade deal must support Canadian jobs, not just focus on selling Canadian resources to be processed abroad.

The Liberals have failed to take action to address steel dumping by Chinese companies which put Canadian businesses at a dangerous disadvantage. China also has a questionable record on currency manipulation and unfair trade practices, and does not have market economy status, which means it would be very difficult to have a level playing field in a free trade deal.

There are also concerns about protecting the intellectual property of Canadians and the behaviour of state-owned enterprises in China, including through the takeover of Canadian companies that work on sensitive technologies. Before making a decision on whether to begin formal negotiations, the government needs to clearly address all these concerns, and consult with Canadians before rushing into a deal that is against their interests.”

What the hell? Why am I agreeing with the NDP on this? Since when did an openly socialist party become the voice of reason?

The again, a <a href=”https://www.nationalcitizensalliance.ca/NCA-trade-environment-policy-statement/”” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”>NATIONALIST approach would also conclude free trade with China is a bad idea.

7. Not Worth It

Watch the video with Tucker Carlson, at the top of the article. He explains that it is a better way to ensure stability of communities and jobs than to look at a purely profit motive. Well worth a watch. While the talk relates to automating vehicles — and putting truck drivers out of work — the same rationale can be applied here.

While there may be some benefits to an agreement with China, there are simply too many social costs to Canada that need to be seriously looked at:

  • How many jobs will be lost?
  • What will happen to communities with major job losses?
  • What about environmental protection?
  • Would we be rewarding sweatshop conditions?
  • Can we protect people’s intellectual property?
  • Will we be undercut by currency manipulation?
  • Is getting cheaper products worth the social cost?

It’s not all about GDP, stock prices, or corporate profits. What will a free trade agreement with China do to Canada?

OUR PEOPLE COME FIRST.