Guest Post: CdnSpotlight Researching Corruption Within Canada’s Ranks

Another researcher getting into the muck and filth that is the Canadian Government and administration. Here is some of the work unearthed and exposed. Worth a good long read, for anyone who is truly concerned about the future of the nation. Here are just a few of the postings. Go check out more.

CLICK HERE, for the Gab account where this research can be found.

1. Dominic Barton

CANADA’S DEEP STATE
What began with a negative news article about Dominic Barton becoming our new ambassador to China in Sept. got me curious so I started digging.

And what I’ve been finding is alarming.
It is much, much larger than just lowly ol’ Barton as the pic shows.
The tentacles are far-reaching and the Canadian players involved are so intertwined that it’ll cause some ‘splodey heads like mine.
So please bear with me as I try to explain this in my series/threads.

So let me start with the article that started it all:
Terence Corcoran: Dominic Barton could be the right man for China … if he remembers what makes Canada work:
Barton’s admiration and support of China’s statist economic ideas, and his frequently stated disdain for market capitalism, certainly give one reason to pause – Sept. 2019

CLICK HERE for an article on the subject.

Read every word of that article, it briefly describes Barton’s “philosophy” & ideology

“China as the world’s leading practitioner of state corporatism. Barton thinks the Communist Party of China has developed some fantastic economic models that might even be exportable to the rest of the world, including Canada.

Barton and McKinsey, for example, have been enthusiastic backers of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a massive global infrastructure scheme

the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) infrastructure initiative, the project was described by Barton in 2015 as “inspiring” and a model for “long-term thinking” with infrastructure spending as the foundation for economic growth.

China’s Belt/Road model, suggests Barton, is the way of the future. “The Chinese saying ‘build a road first if you want to get rich’ is spot on — data suggests that for every $1 billion in infrastructure investment, 30,000 to 80,000 jobs are created, generating $2.5 billion in new GDP.”

In my humble opinion, this is where Canada’s headed…

2. CPPIB, Blackrock, Mark Wiseman

CANADA’S DEEP STATE Part 2
Now that ambassador Dominic Barton has been identified as the architect, let’s look at some of his buddies and their connections with BlackRock and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB)

Born in Niagara Falls Ontario, Mark Wiseman became a Senior Managing Director at BlackRock NYC in 2016 as Global Head of Active Equities for BlackRock and Chairman of BlackRock Alternative Investors. He also serves as Chairman of the firm’s Global Investment Committee and on its Global Executive Committee.

He was President and CEO of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) 2012-2016 after starting there in 2005 as Senior Vice-President, Private Investments.

Prior to joining CPPIB, Mark was responsible for the private equity fund and co-investment program at the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. He has worked at Harrowston Inc., a publicly traded Canadian merchant bank, and as a lawyer with Sullivan & Cromwell, where he practiced in New York and Paris.

He also served as a law clerk to Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin at the Supreme Court of Canada – ring a bell? During the Justice Committee hearings with Jody Wilson-Raybould about the SNC-Lavalin Scandal, Buttsputin & Clerk of the Privy Council had insisted Jody talk with her for “advice”.

But the BlackRock ties don’t stop there.

BlackRock Canada CEO is Marcia Moffat since 2015– who just happens to be Mark Wiseman’s wife – based in Toronto. Mark returns home to Toronto on weekends from New York. She was formerly with RBC under Janice Fukakusa (see pic)

Wiseman is also the Chairman of FCLTGlobal (formerly Focusing Capital on the Long Term), an organization that encourages longer-term approaches in business and investing, which was set up by BlackRock, CPPIB, Dow, McKinsey & Company and Tata in 2016.

Mark is also a member of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, which advises Finance Minister MORNEAU on economic policies to achieve long-term, sustainable growth. Mark serves on the boards of several non-profit organizations, including Sinai Health Services in Toronto, the Capital Markets Institute and the Dean’s Advisory Board at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

At CPPIB, Wiseman made a name for himself by opening offices and pursuing investments abroad, particularly in South America and South Asia.

CPP investment chief Mark Wiseman to make surprise exit after nearly four years at helm.

While the one source characterized his departure as amicable, another source familiar with CPPIB’s inner workings said there was friction on leadership issues.

“…some questioned whether it was only the CPP’s interests that were being promoted” His years as CEO at CPPIB have been marked by a stream of deals, ranging from a lucrative early investment in Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba.

In 2015 – Why the head of Canada’s biggest pension fund is bullish on energy.

Mark Wiseman says CPPIB is looking at a range of investments from buying equity and partnering on acquisitions to outright takeovers
Mark Wiseman, who runs Canada’s biggest pension fund, offered the Davos crowd last week a two-pronged argument on why he’s bullish on energy assets after the recent plunge in oil prices.

Wiseman said that simple supply and demand perspective all but guarantees oil prices will be higher 10 years down the road, offering investment opportunities now for the $234 billion fund. “I’ll take that bet” on oil’s rebound, he said in an interview Tuesday at Bloomberg’s Toronto office.

“We see a lot of value in the Western Canadian basin,” he said, noting that oil sands projects are on his radar.
“WE LIKE COMPANIES THAT HAVE GOOD UNDERLYING ASSETS AND BAD BALANCE SHEETS. That’s the perfect scenario for us.”
–> premonition?

He encouraged the Canadian federal and provincial governments to look to jurisdictions like Australia, where state governments are given incentives to invest in infrastructure and court outside funding.

In the meantime, Canada Pension is looking to places like China, India and Brazil.

3. Willy Porneau’s Advisory Council

Let’s take a look at how quickly the Liberals put Deep State into play.

Willy Porno (Morneau) and his new Dream Team – the Advisory Council on Economic Growth.

Less than 2 months after the 2015 federal election, Willy Porno announces the new Advisory Council in his speech to the Toronto Region Board of Trade.

This was obviously planned long before the election.

CPAC December 14, 2015 – Bill Morneau – Keynote Speech
Finance Minister Bill Morneau addresses the Toronto Region Board of Trade, discussing the government’s strategy for supporting the middle class and long-term economic growth in Canada, including a plan to create an advisory council for economic growth. Following his speech, Morneau responds to questions from the board.

You should see this, and also see this.

A month later, the Crime Minister is at the World Economic Forum in Davos, with Dominic Barton:
“I would bet that almost all of you have Canadians in leadership positions in your companies—you may not know it because we don’t often shout it from the rooftops, some clichés about Canadians are true. In fact, at least half of you have hired Dominic Barton at one point or another.”

While in Davos, PMJT met with many high rollers – Microsoft CEO Natya Nadella, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg,

and billionaire George Soros, whose interests include combating climate change.

Then on Feb.22, 2016 Willy Porno announced Barton as Chair of the Council:
This article references the earlier ties Barton had to Wiseman by creating Focusing Capital on the Long Term (FCLT) Global in 2013 – board of directors include Larry Fink CEO BlackRock NYC – Wiseman’s future boss in 3 short years.
McKinsey executive to head new federal economic council.

4. Canada Infrastructure Bank

Canada’s Deep State Part 4 – Canada Infrastructure Bank
The Canada infrastructure Bank (CIB) has been steeped in controversy since it was first proposed.

The Liberal’s 2015 election promise was to provide low-cost financing to municipalities for infrastructure projects, as a vehicle for Ottawa to use its strong credit rating and lending authority to help municipalities reduce their cost of borrowing.

The Liberal plans evolved considerably since the party first promised an infrastructure bank during that election campaign – there was no mention of attracting private capital. The role of the proposed Canadian Infrastructure Development Bank was to attract financing from institutional investors to fund projects over the next 10 years as a Crown corporation.

Dominic Barton and Michael Sabia sketched out the infrastructure bank idea at the Public Policy Forum summit in Oct. 2016, a more ambitious plan in which the bank would gather and prioritize large projects that could earn revenue, such as electrical networks, and that attract billions in added international investment.

Sounds an awful lot like McKinsey’s “for-profit public-sector work” and advising governments.

The proposal to entice global pension funds into major Canadian investments goes far beyond anything promised to date by the federal Liberals, but Finance Minister Bill Morneau – who worked directly with the panel over the past several months – signalled a strong openness to the recommendations announced Thursday.

However, the panel’s 14 members include leaders of some of those institutional investors, including Mark Wiseman, senior managing director of BlackRock Inc., and Michael Sabia, CEO of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec pension fund.

Examples of potential projects listed… include toll highways and bridges, high-speed rail, port and airport expansions, city infrastructure, national broadband infrastructure, power transmission and natural resource infrastructure.

PM hopes to attract billions in private capital for infrastructure
Trudeau takes his foreign-investment agenda to investors, two weeks after announcing an infrastructure bank.

He will be accompanied by nine members of cabinet, including Finance Minister Bill Morneau, Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi, Transport Minister Marc Garneau, and Health Minister Jane Philpott. Trudeau and four of the ministers also are set to make their pitch to about a dozen Canadian investors — insurance companies and big pension funds like the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board — in the morning before meeting with the international investors in the afternoon.

Attracting billions in private-sector capital for “transformative” infrastructure projects is key to the Liberal government’s long-term strategy to boost Canada’s sluggish economic growth.

5. Century Initiative

Canada’s Deep State – Part 5 Century Initiative

When I first started digging about Canada’s new ambassador to China Dominic Barton, he popped up in a group called Century Initiative – a “non-profit” Canadian “registered charity”

Century Initiative’s 6 Founding Members – Dom, his buddy Mark & some new players
Dominic Barton, new Ambassador to China, prev. Global Managing Partner McKinsey & Co
Mark D. Wiseman, BlackRock NYC, former CEO Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
Goldy Hyder, Business Council of Canada president and CEO
– Future post to come on Hyder
Willa Black, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs – Cisco Canada
Tom Milroy, Managing Director, Generation Capital Limited
Andrew Pickersgill, also McKinsey & Co

Registered in Jan.2016, a few short months after the 2015 election, a month after Willy Porno announces the Canada Infrastructure Bank at the Toronto Region Board of Trade and while Dom & PMJT are schmoozing at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Now what would 6 capitalists be doing with a charity? Is this Barton’s belief that “corporations should be vehicles for social responsibility, not profits, and they should act for the welfare of all stakeholders, not just shareholders”?

This charitable status is a huge concern – if I’m not mistaken, there is no reporting or accountability of charities – no records of donors. A perfect vehicle for money-laundering & off-shore investments, likely thru the CIB, and tax write-offs for donors – the prefect storm for the elite 1%. I also believe the recent changes to charities in Bill C-86 was an “indirect” benefit to them.

Seems odd that Dom would set up a charity because in the past decade, McKinsey made a major push into FOR-PROFIT PUBLIC-SECTOR WORK, advising governments around the world.

Possible links to 21st Century Initiative by the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) & Obama??? Anons???

From Jan. to Sept. 2016, there doesn’t appear to be much about Century Initiative in the news. Of course Dom & Wiseman are busy with the Canada Investment Bank. But their buddies at Century Initiative were busy busy setting up, writing reports & hiring Shari Austin as CEO, previously VP of Corporate Citizenship and Executive Director of the RBC Foundation – not sure of her connection with Gordon Nixon, Janice Fukakusa or Wiseman’s wife Marcia Moffat at RBC but you can bet there is one.

In Oct. 2016, press releases & new articles start exploding on the scene

Hidden behind the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s “mandate” is Century Initiative, a “registered charity”
Finance Minister’s key advisers want 100M Canadians by 2100

Barton sees a dovetail between some of the ideas behind the Century Initiative and the growth council (Advisory Council), but he says they are separate.

In fact, behind the closed doors of the growth council meetings, Barton said the Century Initiative’s 100-million goal didn’t come up.

He did acknowledge that he and Wiseman were among the biggest proponents behind the immigration-boosting idea that the group presented to Morneau.

“Probably because Mark and I have been in (Century Initiative) we’re obviously more naturally bullish towards it,” said Barton, who also noted that there was a lot of debate on the scope of the immigration proposal.

6. Go Follow CdnSpotlight

The above is only a small sample of what has been posted on the Gab account by CdnSpotlight. Lots of dirt, and much of it very unpleasant. However, Canadians concerned about their country should take a look into this.

The rot and corruption runs deep throughout the Canadian political systems. Unfortunately, most people just don’t want to know about it.

Climate Propaganda In Academia — Some Big Players

 

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for an intro to the climate change scam.
CLICK HERE, for Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for humanizing transitions, energy justice.

CLICK HERE, for Max Boykoff’s article in Scientific American.
CLICK HERE, for Boykoff’s war on science, part I.
CLICK HERE, for Boykoff’s war on science, part II.

2. A Shoutout To Uppity Peasants


It’s only fair to cite the source of these articles, as in the person who shared them. They came from a Prairie Nationalist who’s frequently busy sharpening her pitchfork. Go check out Uppity Peasants for this and other topics.

3. Context For This Article


The topic of climate propaganda has been covered on this site several times (see links in Section #1). However, rather than doing a complete review for each of the remaining articles, a brief commentary will be added.

It’s downright creepy how the emotional manipulation and shameless hucksterism of climate change are treated seriously in academia. Rather than admitting there “may” be something wrong with climate research, the idea is to double down and look for alternative ways to sell the scheme.

Still, if plunging into the messed up world of climate propaganda appeals to you, then you have two options:
(a) Get professional help; or
(b) Keep reading more.

4. Heuristic Of Creative Destruction


Moving beyond the heuristic of creative destruction: Targeting exnovation with policy mixes for energy transitions Martin David Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Germany.

Scholars looking at policy mixes for the energy transition and seeking to facilitate a move away from fossil-based structures are increasingly addressing the opposite side of innovation. To describe this, the article introduces the concept of exnovation, referring to attempts to end fossil-based technological trajectories in a deliberate fashion. It applies a framework that encompasses innovation and exnovation alike in order to investigate the policy mix of the German energy transition. Beside finding that energy transition policy mixes need to emphasize regulatory instruments more in order to bring about decarbonization, the article also describes some general aspects of the policy mix design required to govern the innovation-exnovation nexus.

Typically, most people want to ADVANCE their societies, but this one considers doing the opposite: leading the public down a less developed lifestyle in order to combat climate change.

5. Bringing About Disruptive Change


A heuristic for conceptualizing and uncovering the determinants of agency in socio-technical transitions Mert Duygana, Michael Stauffachera, Grégoire Meylanb

There has been a growing interest in transition studies on the role of agency in bringing about disruptive change. Previous studies have examined how actors perform institutional work to create legitimacy and transform institutions. In doing so, they have provided insights into specific practices and strategies that actors follow. This paper seeks to complement existing studies by elucidating the foundations of agency that transforms institutions through institutional work. Drawing on institutional sociology and organizational studies, resources, discourses and networks of actors are identified as key elements enabling institutional work practices. The agency of each actor is conceived of as dependent on the configurations it possesses with respect to these elements. A heuristic is presented that helps to determine the configurations associated with a strong agency in empirical settings and use Swiss waste management as an illustrative case example. The heuristic enables a systematic analysis of agency across different organizational fields.

Some research into methods and techniques for bringing about serious and disruptive changes in Western society deemed necessary for environmental protections.

6. Disruption & System Transformation


Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective Frank W. Geels

This paper firstly assesses the usefulness of Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework for low-carbon system change, identifying three conceptual limitations with regard to the unit of analysis (products rather than systems), limited multi-dimensionality, and a simplistic (‘point source’) conception of change. Secondly, it shows that the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) offers a more comprehensive framework on all three dimensions. Thirdly, it reviews progress in socio-technical transition research and the MLP on these three dimensions and identifies new challenges, including ‘whole system’ reconfiguration, multi-dimensional struggles, bi-directional niche-regime interactions, and an alignment conception of change. To address these challenges, transition research should further deepen and broaden its engagement with the social sciences.

This gem takes the BUSINESS concept of disruptive innovative framework which is meant to introduce new products and technologies into the market. It then tries to apply it to the CLIMATE CHANGE industry in getting changes made.

7. Fighting Opposing “Regime” Against Change


Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective
Frank W Geels University of Manchester and King Abdulaziz Universit

Abstract
While most studies of low-carbon transitions focus on green niche-innovations, this paper shifts attention to the resistance by incumbent regime actors to fundamental change. Drawing on insights from political economy, the paper introduces politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Instrumental, discursive, material and institutional forms of power and resistance are distinguished and illustrated with examples from the UK electricity system. The paper concludes that the resistance and resilience of coal, gas and nuclear production regimes currently negates the benefits from increasing renewables deployment. It further suggests that policymakers and many transition-scholars have too high hopes that ‘green’ innovation will be sufficient to bring about low-carbon transitions. Future agendas in research and policy should therefore pay much more attention to the destabilization and decline of existing fossil fuel regimes.

This paper views political and media types who are skeptical of the climate change industry as “resistance” and studies way around them. No real sense that they may bring up valid points. Instead, they are an obstacle to progress.

8. Humanizing And “Energy Justice”


Humanizing sociotechnical transitions through energy justice: An ethical framework for global transformative change
Kirsten Jenkins, Benjamin K. Sovacoolb, Darren McCaule

Poverty, climate change and energy security demand awareness about the interlinkages between energy systems and social justice. Amidst these challenges, energy justice has emerged to conceptualize a world where all individuals, across all areas, have safe, affordable and sustainable energy that is, essentially, socially just. Simultaneously, new social and technological solutions to energy problems continually evolve, and interest in the concept of sociotechnical transitions has grown. However, an element often missing from such transitions frameworks is explicit engagement with energy justice frameworks. Despite the development of an embryonic set of literature around these themes, an obvious research gap has emerged: can energy justice and transitions frameworks be combined? This paper argues that they can. It does so through an exploration of the multi-level perspective on sociotechnical systems and an integration of energy justice at the model’s niche, regime and landscape level. It presents the argument that it is within the overarching process of sociotechnical change that issues of energy justice emerge. Here, inattention to social justice issues can cause injustices, whereas attention to them can provide a means to examine and potential resolve them.

The social justice nonsense which universities push is about to get a new member, so-called “energy justice”. Consider this a bastardized child of cultural Marxism and the climate change scam.

9. Regime Destabilization, Pulp & Paper


Explaining regime destabilisation in the pulp and paper industry
Kersti Karltorp, Björn A. Sandén

abstract
.
A transition to a carbon neutral society will require a shift from fossil to renewable resources. This will affect the conversion of biomass and related industries such as the pulp and paper industry. The purpose of this paper is two-fold: first, to describe and analyse the transformation processes in the Swedish pulp and paper industry and the adoption of biorefinery options, and second, to demonstrate how conceptualisations from strategic management can be used to describe regime destabilisation. The industry’s adoption of biorefinery options has been modest so far, but there is development along two trajectories. The first centres on gasification and the second on separation and refining. Such diverging strategies in response to external pressure can be explained by differences that exist between firms. Signs of increasing firm divergence, or ‘regime fragmentation’, might indicate the entry into a phase of regime destabilisation, and a critical point in a transition.

Sure, let’s make the pulp and paper industry completely unprofitable and put all of those workers out on the street. Rather than finding better solutions, let’s sabotage what already exists. While it is true you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, this seems excessive.

10. Apply Pressure To Destabilize Industries


Sequence and alignment of external pressures in industry destabilisation: Understanding the downfall of incumbent utilities in the German energy transition (1998–2015) Gregor Kungla, Frank W. Geels

ABSTRACT
This article makes two contributions to the emerging research stream on regime and industry destabilisation in the transition literature. First, we replicate the multi-dimensional framework developed by Turnheim and Geels with a more contemporary study that has closer links to sustainability transitions. Drawing on a wide range of primary and secondary sources, we analyse the destabilisation of the German electricity industry, which faced multiple external pressures: renewable energy technologies, nuclear phase-out policy, the financial-economic crisis, and negative public debates. Second, we elaborate the role of multiple pressures in industry destabilisation, focusing in particular on their sequence and alignment. We inductively identify patterns such as the ‘masking effect’ of highly visible macro-shocks, ‘perfect storm’ pattern, a ‘killer blow’ effect, and spillover dynamics between external environments.

Not sure what to add to this. If industries are considered to be environmentally unsound, let’s apply various pressures in order to destabilize and destroy them.

11. Politically Accelerated Transitions


Conditions for politically accelerated transitions: Historical institutionalism, the multi-level perspective, and two historical case studies in transport and agriculture Cameron Roberts, Frank W. Geels

ABSTRACT
This article investigates the conditions under which policymakers are likely to decisively accelerate sociotechnical transitions. We develop a conceptual framework that combines insights from historical institutionalism and the Multi-Level Perspective to better understand the political dimension in transitions, focusing particularly on the mechanisms of political defection from incumbent regime to niche-innovation. We distinguish two ideal type patterns, one where external (landscape) shocks create a ‘critical juncture’ and one where gradual feedbacks change the balance of power between niche-innovation and regime. We also identify more proximate conditions such as external pressures on policymakers (from business interests, mass publics, and technologies) and policy internal developments (changes in problem definitions and access to institutional arrangements). We apply this framework to two historical case studies in which UK policymakers deliberately accelerated transitions: the transition from rail to road transport (1920–1970); and the transition from traditional mixed agriculture to specialised wheat agriculture (1920–1970). We analyse the conditions for major policy change in each case and draw more general conclusions. We also discuss implications for contemporary low-carbon transitions, observing that while some favourable conditions are in place, they do not yet meet all the prerequisites for political acceleration.

This is basically the same concept as before: gutting and destroying various industries. However, this one involves using political pressure in order to achieve it.

12. Plant Based Milk?


Rage against the regime: Niche-regime interactions in the societal embedding of plant-based milk
Josephine Mylana, Carol Morris, Emma Beech, Frank W. Geel

This paper engages with the debate on niche-regime interactions in sustainability transitions, using a study of plant-based milk and its struggles against the entrenched liquid dairy-milk regime, which has various sustainability problems. Plant-based milk isunder-studied, so our empirical contribution consists of an exploration of its diffusion in the UK. We make three conceptual contributions. The first calls for a bidirectional analysis that addresses niche-orientedactivities by incumbent actors, in addition to the outward-oriented activities by niche advocates presented in most studies of niche-regime interaction.The second contribution nuances Smith and Raven’s fit-and-conform and stretch-and-transform typology: using a societal embedding framework which distinguishes four environments, we suggest that hybrid patterns are possible in which innovations follow a ‘fit’ pattern in one environment but ‘stretch’ in another. The third contribution highlights th epotential role of cultural meanings in galvanizing transitions by eroding positive associations that support theregime and stabilise consumer purchasing.

 

Plant based milk?
Okay, hello unemployed dairy farmers.

13. Destructiveness Of This Agenda

Under the guise of “protecting the environment”, these academics conduct research in how to undermine and destabilize existing industries. There seems to be no concern for the workers and families who will be impacted if these efforts are successful.

Of course, there are many more authors doing this sort of work, but this is a fairly accurate representation of what is going on. Ways to impose their agenda on others.

These people are serious about it.
They really want to bring about the end of Western society.

Municipal Nominee Program — Expanding On Provincial NP, But Quebec Exempt?

(CBC article, QC exempt from new program)

(Liberal pledge to create Municipal Nominee Program)


1. Important Links

https://canucklaw.ca/facts-figures-the-ugly-truth-about-replacement-migration-in-canada/

CLICK HERE, for CBC article promoting Municipal Nominee Program.
http://archive.is/Jhy8k
CLICK HERE, for Liberal plan: Municipal Nominee Program.
http://archive.is/okGXj
CLICK HERE, for Liberal plan to “modernize” Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
http://archive.is/sN34r
CLICK HERE, for a Liberal pledge to make citizenship free.
http://archive.is/qrMrN

Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament
(a) 2004 Annual Report to Parliament
(b) 2005 Annual Report to Parliament
(c) 2006 Annual Report to Parliament
(d) 2007 Annual Report to Parliament
(e) 2008 Annual Report to Parliament
(f) 2009 Annual Report to Parliament
(g) 2010 Annual Report to Parliament
(h) 2011 Annual Report to Parliament
(i) 2012 Annual Report to Parliament
(j) 2013 Annual Report to Parliament
(k) 2014 Annual Report to Parliament
(l) 2015 Annual Report to Parliament
(m) 2016 Annual Report to Parliament
(n) 2017 Annual Report to Parliament
(o) 2018 Annual Report to Parliament
(p) Archived listings of Reports

2. Context For This Piece

For years there have been agreements between the Federal and Provincial Governments. In essence, the Provinces write up what they think they will need for immigration, and the Feds try to accommodate that. Theoretically, these agreements act as a form of partnership which Ottawa oversees.

And covered in other articles, there is little to no attention paid to the culture clash or demographic shift that can take place, nor of the added foreign competition that locals will face. There is little mention of wages being driven down, or of added burdens to social services. Nor much talk about the environmental impact of having to develop more housing, or expand the size of towns. Instead, the focus is always on the ECONOMIC benefits of immigration, though the connection is fuzzy at best. But hey, diversity is our strength.

Now a new program is about to be launched which will expand on the idea: allowing not just provinces, but cities to have a say in selecting their immigration numbers. Of course, the above mentioned issues will still apply.

And it needs to be stressed: that Quebec will be exempt from having to participate in this program. That means that the Prime Minister’s home Province won’t be experiencing the benefits of added immigration. Strange how that is.

3. Media Coverage Of Announcement

In Saint-Georges, there are “we’re hiring” signs everywhere — they’re stuck in storefront windows and to the sides of buildings. Morin says it is the most pressing problem facing the region.

The Liberal Party of Canada has made a promise to help small, rural municipalities like Saint-Georges access more immigrants. But because the provincial government pledged to curb immigration, the program may never come to Quebec even if the federal Liberals are elected.
.
The new program would be called the “municipal nominee program.” It would mirror a similar provincial program.

The municipal nominee problem could be a tool to help mitigate that challenge.
The party platform doesn’t offer many details, saying only that it would create a minimum of 5,000 spaces for such a program. That’s a drop in the bucket of Canada’s overall immigration numbers. Canada is set to see more than 330,000 immigrants in 2019.

The promise is short on details, but was a promise the Federal Liberals made. While Liberals are prone to lying, continuing to flood cities and make them unrecognizable is a promise they are likely to keep.

And it also needs to be said, that 310,000 is not an accurate number. As addressed repeatedly here, Canada lets hundreds of thousands of “temporary” workers and students in, all of whom have a pathway to permanent residence, or to extending their stay.

4. No Citizenship Fee

Worth mentioning is this gem, where Trudeau promises to make citizenship applications free of charge to anyone who applies. Get ready for a deluge of applications if this promise is ever kept.

More On Goldman Sachs & Chicago Climate Exchange (Climate Change Scam #14(2))

(Goldman Sachs Exec-VP John Rogers served in Reagan Administration)

(Fox covered the collapse of Chicago Carbon Exchange)

1. Important Links

(Other articles on climate change scam)
https://canucklaw.ca/the-climate-change-scam-part-1/
Mark Carney’s new role as UN Climate Finance Envoy

(Other articles on central banking scam)
https://canucklaw.ca/public-policy-5-restoring-the-1934-bank-of-canada-act/

CLICK HERE, for Investopedia, 26 Goldman Sachs Execs.
http://archive.is/bTmOy
CLICK HERE, for Goldman Sachs Executive VP, Reagan staffer, John Rogers.
http://archive.is/wMH3n
CLICK HERE, for Goldman Sachs VP, Sarah Smith.
http://archive.is/kvX3d
CLICK HERE, for Beth Hammack, Goldman Sachs’ Treasurer.
http://archive.is/8QGbL
CLICK HERE, for Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs.
http://archive.is/FN28
CLICK HERE, for Fox News on CCX collapse, Obama connection.
http://archive.is/bpFDW
CLICK HERE, for Malcolm Turnbull, Australian PM.
http://archive.is/4CeSp
CLICK HERE, for Mario Draghi, head of Euro central Bank.
http://archive.is/ozhTd
CLICK HERE, for Euro Central Bank supports climate change.
http://archive.is/rYewy
CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE, for Shorebank, Obama, “What Really Happened”.
http://archive.is/F06YB
CLICK HERE, for Free Republic, on the Joyce Foundation.
http://archive.is/S8y33
CLICK HERE, for Obama helped found CCX as Director of Joyce.
http://archive.is/LFCT3
CLICK HERE, for Steve Bannon, Goldman Sachs to Trump Administration.
CLICK HERE, for Gary Gensler, Obama’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission head, and former partner for Goldman Sachs.
CLICK HERE, for CCX, Obama, Strong, Gore, Goldman Sachs.
http://archive.is/n88c7
CLICK HERE, for Cypress Times, connecting the dots: Chicago, CCX, Goldman Sachs, White House all working together.
http://archive.is/6ZASr

2. Founders Of Chicago Climate Exchange

  • American Electric Power (AEP),
  • Baxter International Inc.,
  • the City of Chicago,
  • DuPont,
  • Equity Office Properties Trust,
  • Ford Motor Company,International Paper,
  • Manitoba Hydro,
  • MeadWestvaco Corporation,
  • Motorola, Inc.,
  • STMicroelectronics,
  • Stora Enso North America,
  • Temple-Inland Inc,
  • Waste Management,Inc.

Source for the CCX founders is here.

3. Obama Was Director Of Joyce Foundation

The CCX was set up in 2000 in anticipation of the United States joining Europe and other countries around the world to create a market that would reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Under the system, factories, utilities and other businesses would be given an emissions target. Those that emitted less fewer regulated gases than their target could sell the “excess” to someone who was above target. Each year, the target figures would be reset lower.

The Exchange was the brainchild of Richard Sandor, an economist and professor at Northwestern University, and it was modeled after a successful program that was launched in 1990 and helped control acid rain in the Midwest. It was initially funded by a $1.1 million grant from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago, and President Obama was a board member at the time.

After the Democrats won the White House, the House and the Senate in 2008, businesses and investors flocked to the exchange, believing Congress would quickly approve the program. And it almost happened.

This is a huge conflict of interest to be involved in. Barry Soetoro, (a.k.a. Barrack Obama) was a Director for an organization that helped establish the Chicago Climate Exchange. His policies (had it passed), been able to drive a great deal of consumer and tax money to the scheme.

CCX will administer this pilot program for emission sources, farm and forest carbon sinks, offset projects and liquidity providers in North America. To foster international emissions trading, offset providers in Brazil can also participate. The development of CCX resulted from feasibility and design studies that were funded by grants from the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation and administered by Northwestern University’s Kellogg Graduate School of Management. Environmental Financial Products, LLC conducted the research and development effort.

Source is here.

4. Endless Connections Of Goldman Sachs

John Rogers serves as Executive Vice President, the firm’s Chief of Staff and Secretary to the Board of Directors. He oversees Executive Administration and is responsible for the firm’s corporate affairs functions, including public, investor and government relations, as well as corporate engagement. Mr. Rogers is a member of the Management Committee, Firmwide Client and Business Standards Committee and Firmwide Reputational Risk Committee. He is also Chairman of the Goldman Sachs Foundation. Mr. Rogers joined Goldman Sachs in 1994. He was named Managing Director in 1997 and Partner in 2000.

Previously, Mr. Rogers served as Under Secretary of State for Management at the US Department of State from 1991 to 1993. From 1988 to 1991, he was Executive Vice President of the Oliver Carr Company. Earlier, Mr. Rogers served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury from 1985 to 1987 and as an Assistant to the President of the United States at the White House from 1981 to 1985.

John Rogers is Executive Vice President for Goldman Sachs, and spent time in the Reagan and George Bush Sr. administrations. He is very politically connected.

Ms. Smith previously served on the US Treasury Department’s Commission on the Auditing Industry. She is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

Another Vice President of Goldman Sachs, Sarah Smith, also is a former member of the U.S. Government. She previously served in the Treasury Department.

Previously, Ms. Hammack was Global Head of Short Term Macro trading and global Repo trading. This included franchise market making in short dated G10 interest rate swaps, FX forwards, cross currency basis and repo. Before that, she was Co-Head of US Interest Rate Products cash trading, which included government bonds, agencies and mortgage pass-throughs. Ms. Hammack joined Goldman Sachs in 1993 as an Analyst in Capital Markets and then moved to the Interest Rate Products trading desk, where she traded a variety of instruments focused primarily on options and later agencies. She was named Managing Director in 2003 and Partner in 2010.

Ms. Hammack is Chair of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee and a member of the Treasury Market Practices Group. She also serves on the board of Math for America.

Yet another Goldman Sachs executive who also served with the U.S. Treasury.

Secretary Paulson arrived at Treasury in July 2006 well prepared for the challenges he would face. He came from a 32-year career in finance with a leading global investment bank, Goldman Sachs, where he served eight years as Chairman and CEO. Paulson assembled a team of experienced professionals and reinstituted regular meetings of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. The coordinated efforts of the PWG’s financial regulators would later prove critical to the U.S. government’s ability to prevent the collapse of the financial system.

Secretary Paulson’s non-partisan leadership enabled him to convince Congress to grant the unprecedented emergency powers necessary to stem the crisis. Looking to the future, Secretary Paulson and his Treasury team crafted a regulatory blueprint to fix an outdated financial regulatory structure, including reforms that ultimately became part of the Dodd/Frank financial reform legislation that would eventually be signed into law by President Obama.

Together with President Bush, Secretary Paulson established the G20 as the premier leaders’ forum for global financial reform and economic recovery, guiding the work of the first Summit that established the roadmap for future leaders meetings.

Yet another Goldman Sachs executive who ended up working for the Treasury Department. In fact, he was Treasury Secretary.

Formerly Gensler was chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, leading the Obama Administration’s reform of the $400 trillion swaps market. He also was senior advisor to US Senator Paul Sarbanes in writing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) and was Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance, and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Clinton Administration. In recognition for his service, he was awarded Treasury’s highest honor, the Alexander Hamilton Award. He is a recipient of the 2014 Frankel Fiduciary Prize.

Gensler is currently a member of the New York Fed Fintech Advisory Group and was chairman of the Maryland Financial Consumer Protection Commission (2017-2019). He has worked on various political campaigns, most recently as CFO for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, as a senior advisor to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, and subsequently as an economic advisor for the Obama 2008 campaign.

Prior to his public service, Gensler worked at Goldman Sachs (1979-1997), having become a partner in the Mergers & Acquisition department, headed the firm’s Media Group, led fixed income & currency trading in Asia, and lastly co-headed Finance, being responsible for the firm’s worldwide Controllers and Treasury efforts.

Gensler was was chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, leading the Obama Administration’s reform of the $400 trillion swaps market. He is also now part of the New York Fintech Advisory Group.

5. Goldman Sachs & U.S. Gov’t Connections

John Rogers worked for the Reagan Administration.
John Rogers worked for the George Bush Sr. Administration.
Gensler worked for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 and 2016 presidential run.
Henry Paulson worked for George Bush Jr.
Henry Paulson’s work was used in Obama Administration.
Gensler worked for the Obama Admin, Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Steve Bannon works for the Trump Administration.
Sarah Smith served in the Treasury Department.
Beth Hammack served in the Treasury Department.

6. Australian PM, Goldman Sachs Partner

Former Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull was a partner in Goldman Sachs. No surprise, he pushed an energy policy which advances a carbon tax in all but the name. No surprise since Goldman Sachs is a huge beneficiary to the climate change scam.

7. Euro Central Bank, Goldman Sachs Exec.

Goldman Sachs Executive Mario Draghi has now been at the European Central Bank for 8 years now. It should surprise no one that the ECB supports the climate change agenda, and promotes various measures

8. Mark Carney, BoC, BoE, Goldman Sachs

As addressed in this previous post, Mark Carney is leaving the Bank of England for a UN position.

On 1 December 2019, in Madrid, Spain, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of Mr. Mark Joseph Carney, OC, of Canada as his Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. As Special Envoy, he will focus on ambitious implementation of climate action, with special attention to significantly shifting public and private finance markets and mobilizing private finance to the levels needed to achieve the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. This will include building the frameworks for financial reporting, risk management and returns in order to bring the impacts of climate change to the mainstream of private financial decision making and to support the transition to a net zero carbon economy.

We need unprecedented climate action on a global scale. And public and private financial systems must be transformed to provide the necessary finance to transition to low-emission and resilient systems and sectors. The Secretary-General will count on Mark Carney to galvanise climate action and transform climate finance as we build towards the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Glasgow in November 2020

Mr. Carney began his career at Goldman Sachs before joining the Canadian Department of Finance and later serving as the Governor of the Bank of Canada (2008-2013). He was born in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, Canada in 1965. He received a bachelor’s degree in Economics from Harvard University in 1988. He went on to receive a master’s degree in Economics in 1993 and a doctorate in Economics in 1995, both from Oxford University.

Carney’s announcement sounds impressive, but let’s be clear: this is about wide scale wealth transfer. The claims about environmentalism and saving the planet are just pretexts for doing so.

It’s interesting to tap a former banker (heads of both Bank of Canada and Bank of England). Does he plan to use this “climate finance” agenda the same way that central banks control national finances?

Climate modelling over any length of time has never worked. Why? Because models are just guess, predictions. They aren’t proof of anything. And despite claims to the contrary, the people doing the estimating know so little about the environment that such precise predictions aren’t realistic. Also, scientific research is frequently politically driven.

See the official announcement, and the COP25 announcement in Madrid, Spain. Carney is to become the UN Envoy on Climate Finance Action.

A charitable take might be that Carney will lobby for more Carbon taxes to fund this scheme. A less charitable view might be that Carney will use his considerable power and influence to force nations to pay up.

And in keeping with the theme so far, Mark Carney was a Director at Goldman Sachs prior to working at the Bank of Canada, Bank of England, and now the UN.

9. Goldman Sachs, Chicago, CCX, White House Conspiracy

An interesting blogpost by Bob Beauprez ties a lot of it together, and connects the major players in this climate change scam. Please read the actual posting.

By Bob Beauprez
When it was announced that the leaders of Goldman Sachs would be sitting in front of Congress, getting grilled over the financial crisis, most people knew it was nothing more than an opportunity for politicians to grandstand while beating down a straw man.
But this? A corruption scandal that is bigger than any other in the history of the United States. It could explain the “why” behind the “Climategate” scandal that broke last year but was ignored by the American mainstream media. Not only are several former Goldman Sachs executives working inside the Obama administration, but the banking giant has a 10% stake in cap and trade technology via the Chicago Climate Exchange, an entity that Barack Obama helped form as a Board member of the Joyce Foundation.

Political commentator and former Colorado Congressman, Bob Beauprez (R), has gotten an insider’s look at political theater, but when the congressional hearings that took place with Goldman Sachs executives is viewed through the lens of this kind of conspiracy, it sheds a whole new light on what is really going on behind the curtain.

Glenn Beck broke the story on his April 26th television show and regardless of how you view Beck, the odds of all these connections between all of these entities, tying each back to a $15 Trillion scam are far too long to be strictly a coincidence.
Here are the players and their roles:

Joyce Foundation – A group founded in 1948 that took a sharp turn to the left after it’s founder, Beatrice Joyce Kean died in 1972.
Barack Obama – President of the United States and one time Board member of the Joyce Foundation. Largely responsible for creating the Chicago Climate Exchange by funneling money to it from the Joyce Foundation.
Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) – An exchange dealing exclusively with Cap and Trade passes, techonology, etc. It was formed largely due to Obama’s role as Board member on Joyce Foundation. Obama oversaw the funneling of money from that foundation to the CCX as well as to an entity headed by Bill Ayers’ brother.
Valerie Jarrett – Senior advisor to Barack Obama and current Board member on the Joyce Foundation.
Al Gore – Founder of London-based Generation Investment Management (GIM). London also happens to be in the same country where climategate broke. GIM owns 10% of the CCX.
Goldman Sachs – Banking giant that, like Gore, owns 10% of the CCX. Also worthy of note is that at least six former Goldman Sachs executives work inside the Obama administration while Congress puts on a dog and pony show, publicly chastising other Goldman execs about their supposed complicity in the financial crisis.
Franklin Raines – Former head of Fannie Mae. While there, Raines used taxpayer dollars from Fannie Mae to purchase cap and trade technology.

10. More On: Goldman, Chicago, CCX, White House

Another blogpost, called what really happened, further details the collusion and corruption between the Obama Administration, the City of Chicago, the Chicago Climate Exchange, Goldman Sachs, and the Clintons. Please check that out as well.

The connections between these parties are too great to ignore. The entire climate change industry is a scam, where environmentalism is used as a sales pitch.

So far so good; now the INTERESTING parts.
One ShoreBank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill Clinton have long supported the bank and are small investors.

Another co-founder of Shorebank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama’s late mother. Obama’s mother worked on foreign MICRO-LOANS for the Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner. Yes, you guessed it. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years.

Another founder of ShoreBank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter.

The former ShoreBank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist. Nash was also a member of Obama’s White House transition team.

(To jog your memories, Bill Ayers is a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He founded the Weather Underground, a radical revolutionary group that bombed buildings in the 60s and 70s. He had no remorse for those who were killed, escaped jail on a technicality, and is still an admitted Marxist).

When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he “funneled” thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, the terrorist.

Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc., a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.

(You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing sweet deal on his new house. Years prior to this, the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko’s company and helped him get more than 43 million dollars in government funding.Guess who worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama).

Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.

Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for “green” projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University. You will remember that Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist.

Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs. Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy, graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shorebank attended. (They are all friends).

This blog, as with the last one, I do not claim to own. You should go check out the sites on your own for further information.

11. It’s All A Scam

Despite the media and political hype, this is a scam, and has been since day one. There is a collusion between corrupt parties who are ripping off the public based entirely on lies. Who are they? Well, the above 2 sections outline it pretty well.

Taxing the public and funnelling that money was never meant to prevent global warming, or climate change, or help the environment in any way. It was always a scam to fleece the public under the pretense of doing good.

Do your research.
Connect the dots.

Students And Temporary Workers: How Many Actually Stay?

(StatsCan on % int’l students becoming permanent residents)

(StatsCan findings: close to 30% eventually become PR)

(StatsCan: latest cohort TFW/IMP transitioning at higher rates)

(StatsCan on int’l students, earnings growth)

(Federal Gov’t education strategy 2019-2024)

(Status of “Temporary” Foreign Workers transitioning to PR)

(Program launched in July 2019: PR-Path for illegals)

1. Important Links

https://canucklaw.ca/facts-figures-the-ugly-truth-about-replacement-migration-in-canada/

CLICK HERE, for StatsCan, info on Int’l students ==> PR.
http://archive.is/wip/B1ikY
CLICK HERE, for StatsCan, immigration, earnings.
http://archive.is/wip/s4x6I
CLICK HERE, for Federal education strategy 2019-2024.
http://archive.is/wip/NbQof
CLICK HERE, for StatsCan: status when obtaining PR.
http://archive.is/wip/O8GB0
CLICK HERE, for StatsCan, more on transition rates.
http://archive.is/wip/oc9vW

CLICK HERE, for CTV, Gov’t to start collecting exit info.
http://archive.is/wip/feDOA
CLICK HERE, for CBSA policies on exiting Canada.
http://archive.is/wip/krWR3
CLICK HERE, for CBSA cancelling old arrest warrants.
http://archive.is/4jQA9
CLICK HERE, for amnesty for illegals announced.
http://archive.is/e6OYZ
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Labour Congress on illegals.
http://archive.is/s3pq6
CLICK HERE, for 41,000 illegals gone missing.
http://archive.is/bayYs
CLICK HERE, for an estimate of total illegals.
http://archive.is/wip/Xk9l4

Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament
(a) 2004 Annual Report to Parliament
(b) 2005 Annual Report to Parliament
(c) 2006 Annual Report to Parliament
(d) 2007 Annual Report to Parliament
(e) 2008 Annual Report to Parliament
(f) 2009 Annual Report to Parliament
(g) 2010 Annual Report to Parliament
(h) 2011 Annual Report to Parliament
(i) 2012 Annual Report to Parliament
(j) 2013 Annual Report to Parliament
(k) 2014 Annual Report to Parliament
(l) 2015 Annual Report to Parliament
(m) 2016 Annual Report to Parliament
(n) 2017 Annual Report to Parliament
(o) 2018 Annual Report to Parliament
(p) Archived listings of Reports

2. Context For This Article

The topic of “temporary” mass migration to Canada is discussed here a lot. This is partly because of their size, and partly because various “temporary” programs actually lead to Permanent Resident status.

Three groups which receive regular attention are these:
(a) Temporary Foreign Worker Program;
(b) International Mobility Program;
(c) Student Visas

Now, it has been asked several times: how many of these people actually do stay? Of course, this is a logical follow-up question. Obviously, not everyone will stay after their work of schooling ends.

However, it’s not so easy to answer. Yes, we have data suggesting that approximately one quarter or more (25-30%) do attain PR status. That is pretty straightforward information to get a hold of.

But after that, things are much less clear. Until 2016, Canada did not track people leaving the country (only entering). Even today it does not cover everyone. This is unlike nearly every other developed nation, which tracks both entry and exits across borders. Also, the Federal Government does not make easily available (if it even knows), how many people apply for other visas or programs. Worse, it has been discovered that the CBSA deletes older arrest warrants. Additionally, there is little reliable information accessible on how many people are working illegally, or receiving public benefits illegally.

Back to the question of: “How many people stay?”
My answer: At least 25-30%. Probably a lot more.

3. People Leaving Canada Aren’t Tracked

In 2016, the Federal Government announced plans to start collecting exit information from people leaving the country. This really is common sense. While we (theoretically) know how many people, who, and when, are ENTERING Canada, until now they Government doesn’t track who is LEAVING. Perhaps we just take it on face that everyone leaves when they should.

And one of the major benefits stated is to help reduce immigration fraud. If a person is “counting time” towards living in Canada, but doesn’t actually live here, then the Immigration Ministry should know about it.

When this does get implemented, then a gaping hole in Canadian border security should be fixed, right? Maybe not.

Canada collects basic biographic information on travellers who enter and leave the country by land to ensure complete travel history information is available, thereby strengthening the management of our border.

Biographic entry information is routinely collected directly from all travellers entering Canada upon presentation to a CBSA officer at a port of entry as part of the primary inspection process. Canada also collects exit information in the land mode. Canada receives biographic entry information from the United States (U.S.) on all travellers who enter the U.S. through a land border crossing, thereby enabling the creation of a Canadian exit record.

Regulatory amendments for the air mode are expected to come into force in Summer 2020. Once fully implemented in the air mode, Canada will collect basic exit information directly from air carriers through passenger manifests. Exit information collected in the air mode will not be shared with the U.S.

The collection of exit information enhances the CBSA’s ability to manage border security by closing the loop on an individual’s travel history. This allows the CBSA to focus efforts and resources towards unknown or higher risk travellers.

This still isn’t fully implemented, and won’t be until at least 2020. That’s right, these changes were announced in 2016, and over three years later, are not fully implemented. Guess the potential fraud and security risks aren’t that great.

Right now, departures by air are not recorded by CBSA. Unless someone is travelling to the United States, (and even then not always) he/she is flying in a plane. Boating isn’t really a practical solution for international travel to and from Canada.

4. CBSA Cancels Old Arrest Warrants

Currently, there are more than 48,000 active arrest warrants in Canada for people wanted on immigration violations. According to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the “vast majority” of these cases involve people wanted for deportation.
But these figures may not tell the whole story.

Global News has learned the CBSA cancels arrest warrants for failed refugee claimants and other people wanted for removal who it cannot find, even in cases where it is not clear whether a person has left Canada.

What’s more, the CBSA does not track how many warrants it cancels in cases where a person’s whereabouts are unknown.
.
Because the CBSA only recently started tracking people when they exit the country by land — and still doesn’t track people who leave by air — there’s no way for the government or CBSA to say for sure how many people have overstayed their welcome.

Back in the early 2000s, when he worked at the agency that would later become the CBSA, Sundberg says he was assigned to a team in Lethbridge, Alta., tasked with “culling” old warrants for people facing deportation whose cases had been in the system for at least five years.

The protocol for cancelling a warrant, Sundberg said, involved calling known associates of the wanted person, doing internet searches and checking criminal and entry records in other countries to see if someone wanted for arrest had left Canada voluntarily.

The Canada Border Services Agency apparently cancels warrants for people wanted for immigration violations, if the warrants are old.

Moreover, there appears to be no tracking of how many warrants get cancelled either. Just a hunch, but it probably looks bad in the CBSA’s eyes if they have a lot of outstanding warrants. Makes them look slow and unproductive. Alternatively, this could be a deliberate attempt to make sure that people in the country illegally and/or committing other crimes won’t be deported.

5. Scale Of Illegal Aliens Unknown

The Toronto Star reported in 2008 that 41,000 illegals in Canada had been lost track of.

The Toronto Sun reported in 2017 that there somewhere between 200,000 to 500,000 illegal workers in Canada. Not illegals altogether, just illegals working.

Although the focus of this article is not on illegals, or people overstaying their visas, there is an important point to be made here: we don’t really have a clue how many people do stay.

6. Amnesty Program Started July 2019

Ottawa, July 5, 2019 – Canada has launched a new temporary initiative to create a pathway to permanent residency for up to 500 out-of-status workers in the construction industry in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). These construction workers have come to Canada and made contributions to its economy and currently have limited means to regularize their status.

Over many years, even decades, some workers who have come to Canada with valid temporary resident status, and who have filled labour shortages in the construction industry, have fallen out of status. Previous changes, such as “four in, four out”, have resulted in some workers losing their status. These workers have continued to address significant labour shortages in the construction industry, while also contributing to the economy and their communities. Without valid immigration status, these workers and their families have lived in fear and been left feeling very vulnerable. The presence of out-of-status workers in a significant industry leads to depressed wages for Canadians and makes workers vulnerable to employer exploitation and abuse.

The Canadian Government announced in July 2019 a pilot program to give 500 illegals (and their families) a pathway to permanent residence in Canada if they were to work in construction. Yes, we are talking about an actual amnesty program that will lead to PR, and eventual citizenship.

The Canadian Labour Congress supports this initiative. Why wouldn’t they? It will result in an inflation of workers, and allow employers to push down wages. It really is about more cheap labour.

This program is stated to target 500 people (and their immediate family members). But we should not be naïve. Once this is launched, the next question will be how to upscale it.

7. Government Making Illegal Entries Easier

This article isn’t really about illegal entry into Canada (see the Federal Court cases for more). Nonetheless, a major act of hypocrisy must be pointed out.

The Federal Government makes the absurd statements that the Canada/U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement is necessary to protect Canadian borders, but also claims that citizens have no standing to make a claim to close the loophole.

Yes, the agreement must be enforced at all border crossings, but if someone were to GO AROUND those checkpoints, then it is direct entry into Canada.

To summarize where we are right now in the article:
(a) About 25% of students/temps become permanent residents, and
(b) Canada doesn’t track people exiting the country
(c) CBSA cancels old arrest warrants
(d) Number of illegals in Canada is unknown
(e) Amnesty for illegals is starting up
(f) The Canadian Government wants to keep S3CA loophole open

Now that we have covered how the Canadian borders are at best dysfunctional, let’s take a dive into the research into just how many people are staying in Canada (legally). At least this will be considerably more definitive

8. Annual Reports To Parliament

Unlike permanent residents, temporary residents are in Canada for a limited time. This group consists of students, foreign workers and visitors, including tourists. Temporary residents contribute to Canada’s economic growth and to the vitality of our educational institutions.

Before coming to Canada, applicants must obtain a temporary resident visa, unless they are coming from a country that is exempt under the IRP Regulations. Visa officers consider a number of factors when evaluating temporary residents’ visa applications. For example, they can verify whether the visitor is in good health, has a criminal record, is a security threat to Canada, holds a valid passport or travel document, has enough money to live on while in Canada, and will leave voluntarily at the end of his or her stay in Canada. The visa officer evaluates the situation before deciding whether the applicant is a genuine visitor or if he or she might stay in Canada illegally. To that end, the visa officer studies the applicant’s reason for the visit, his or her employment, family situation, and the general economic and political stability of his or her country of origin.

(Page 22 of 2004 Report to Parliament)

Foreign Students
In recognition of the social and economic benefits that foreign students bring to Canada, the federal government has committed to making our country a destination of choice for talented foreign students. To obtain a study permit, candidates must submit an application to study in Canada. Applications must be submitted to and approved by a visa office outside Canada. The permit indicates the level of study and the intended duration of the visit. In general, foreign students must present an acceptance letter from the institution they want to attend, prove that they have sufficient money to pay their tuition fees and living expenses, satisfy the visa officer that they intend to return to their country of origin at the end of their studies and undergo a medical examination.

(Page 23 of 2004 Report to Parliament)

Worth noting that for “temporary” workers and students, the reports emphasize that these are to be temporary, and that the resident is expected to return to the home country afterwards. Remaining in Canada is not to be the goal.

One other point is that the 2004 report makes no mention of any temporary worker or student/graduate transitioning to permanent resident.

The 2005 report (page 29) reiterates that these temporary workers and students are expected to leave once their designated time is up. It is also stated that changes were made so student visas would be for the full duration of the program.

Pilot projects initiated in 2003 (in Alberta, New Brunswick and Manitoba) to test these program changes proved to be highly popular with international students, educational stakeholders and provinces. In 2004–2005, CIC signed agreements with Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador to allow international students to work in Canada for a second year after graduation. An agreement was also reached with Quebec to allow students outside Montréal and Québec City to work off campus.

The 2005 report (page 31) talks about a rule change that allows some graduate to work in Canada for 2 years now after graduation. I’m confused. I thought the point was that these students were to return home after graduation, not work in Canada afterwards.

On April 18, 2005, the Minister announced initiatives to address some key issues facing international students. These included the expansion of the pilot projects mentioned previously that aim to better attract, integrate and retain international students in regions of the country in partnership with the provinces and educational institutions. The first pilot project will allow international students at public post-secondary institutions to work off campus while completing their studies so that they can experience the Canadian labour market and gain a greater understanding of Canadian society. The second pilot project will allow students to work in Canada for two years after their graduation, rather than one year. To help spread the benefits of immigration to more of Canada’s regions, this second initiative will apply outside Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver. The Government of Canada is investing $10 million a year for five years to support these new initiatives.

These students are supposed to be in Canada “temporarily”, but the Government makes rule changes so they can work in Canada afterwards. Almost like they can become permanent residents.

The limit on the number of provincial nominations was removed to give Saskatchewan greater flexibility in operating its immigration program.

The 2006 report (page 10) explains how Saskatchewan took off the cap of its Provincial Nominee Program.

CIC also launched a national initiative in April 2006 that allows foreign students enrolled full-time in post-secondary programs to seek employment off-campus.

The 2006 report (page 11) states that students enrolled full time in college or university programs are now allowed to work off campus.

Foreign Students
Foreign students bring with them new ideas and cultures that enrich the learning environment within Canadian educational institutions. Foreign students who enter Canada on temporary visas may also be an important source of future immigrants in the skilled worker category since they are well prepared for the Canadian labour market.

The 2006 report (page 23) states that students can be a valuable source of future immigrants. But I thought these “temporary” residents were going home after graduation.

Working with Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC), Service Canada, and the provinces and territories, we implemented a series of administrative improvements to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. As announced in Budget 2007, we are developing ways to make it easier, faster and less costly for employers to access the workers that they need, while also introducing measures to ensure that employers comply with program terms and conditions. We are also developing the Canadian Experience Class, a new avenue to immigration that will, under certain conditions, permit foreign students with Canadian credentials and work experience, as well as skilled temporary foreign workers who are already in Canada, to apply for permanent residence.

The 2007 report (page 4) states 2 things.
First: new measures will be enacted to bring in cheap, foreign labour even faster and more cheaply.
Second: we’ll make temporary workers and students eligible for permanent residence.

As well, the Plan includes the introduction of the Canadian Experience Class, a new avenue to immigration that will permit, under certain conditions, temporary workers and foreign students with a Canadian credential to apply for permanent residence.

The 2007 report (page 9) reiterates the plan to make students and temporary workers eligible for permanent residence.

First-ever framework agreements were signed with Alberta on May 4, 2007, and with Nova Scotia on September 19, 2007. To meet the growing demand for labour, the limit on the number of immigrants that can be nominated through the PNP was removed, and the intention to develop annexes to facilitate the entry of temporary foreign workers was announced. In addition, a renewed PNP agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador, which came into force in November 2006, removed the limit on the number of provincial nominees.

The 2007 report (page 10) tells how Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador had their Provincial Nominee Program caps removed. Saskatchewan did so the year earlier.

Other initiatives in 2006 included policy and planning work to develop options for facilitating the transition from temporary to permanent status. This culminated in the announcement in Budget 2007 of a proposed new avenue to immigration by permitting, under certain conditions, foreign students with Canadian credentials and skilled work experience, and skilled temporary foreign workers who are already in Canada to apply for permanent residence. This will allow qualified individuals with Canadian skilled work experience, or with a combination of Canadian work and studies, to make the transition to permanent status. The program is expected to lead to improved economic outcomes for newcomers in this class.

The 2007 report (page 13) repeats the intention to make students and temporary workers eligible for permanent residence. It’s a common misperception that they will be going home afterwards.

We introduced the Canadian Experience Class, which offers qualifying temporary foreign workers and international students with Canadian work experience the possibility to stay in Canada permanently. This program will make our immigration system more responsive to Canada’s labour market by helping retain those temporary foreign workers and international students who have demonstrated their ability to succeed in Canada.

The 2008 report (page 5) repeats the pledge from the last report to make it easier for temporary foreign workers and students to transition into permanent residents.

As well, the Post-Graduation Work Permit Program was significantly improved by extending work permits from one to up to two years for international students who have graduated from public post-secondary institutions and certain private institutions located in regions outside of Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver. The aim is to help spread the benefits of immigration to more of Canada’s regions. During 2006–2007, a total of 1,388 students received two-year work permits. More broadly, the total number of students who received post-graduation work permits increased from 7,354 in 2005–2006 to 9,121 in 2006–2007. In 2007–2008, the number of post-graduation work permits issued increased to 10,933.

The 2008 report (page 28) talks of expanding the Post Graduate Work Permit Program from 1 year to 2, and of issuing more permits altogether. The goal is to “spread the benefits of immigration” as they call it.

There are many other passages in these reports obviously, that support the claim that “temporary” workers and students aren’t really temporary. However, the point has been made, so let’s move on to how many temps and students are transitioning to permanent residents. In these first 5 reports, there is no mention of any of it.

9. Transitioning To Permanent Residents

Intake of: (a) TFWP; (b) Int’l Mobility; (c) Students from 2015 to 2017

Transitions from Temporary Foreign Worker or International Student Status to Permanent Residence (from 2018 report, covering 2015 to 2017)

Not only are the numbers of students and “temporary” workers increasing, but they are obtaining permanent resident status in higher numbers.

The Provincial Nominee Program, which grants permanent residence, is a very common choice among post secondary school graduates.

Now, all of the above data comes from the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, and covers the years 2015 through 2017. But what about the longer term implications? In the big picture, how many students and temps are getting PR?

10. StatsCan Research On Transitioning Rates

Transition to permanent resident status
International students likely come to Canada for various reasons. Some may intend to return to their home country once they have acquired their Canadian qualifications, while others may intend to remain in Canada for a period of time to obtain work experience in an advanced economy. Still others may hope to become landed immigrants and remain in Canada permanently.

It is possible to estimate the proportion of international students who become permanent residents by calculating a cumulative transition rate. The cumulative rate, which can be calculated for any cohort, is the share of international students who become landed immigrants a number of years after obtaining their first study permit.

For example, among international students who obtained their first study permit between 1995 and 1999, about 15% became permanent residents in the five years that followed. When the period of observation is extended to the first 10 years after the study permit was received, that proportion rises to 20%, and then to 22% by the fifteenth year (Chart 1).

Of the international students in the early 1990s (1990 to 1994), late 1990s (1995 to 1999) and early 2000s (2000 to 2004) cohorts, those in the early 1990s cohort were the most likely to subsequently become permanent residents in Canada. Over the 10 years after they received their first student permit, 27% of the early 1990s cohort became permanent residents, while this was the case for 20% and 25% of individuals in the late 1990s and early 2000s cohorts, respectively. The transition rates of international students in the late 2000s cohorts looked like those of the early 2000s cohorts over the first 5 years after receiving a study permit, but additional data must be accumulated to see whether this trajectory continues over the longer term.

In addition to varying across cohorts, rates of transition into permanent residence also vary across sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, age, level of study and source country. Again, transition rates by characteristic are examined at the tenth year after the first study permit is received (Table 2).

India and China are the top 2 source nations for student visas to Canada. This should be obvious to anyone who visits a college or university.

The research conducted by Yuqian Lu and Feng Hou is too lengthy to go over entirely here, but it is very interesting. Long term, is suggests that roughly a quart of international students will eventually become permanent residents of Canada.

An interesting fact noted: 49% of people who obtained a post-graduate degree (a Master’s) obtained PR status. It has to do with the added points in the immigrtion system.

11. When Exactly Did This Start?

But wait a minute. The above research by Yuqian Lu and Feng Hou cover international students that have transitioned to permanent residents since 1990. However, the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration spoke of this new option in 2006/2007. (See below)

That is a screenshot from the 2007 report. It refers to this transition to permanent residence as something to happen in the future.

The transitions to PR have been happening under the Provincial Nominee Programs primarily. The announcement in the annual reports must have just been to boost the numbers, by adding other categories.

12. Transition Rates Increasing For Temps

The 2005-2009 cohort, is the most recent one available from this StatsCan research, and could easily hit 25-30%, if the same pattern is demonstrated. This graphing attempts to demonstrate collect trends of transitioning to permanent residence after a given time.

Bear in mind, that new programs are available can boost this and future cohorts higher.

13. Most “Temp” Workers Had Current Status

Another StatsCan research piece documents the status of so-called “temporary” workers who held visas at or before the time that they transitioned to permanent residence.

It is broken into two periods: 1990 to 1999, and 2000 to 2009. Although it does not give the totals, as a percentage, around 87% of people who transitioned to permanent residence had current status.

Although the International Mobility Program existed well before the 2013 TFW scandal, participants were still able to become PR.

14. Students/Temps: 25-30% Will Get PR

Based on the information provided by StatsCan, it is safe to say that 25-30% of students and temporary workers will eventually get their Permanent Resident status. Transitions do start out at a fast rate, and understandably peter out. This is based on research done by some StatsCan researchers.

Now, a few caveats must be talked about here to make the picture more complete. This is not the end of the story.

First, rule changes by successive Federal Governments have expanded the number of programs, and eased the restrictions and numbers available. It stands to reason that rates will increase from what has been shown before. The information given about previous years may be obsolete.

Second, this information does not take into account people who have remained in the country but not transitioned to Permanent Resident status. While the common belief is that students will return home after their schooling is done, or workers will return home after their work term ends, that is simply not the case. Even StatsCan admits that people from lower GDP countries are more likely to stay given the higher standard of living in Canada.

Third, these findings do not consider people now living illegally in Canada. Inexplicably, we still have no real exit tracking system. As such, the Federal Government, or at least the Immigration Ministry, doesn’t know who is leaving Canada and when.

Fourth, this is all predicated on the assumption that the Government puts out truthful and accurate findings. This type of “backdoor immigration” system is not popular with the public, so minimizing the scale of it isn’t much of a stretch.

In short, 25-30% of temporary workers and students (officially) will stay in Canada. But take that conclusion with a grain of salt. It may be much, much higher.

Demographic Changes Are Causing Voting Changes, Not Just In America

(Vincent James on immigration turning Texas blue)

(Vincent James on demographics causing hate speech push)

1. Important Links

https://canucklaw.ca/facts-figures-the-ugly-truth-about-replacement-migration-in-canada/

CLICK HERE, for Pew Research on US 2018 elections.
http://archive.is/lfmVW
CLICK HERE, for Pew Research, Latino voting in 2018 election.
http://archive.is/OQ7Qn
CLICK HERE, for Pew Research, more on Hispanics.
http://archive.is/wip/CcQzE
CLICK HERE, for Brookings, whites to be minority in 2045.
http://archive.is/Z3Kio
CLICK HERE, for 1965 Hart Cellar Immigration Act
http://archive.is/wip/XDpVh
CLICK HERE, for NY giving $250,000 fines for calling names.
http://archive.is/Tim4b
CLICK HERE, for US electoral districts impacted by immigration.
http://archive.is/wip/E4WnR
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-26, to add new seats.
http://archive.is/wip/LrCMy
CLICK HERE, for adding 30 seats to House of Commons.
http://archive.is/wip/JVZqM
CLICK HERE, for demographics/voting in Canada.
http://archive.is/slmup

2. Why Canadians Should Care

Demographic changes in the U.S., both from legal “and” illegal immigration are changing voting trends. Specifically, most first generation immigrants vote for Democrats, and by a large margin.

This is not lost on Democrats. The party is pushing for:
(a) More immigration;
(b) More amnesty programs for illegals already here
(c) Voting rights for illegal aliens
(d) Abolishing the Electoral College
(e) Getting felons the right to vote in more states
(f) Getting younger people to vote
(g) Voting without photo I.D.

The reason behind this is not idealistic or moral. The idea is to effectively rig elections by getting more people to vote, if they are part of groups that vote for them by large margins.

As demographics change, voting patterns change. Once solidly conservative states are “turning blue”, as demographics now favour Democrats in more and more places. At one time unthinkable, Virginia turned blue, and Colorado, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Texas and others are close to turning blue.

This issue is important to Canadians because the same thing is happening here. Demographic changes are turning more and more ridings liberal and socialist. It is making conservatism an unelectable ideology. While it is nice to say that demographics don’t matter, the fact is they do.

Look at the recent Canadian election. The Greater Toronto Area is now solidly Liberal, despite Trudeau’s horrible job as Prime Minister. This population change is irreversible, and will never support conservative candidates again.

Interestingly, it was Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney who flooded the GTA from 2006 to 2015, making those ridings uncompetitive. And when the next riding redistributions go ahead, there will be more and more liberal/socialist ridings created.

3. Data From 2018 U.S. Midterms

In U.S. congressional races nationwide, an estimated 69% of Latinos voted for the Democratic candidate and 29% backed the Republican candidate, a more than two-to-one advantage for Democrats, according to National Election Pool exit poll data

Blacks voted overwhelmingly (90%) for the Democratic candidate, including comparable shares of black men (88%) and black women (92%).

Overall, 41% of voters said whites in the country today are favored over minorities; 19% said that minorities are favored over whites, while 33% said that no group is favored. Attitudes on this question were strongly correlated with vote choice. Among those who said whites are favored in the U.S., 87% voted for Democrats. By contrast, large majorities of those who said minorities are favored (85%) or that no group is favored (69%) voted for Republican candidates.

Among voters who said this was the first midterm in which they voted, 62% favored the Democrat and just 36% supported the Republican.

The data from Pew Research makes it pretty clear: minorities vote by very large margins for Democrats. 90% of blacks, and 70% of Hispanics support them, margins that have remained fairly constant for decades.

Why do Democrats push for more and more immigration? Amnesty for illegals? Voting rights for children? Voting rights restored for felons? Because they want more voters.

Demographics are destiny, and these changes are permanently altering Western nations.

4. Whites To Become A Minority

The Brookings Institute that in 2045, whites will stop being an overall majority in the United States, and will drop below 50% completely. From there the percentage of whites will continue to fall.

Of course, if more amnesties are granted for illegal aliens, that switch could happen a lot sooner than 2045. As stated before, Democrats are pushing for amnesty, as they know the (net) vote addition will go very well in their favour.

New census population projections confirm the importance of racial minorities as the primary demographic engine of the nation’s future growth, countering an aging, slow-growing and soon to be declining white population. The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.7 percent of the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1 percent for blacks, 7.9 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for multiracial populations

Why this drastic shift? Well, it could be the 1965 Hart Cellar Act, which changed U.S. immigration laws that favoured Europeans and capped the number. Despite claims that there would be no drastic change in the makeup of the United States, that has proven to be false.

But don’t worry, these changes won’t lead, to people being arrested or fined for hate speech. Oh wait, yes they will.

5. Changes To Lead To Seat Redistribution

High Immigration Causes Political Redistribution.
If immigrants were evenly spread throughout the country, they would have no impact on the distribution of House seats. Historically, immigrants have always been concentrated in some areas, and that is still true today. Of course, immigrants do tend to become more dispersed over time, but it is a very gradual process. In 1990, the top six states of immigrant settlement accounted for 73 percent of the total foreign-born population, while in 2000 these same six states accounted for 69 percent of the total foreign-born population. In 2020, the top six states will account for 63 percent of all immigrants, but only 40 percent of the nation’s total population. Although immigrants will almost certainly continue to move into new parts of the country, for decades to come there will continue to be states with very large immigrant populations, while other states have only a modest number. In 2020, there will still be 11 states with fewer than 100,000 immigrants, while five states will have more than two million.

The redistributive effects of immigration are not just a result of its concentration, but also partly depend on immigrants’ share of the total population. A very large immigrant population, even if it becomes more dispersed, can still have a significant impact on the distribution of House seats and Electoral College votes. As long as the number of immigrants (legal and illegal) entering the country remains very high, immigration will continue to redistribute political power in Washington. (While not examined in this report, the same dynamic applies within states, in drawing districts for the state legislatures.)

Representing Non-Citizens in Congress.
Although the political stakes for low-immigration states from continued high levels of immigration are clearly very significant, the related question of creating districts because of the presence of non-citizens is equally important to consider. While there is a consensus that naturalized citizens should be represented in Congress just like any other American, awarding congressional seats to states on the basis of their non-citizen populations raises important questions about political representation. This is especially true when one considers that these districts are created by taking representation away from states comprised of American citizens.

Consider the case of Ohio, the biggest loser from immigration-induced reapportionment. In 2020, there will be 292,000 non-citizens in Ohio, accounting for just 2 percent of the state’s population; California will be home to nearly 4.8 million non-citizens, accounting for 12 percent of the state’s population. Non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections, serve on juries, or work for the federal government in most cases. Many non-citizens, including foreign students, guestworkers, and illegal immigrants also may not make campaign contributions. Thus, it may seem odd that they are “represented” in Congress. This is especially true because the majority of non-citizens in the country are either illegal immigrants or temporary visitors such as foreign students or guestworkers. While one can at least argue that legal permanent residents who have not naturalized are entitled to representation in Congress because they are future Americans, illegal aliens and temporary visitors can make no such claim.

It is predicted that a few dozen seats will go towards Democrats in the 2020 election. This is because that immigration and population shifts will result in more seats that Democrats can win. This is about shifting political power.

Why Republicans support mass migration when it continuously dilutes their own base and voting bloc is a bit of a mystery. Is the cheap labour they import really worth it?

6. Canadian Parliament Seat Redistribution

The 2011 Fair Representation Act added 30 seats to the Canadian Parliament, (or about 10%) bringing the total to 338. It gave Ontario 15 more seats, BC 6 more, Alberta and Quebec 3 each. As a result, areas with most growth, such as high immigration, get more political power.

Although the Parliament has a limited number of seats, shifts will continue to mean high concentrations of immigrant communities will gain more power. Consequently, the original beliefs and values of the founding stock will continue to be replaced.

Well, according to this graph from Global News, most ridings with the highest immigrant population tend to vote Liberal.

7. About Those Students, Temp Workers

Not only is there the “official” population replacement going on in Canada, but there is the unofficial replacement as well. Specifically, hundreds of thousands of international students and temporary workers are coming to Canada. As has been covered here repeatedly, there are almost all eligible for some option of remaining in Canada long after their visa runs out.

How will Canada’s electoral map look after the next seat distribution? How many more safe Liberal ridings will there be as a result.

Whites are expected to become a minority in Canada soon. What will elections and voting results look like then?

Demographic Replacement In Canada: Where’s It From?

Canada is changing, to put it mildly. How serious is it, and what are the main sources of it? Let’s take a dive into those Annual Reports to Parliament.

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for facts and figures of replacement migration.

Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament
CLICK HERE, for the 2004 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2005 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2006 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2007 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2008 report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2009 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2010 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2011 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2012 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2013 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2014 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2016 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2017 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for archived listings.

2. Where Do People Come From?

This isn’t everyone who stays in Canada, and certainly not everyone who enters Canada. However, it does provide a glimpse into WHERE people are coming from. Canada is importing the 3rd World, and becoming the 3rd World as a result.

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

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

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

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

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

Did you think that importing large numbers of people from:
(a) China
(b) India
(c) Philippines
(d) Pakistan
(e) Iran

might be the reason we have such large enclaves of these groups? Think there may be some connection between them? This is not a single year, but a consistent pattern.

3. True Size When Temps Factored In

Above are the “temporary” categories listed in the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. Now, let’s take a look at all of it in context. Data is compiled from the 2004 to 2018 Annual Reports (which covers the years of 2003 to 2017)

Report Year Stated Imm Temporary Actual Imm
2004 221,352 143,444 364,796
2005 235,824 147,204 383,028
2006 262,236 156,622 418,858
2007 251,649 174,361 426,010
2008 236,758 229,834 466,592
2009 247,243 272,028 519,271
2010 252,179 263,618 515,797
2011 280,681 278,433 559,114
2012 248,748 289,225 537,973
2013 257,887 318,383 576,270
2014 258,953 333,175 592,128
2015 260,404 420,708 681,112
2016 271,845 468,126 739,971
2017 296,346 551,342 847,688
2018 331,226 620,149 951,375

Shocking isn’t it? This is what it looks like when “temporary” workers and students are factored in. Now, not all will stay, but the option is there. These programs are in fact pathway to permanent residence.

4. Changes In Census Data

Year Population % of Canada
1871 3,433,315 98.5%
1881 4,146,900 95.9%
1901 5,170,522 96.0%
1911 7,005,583 94.35%
1921 8,568,584 96.0%
1931 10,134,313 97.7%
1941 11,242,868 97.8%
1951 13,582,574 96.83%
1961 17,653,864 96.8%
1966 96.8%
1971 20,763,915 96.3%
1981 22,402,000 93.0%
1986
1986
1996 24,531,635 86.0%
2001 24,678,880 83.3%
2006 25,000,155 80.0%
2011 25,186,890 76.7%
2016 25,111,695 72.9%

Based off the Wikipedia page, it’s sources are: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

To point out the obvious, yes the data table is incomplete. There are a few years missing. However, the overall trend shows an undeniable pattern towards those of European descent declining as a percentage and losing voting power.

Euro Canadians will be a minority in about a decade or so. How well will we be treated then?

5. Population Replacement Is Real

Is there any connection between importing large numbers of Chinese year after year, and the Chinese enclaves that are around Canada? Maybe there is something to it.

Is there any connection between importing large numbers of Indians year after year, and the Indian enclaves that are around Canada? Maybe there is something to it.

Is there any connection between importing large numbers of Muslims year after year, and the Muslim enclaves that are around Canada? Maybe there is something to it.

This is nothing short of full fledged population replacement going on. Import (on an ongoing basis), hundreds of thousands of people from cultures and backgrounds that have little to do with the European founding that Canada has.

However, it is taboo for Europeans to have an identity to be proud of. Other nations have a strong history, culture, and founding stock. But in Western nations, have instead, the values of “diversity, tolerance and multiculturalism”.

One rule for me, another for thee.

Max Boykoff’s Revenge On Science: Creative Climate Communications, Part II

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for earlier review of book.

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord
CLICK HERE, for Part XII, Joel Wood and Carbon tax “option”.
CLICK HERE, for Part XIII, controlled opposition going to SCC.
CLICK HERE, for Part XIV, Mark Carney, UN Climate Finance Envoy.
CLICK HERE, for UN global taxation efforts.

2. Why Focus On This Book?

Most “scientists” involved in the climate change business at least claim that their focus is on the science itself. However, a subset has emerged which focuses on the science of persuasion.

That’s right, the goal isn’t using scientific research to PROVE that climate change is a serious and ongoing global threat. Rather, the goal is using social science methods to CONVINCE people that the threat is real. These are two very different things.

In layman’s terms, this book reads like a propaganda manual for tricks and techniques of persuasion. There never appears a moment of doubt in Boykoff’s mind that climate change is urgent. He seems to views the public’s disengagement simply as a communications issue. As such, this book focuses on emotionally manipulative tactics to get around that.

The idea is creepy enough. The fact that there is an entire segment of academia that focuses on this area is very troubling. Unfortunately, Boykoff is entirely serious about his work. Also, the many, many sources he cites are serious.

3. About The Author, Maxwell Boykoff

His professional biography is available here.

Max’s research and creative work has developed primarily in two arenas:
(1) cultural politics of science, climate change and environmental issues = this refers to ways that attitudes, intentions, beliefs and behaviors of individuals and groups shape (and are shaped by) the perceived spectrum of possible action in the context of science-policy, climate change and environmental issues.
.
(2) transformations of carbon-based economies and societies (with emphasis on the interface of science and practical action) = this refers to decarbonization politics, policies and decision-making, with particular interest in how these activities find meaning in people’s everyday lives, as well as how they, in turn, feed back into science-policy decision-making.

4. Specific Examples From CCC Book

(Page 18) Boykoff cites some research suggesting that racial and gender politics should be injected into the subject. Supposedly, racial minorities are going to be disproportionately impacted, and that needs to be discussed openly. Also, female researchers are more likely to have their work ridiculed and mocked. Obviously that is because of sexism and not poor research. That’s right, race and gender are now dimensions in the climate change debate.

(Page 21) A technique called “pre-bunking” is introduced. This is a form of inoculation, which climate change pushers will attempt to pre-empt criticism or questions ahead of time. They do it to sew seeds of doubts in people who would otherwise see obvious problems with the research.

(Page 23) One idea is go beyond simply telling the truth. The focus here is to go beyond simply stating facts and conclusions, and to introduce a “story-telling” element to it. By doing this, people are more accepting of the story, and are less likely to pick up on deficiencies in the arguments themselves.

(Page 26) This is the start of Chapter 2. This chapter gets shifting the discussion away from a scientific one, and appealing to a more emotional issue. By framing it as a social issue, there is more of a focus on people’s ability to act. One technique suggested is to keep it “upbeat” so that others will remain optimistic that their actions will have consequences. Boykoff’s sources also suggest moving away from the “DOOMSDAY APPROACH”. This should have the effect of keeping people more engaged if their aren’t told it is hopeless.

(Page 35) There is more detail about how to turn climate change into stories. Stories in general have: main characters, villains, plot, description, complexity, some ambiguity, and conflict resolution. Boykoff talks about telling the “facts” of climate change as if it were a story. This will do wonders to keep people engaged. Interestingly, the approach is to water down the hard facts, and to focus more on a compelling narrative.

(Page 45) The book heads towards cultural politics and interdisciplinary communication. What this means is that taking different approaches, or combining approaches, may work best depending on who the specific audience is. Page 47, Boykoff begins to detail the actual communication training that climate change pushers are being given in order to more effectively market this concept. Yes, there is now formal training in how to peddle this.

(Page 50) Boykoff talks about a “building bridges” approach, something he also refers to as a “common ground” approach. This involves making some effort to find out what other people are interested in, and building a relationship with them. Climate change information will gradually be introduced via this relationship. The other people will eventually be sold on the agenda, but without realizing that was your goal all along. The entire tactic is emotional manipulation, and the worse form of bonding that can take place.

(Page 58) Boykoff discusses some of the research that has been done across demographic groups and across political leanings. He also explains that the climate change agenda can still be pitched to almost everyone, but the message needs to be shifted depending on which group you are addressing.

(Page 96) We get into the idea of adding visualizations (images) to help sell the climate change agenda. The idea here is that if people can actually see what is happening, it should compel them more strongly to act. Now, it doesn’t really matter if what people see is what is truly happening. What’s important is that they see what they should.

(Page 132) Boykoff talks about the framing climate change in certain ways. One is as a sacrifice v.s. benefits approach. This is one where the experts will outline the sacrifices needed (such as your standard of life) and various benefits that will come. Always, there is the bit about making the world a better place for those in developing countries. After all, they had no hand in this. This is a combination of guilt tripping and a call to patriotism, and put together beautifully.

(Page 190) Boykoff explains more of this “silver buckshot approach”, as opposed to the silver bullet. In short, there have to be multiple forms and paths to spread the message of climate change at any given time. Since no one technique will work on everyone, we need many streams ready to convince people of the cause. And really, that is what this book is: listing and detailing these multiple paths.

In short, Boykoff suggests inserting climate change into the discussion wherever possible. Though he doesn’t explicitly add this, it’s implied that it should be done even when the above issue has nothing to do with it.

Make the connections. And make the other people see those connections. Sometimes best if done subtly, as you don’t want your agenda to be too obvious.

The examples above are by no means exhaustive, but should demonstrate how devious and cunning the author is. He outlines technique after technique to push the narrative. And these techniques are lifted directly from psychological and sociological research. Boykoff is applying those findings in his quest to do a better job of selling climate change to the public.

5. Boykoff Avoids Actual Research

You will likely notice that Max Boykoff never gets into the so-called climate change science. He mainly avoids any real detail on how climate change research is conducted. Why is that?

It’s because this entire book shies away from telling people the hard and fast truth (at least as he perceives it), and focuses on indirect and roundabout ways of getting people on board. In short, this book is still intended to push the climate change agenda, but just shows ways to be more sneaky and dishonest about it.

Was this a worthwhile read? Yes, in the context of knowing how your enemies are lying and manipulating you. Boykoff gives an in-depth, well researched book on exactly that. If nothing else, he if very thorough in detailing these underhanded methods.

Global Remittances: The Untold Costs Of Immigration

(Dilip Ratha’s information from World Bank)

(Pew Research estimates $150B left U.S. in 2017)

(2018: Objective 20 of UN Global Migration Compact)

(2016: Paragraph 57 of NY Declaration)

(2015: Goal 10.7 of UN Agenda 2030)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for facts and figures of replacement migration.

CLICK HERE, for Dilip Ratha, Migration and Remittances Team (WB)
CLICK HERE, for a 2017 World Bank review on remittances.
http://archive.is/wip/LSGhr
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact text.
CLICK HERE, for the New York Declaration text.
CLICK HERE, for Agenda 2030 full text.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2013.
http://archive.is/EGCr9
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2015.
http://archive.is/C2viK
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2016.
http://archive.is/8C4HU
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2017.
http://archive.is/JJGeT
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2018.
http://archive.is/0qgpZ
CLICK HERE, for Pew Research on remittances.
http://archive.is/6Get9

2. Context For This Article

Western “leaders” frequently tell people how immigration is a boon to the economy, and that it will bring all sorts of wealth in.

Not withstanding: culture clash, ethnic tensions, increased competition for jobs, added costs when social services factored in, overcrowding, demographic replacement, there is the topic of remittances. Remittances are funds that are sent across borders, typically to family members.

Mass migration enthusiasts routinely claim that people temporarily come to a nation to work, and few intend to stay. Notwithstanding the truth that many (if not most) don’t, does it make it okay if it’s true? How does it enrich a nation when huge sums of money are sent out of the country? How does draining the wealth make it more prosperous?

How big exactly is the issue of remittances? Let’s take a dive into the hard data. Yes, the topic was addressed in this review, but why not dig deeper?

3. Global Migration Compact, Objective 20, 22

OBJECTIVE 20: Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
36. We commit to promote faster, safer and cheaper remittances by further developing existing conducive policy and regulatory environments that enable competition, regulation and innovation on the remittance market and by providing gender-responsive programmes and instruments that enhance the financial inclusion of migrants and their families. We further commit to optimize the transformative impact of remittances on the well-being of migrant workers and their families, as well as on sustainable development of countries, while respecting that remittances constitute an important source of private capital, and cannot be equated to other international financial flows, such as foreign direct investment, official development assistance, or other public sources of financing for development.

The UN Global Migration Compact specifically lists making remittances easier and cheaper. Why? To send money back to families. This means that instead of money circulating the host country, much of it will be sent away. Don’t worry, it will get worse.

OBJECTIVE 22: Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits
38. We commit to assist migrant workers at all skills levels to have access to social protection in countries of destination and profit from the portability of applicable social security entitlements and earned benefits in their countries of origin or when they decide to take up work in another country.

Social benefits such as pensions will be able to be transferred from one nation to another. This means countries like Canada will be forced to pay for pensions and such to people that have not contributed to the country over the years. Now, can these paid out social benefits be turned around and sent back to family members in the form of remittances?

How does the first world benefit from this treaty? How does importing people and forcing locals to face foreign competition help? How does driving down the wages help locals? How does sending that money overseas help the local economy?

It doesn’t. But that’s what Canada has been signed up for. All without a democratic mandate of course. Rather than stopping, or even slowing the money leaving Western nations, this agreement aims to make it easier and cheaper.

4. New York Declaration, Para 57

57. We will consider facilitating opportunities for safe, orderly and regular migration, including, as appropriate, employment creation, labour mobility at all skills levels, circular migration, family reunification and education-related opportunities. We will pay particular attention to the application of minimum labour standards for migrant workers regardless of their status, as well as to recruitment and other migration-related costs, remittance flows, transfers of skills and knowledge and the creation of employment opportunities for young people.

In addition to promoting mass migration and cheaper remittances, is the New York Declaration also trying to normalize people working illegally?

5. SDA Agenda 2030, Goal 10.7

10.7 Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies
10.a Implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, in accordance with World Trade Organization agreements
10.b Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to States where the need is greatest, in particular least developed countries, African countries, small island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their national plans and programmes
10.c By 2030, reduce to less than 3 per cent the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5 per cent

Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people? Doesn’t that sound a lot like the UN Global Migration Compact? It does, but the same language is written into Agenda 2030 as well. This was signed in September 2015 by Stephen Harper, who calls himself a conservative.

One specific goal is to have the fees for remittances reduced to less than 3%. Why? Because with the mass migration plans that our “leaders” have, replacing the population is only going to continue. So sending money away should be easier and cheaper.

And despite all the talk about these workers being “temporary”, they are not. The bulk of them are not going to leave.

6. World Bank Review: 2016 Remittances

Recently, several high-income countries that are host to many migrants are considering taxation of outward remittances, in part to raise revenue, and in part to discourage undocumented migrants. The list of countries where such taxes are being considered includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates. However, taxes on remittances are difficult to administer and likely to drive the flows underground.

De-risking has the potential to reverse the progress made in reducing remittance costs and adversely impacts broader development objectives. Moreover, the disappearance of regulated and legal remittance providers could divert flows toward informal channels, which in turn could increase anti-money laundering/countering financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) risks. In August 2016, the U.S. Treasury and federal banking agencies (including the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) released a factsheet aimed at clarifying the AML/CFT regulations and sanctions related to correspondent banking. According to the factsheet, the agencies “do not utilize a zero tolerance philosophy.”

Despite the clarification from the U.S. Treasury and federal banking agencies, global banks have begun to exit or reduce their exposure to the retail remittance business. The banks include JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Banamex USA in the United States; National Australia Bank, Westpac Group, and ANZ in Australia; Barclays and HSBC in the United Kingdom; and BBVA in Spain.

The World Bank discusses things that are being considered, such as formally taxing remittances being sent out of the country.

Also keep in mind, this is April 2017, and the New York Declaration has already been signed. The UN Global Migration Compact is to be signed in 2018, and it is expected to drive remittances much higher. Mass migration will be more easily available, so the assumption makes sense.

7. Ratha: World Bank, Remittances

Ratha comments that there is steady year after year growth in the scale of remittances being sent across borders. Of course, the growth varies on region, but in the data presented it is 6-12% consistently.

India, China, Mexico and the Philippines are listed as receiving the highest amount of remittances in 2018. Interestingly, China, India and Philippines are the top 3 sources of immigration in Canada. Mexico being on that list is probably explained by massive immigration (both legal and illegal) into the United States.

Yes, Goal 10(7)(c) of Agenda 2030 is to reduce the fees for remittances to under 3%. Seems like the people involved are only expecting it to keep increasing.

8. Remittance Estimates: World Bank

Let’s take a look at the money flowing in and out of the developed/developing world. One important disclaimer to add: although the World Bank estimates money going in and out of the 1st and 3rd World nations, it doesn’t specify to what degree they cross over, or are just transferred within.

It is fair to estimate, however, that the vast majority of the funds going to the 3rd World are transfers from the 1st. Also, it’s fair to estimate that the majority of fund the 1st World receives are from other 1st world nations.

Year Total ($B) To 1st World To 3rd World Diff.
2013 $581B $177B $404B $227B
2014 $592B $162B $430B $268B
2015 $582B $142B $440B $298B
2016 $573B $144B $429B $285B
2017 $613B $147B $466B $319B
2018 $689B $161B $528B $367B

Sources For The Chart
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2013.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2015.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2016.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2017.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2018.

Hundreds of billions of dollars a year flow annually to the developing world, the majority of it from the Western World. When politicians talk about the financial benefits of immigration, is this what they mean? The pouring of money out of their countries?

9. Pew Research: $150B in 2017 (USA)

Pew Research, among many other things, tracks and estimates remittances sent back. The numbers are staggering, particularly in the U.S. An estimated $150 billion was sent outside the country in the year 2017.

Just think. All that money could have funded Donald Trump’s border wall. In fact, it would fund it several times over. Let’s take a look

Rank Nation Est. ($ Billions)
1 Mexico 30.019
2 China 16.141
3 India 11.714
4 Philippines 11.099
5 Vietnam 7.735
6 Guatemala 7.725
7 Nigeria 6.191
8 El Salvador 4.611
9 Dominican Republic 4.594
10 Honduras 3.769

This table only covers the top destinations for the remittances out of the U.S., but the point should be obvious. It doesn’t really stimulate the “American” economy when so much money is being sent overseas. It disproves (to a large degree) that there is any real economic benefit to this immigration system.

Also worth noting is that large amounts of foreign “temporary” labour has the added effect of driving down wages, as more people will be competing for the same job. This creates an employer’s market. And as we all know, these aren’t really “temporary” workers. Most will try to stay.

True, this focuses on the U.S. situation, but it’s worth covering, as Canada faces the same issues that our Southern neighbours do.

10. Temporary Workers In Canada

(Source: 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

To address the obvious: many temporary workers (and students) will remain in Canada even after their visa is up. Transitioning to permanent resident is usually an option. But even if they don’t, money is still being sent out of the country. Take a look at how many “temporary” workers we have in the TFWP and the International Mobility Program.

Temporary Foreign Worker Program

Report Year Numbers
2004 82,151
2005 90,668
2006 99,146
2007 112,658
2008 165,198
2009 192,519
2010 178,478
2011 182,276
2012 190,842
2013 213,573
2014 221,310
2015 95,086
2016 73,016
2017 78,402
2018 78,788

International Mobility Program

Report Year Numbers
2004 included
2005 included
2006 included
2007 included
2008 included
2009 included
2010 included
2011 included
2012 included
2013 included
2014 included
2015 197,924
2016 175,967
2017 207,829
2018 224,033

Also, it’s worth noting that students are allowed to work up to 20 hours/week, even while school is in session. Many (though not all) do. And Canada has certainly experienced an uptick in workers in recent years.

Report Year Numbers
2004 61,293
2005 56,536
2006 57,476
2007 61,703
2008 64,636
2009 79,509
2010 85,140
2011 96,157
2012 98,383
2013 104,810
2014 111,865
2015 127,698
2016 219,143
2017 265,111
2018 317,328

Data for the tables, is in this link. It includes archived listings for the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration from 2004 to 2018.

And no, not everyone coming to Canada will be sending money back. However, the temptation is there for anyone with family members left behind.

11. Remittances Directly Tied To Immigration

The World Bank is candid in making the connection between immigration and remittances. It is mainly by people who have gone to another country to world, and then send money back for family members.

While this is certainly noble, the money leaving the host nation is money that is not being spent in the host economy. It is money disappearing.

True, the person earning the money does have the right to spend it. However, how does that help the host country, when large sums of money are simply transferred out, year after year? It is a massive drain which could otherwise be spent here.

Controlled Opposition “Conservatives” Take Act To Supreme Court (Climate Change Scam #13)

(Originally featured in Maclean’s as “The Resistance”)

(Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe. Read between the lines.)

1. Important Links

(Other articles on climate change scam)
https://canucklaw.ca/the-climate-change-scam-part-1/

Court Documents Filed
CLICK HERE, for Ontario’s Supreme Court Factum.
CLICK HERE, for Sask’s Supreme Court Factum.

CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Court of Appeals ruling.
CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court of Appeals ruling.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA, Ontario Factum.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA, BC Factum, GGPPA.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA, NB Factum, GGPPA.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA, United Conservative Assoc.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA, CDN Taxpayers Federation.

Alberta Situation
CLICK HERE, for Jason Kenney Repeals Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Kenney Supports New Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Kenney To Hike New Carbon Tax.

CLICK HERE, for New Brunswick creating its own Carbon tax.

2. Reading Between The Lines

Throughout this interview, and any interview, Scott Moe never tells anyone that Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, and that it is used in photosynthesis. He never tells his interviewers that removing CO2 from the atmosphere will kill off plant-life, and by extension, ourselves. Moe never goes into any of the bogus junk science.

Why does this matter? Because Scott Moe, like Doug Ford in Ontario, Jason Kenney in Alberta, Blaine Higgs in New Brunswick, and Brian Pallister in Manitoba all claim to oppose the Carbon tax, but endorse the climate change scam itself.

Read through the filings throughout this article. These so-called “conservatives” thoroughly and completely endorse the UN IPCC warnings that catastrophe is imminent. They all agree that climate change will cause damage long term. They don’t (really) even oppose a Carbon tax. The issue is over who shall implement a “solution”, the Federal Government of the Provinces.

They cannot effectively oppose an agenda that they support in principle. All of these self-identified “conservative” Premiers are on board with the climate change scam.

3. Supreme Court Of Canada Filings

Let’s start with the pleadings filed by the Ontario Government, currently under the rule of Doug Ford. What does Ontario have to say about this?

The Ontario challenge previously, and this subsequent appeal, are limited to 2 very narrow and technical questions over taxation. There is nothing in either the ONCA challenge, nor this appeal, that suggest the Government takes any issue with the climate change agenda.

In fact, in the Court of Appeal challenge, the Ontario Government fully accepted the UNIPCC claims about climate change, and the need to act urgently on it. So, really, what is the point of doing these challenges in the first place?

Now let’s turn to Saskatchewan, which has joined as an intervenor in this case. Essentially, they are supporting Ontario’s challenge. What do they have to say about all of this.

Similar to Ontario, Saskatchewan does not challenge the climate change agenda in any way, shape or form. Instead, there are 2 extremely limited and technical questions put forward for the court to consider.

This is the state of opposition to Trudeau in Canada. Admit all of the major facts. Instead, argue over minor details, and insist this is a Provincial matter. Very petty.

(from the Ontario submissions)

1. This case is not about whether action needs to be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or the relative effectiveness of particular policy alternatives. It is about (1) whether the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the “Act”) can be supported under the national concern branch of the POGG power; and (2) whether the “charges” imposed by the Act
are valid as regulatory charges or as taxes. The answer to both questions should be no.

(from the Saskatchewan submissions)

2. This appeal does not concern whether global climate change is real and concerning or if the provinces are taking sufficient action to reduce GHG emissions. All parties agree that global climate change is a significant societal problem and all provinces have and continue to take action to reduce GHG emissions. In the Courts below, many submissions, including those of the Attorney General of Canada, focused on the nature of climate change and the importance of carbon pricing as an effective method of reducing GHG emissions. However, the efficacy of carbon pricing is not relevant to the constitutionality of the GGPPA, which must be derived from whether it is within the legislative competence of the federal government.

This entire façade is limited to technical questions over taxation. Nothing about the fake science behind these dire predictions.

And no, this is not limited to the Supreme Court of Canada. These players pulled the exact same stunt in their respective Provincial challenges.

4. Ontario Court Of Appeal Ruling

At the ONCA, the Province lost in a split decision to the Federal Government. The arguments were very similar to what happened in the Saskatchewan case. So what went wrong? Well, admitting that climate change is a threat to the world might not have helped.

Yes, in their own court challenge, Ontario agreed that climate change is a serious problem, and that real action has to be taken to prevent it from getting worse. So from that perspective, the court essentially had a case where the facts were all agreed to.

Don’t worry. It’s about to get much worse. Ontario was joined by several “intervenors” who were essentially there to reinforce their case. And they did just that.

Ontario was joined by New Brunswick. Not only did they endorse Ontario’s view that climate change is real and a threat, they said that this court forum should not be used by anyone who would deny climate change. So much for allowing different perspectives.

British Columbia also joins as an intervenor in the case. BC reiterates that climate change is real, and greenhouse gases are to blame. But instead of rejecting a Carbon tax, it touts its own as a model to emulate.

However, it is not just other Provincial or local Governments that were allowed to enter submissions for this hearing. Other groups were as well. Let’s take a look at a few.

The United Conservative Association entered the case, claiming that they agreed with the Attorney General of Ontario’s submissions. Thing is, the AG submitted that climate change was a threat to everyone and that action had to be taken. In essence, all of the facts were admitted once again. The only opposition was to prevent backlash and a unity crisis over the taxation.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation also joined in the Ontario matter. They argued that given their agenda, not wasting the money of taxpayers was a real concern. While true, they never addressed the elephant in the room: namely that the whole Carbon tax was predicated on lies.

Now, with every one of these parties saying that climate change is real and that human are responsible (or at least ignoring the issue), it should be no surprise how the court ruled. The ONCA said that yes, the Federal Government had the right to levy this tax.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
[6] Climate change was described in the Paris Agreement of 2015 as “an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet”. It added that this “requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries, and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response”.

[7] There is no dispute that global climate change is taking place and that human activities are the primary cause. The combustion of fossil fuels, like coal, natural gas and oil and its derivatives, releases GHGs into the atmosphere. When incoming radiation from the Sun reaches Earth’s surface, it is absorbed and converted into heat. GHGs act like the glass roof of a greenhouse, trapping some of this heat as it radiates back into the atmosphere, causing surface temperatures to increase. Carbon dioxide (“CO2”) is the most prevalent GHG emitted by human activities. This is why pricing for GHG emissions is referred to as carbon pricing, and why GHG emissions are typically referred to on a CO2 equivalent basis. Other common GHGs include methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.

[8] At appropriate levels, GHGs are beneficial. They surround the planet like a blanket, keeping temperatures within limits at which humans, animals, plants and marine life can live in balance. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere was relatively stable for several million years. However, since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century, and more particularly since the 1950s, the level of GHGs in the atmosphere has been increasing at an alarming rate. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are now more than 400 parts per million, a level not reached since the mid-Pliocene epoch, approximately 3-5 million years ago. Concentrations of other GHGs have also increased dramatically.

Quite predictably, Ontario lost their challenge at the Court of Appeals. Pretty hard to win when you admit all of the other side’s “facts” regardless of how absurd they are.

5. Saskatchewan Court Of Appeal

II. OVERVIEW
[4] The factual record presented to the Court confirms that climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions is one of the great existential issues of our time. The pressing importance of limiting such emissions is accepted by all of the participants in these proceedings.

[5] The Act seeks to ensure there is a minimum national price on GHG emissions in order to encourage their mitigation. Part 1 of the Act imposes a charge on GHG-producing fuels and combustible waste. Part 2 puts in place an output-based performance system for large industrial facilities. Such facilities are obliged to pay compensation if their GHG emissions exceed applicable limits. Significantly, the Act operates as no more than a backstop. It applies only in those provinces or areas where the Governor in Council concludes GHG emissions are not priced at an appropriate level.

[6] The sole issue before the Court is whether Parliament has the constitutional authority to enact the Act. The issue is not whether GHG pricing should or should not be adopted or whether the Act is effective or fair. Those are questions to be answered by Parliament and by provincial legislatures, not by courts.

[7] The Constitution Act, 1867 distributes legislative authority between Parliament and the provincial legislatures. Broadly speaking, a statute is valid if its essential character falls within a subject matter allocated to the legislative body that put the statute in place. Neither level of government has exclusive authority over the environment. As a result, Parliament can legislate in relation to issues such as GHGs so long as it stays within the four corners of its prescribed subject matters and the provinces can do the same so long as they stay within their prescribed areas of authority.

Quite inexplicably, Saskatchewan admitted, that climate change was a serious problem, and that real action had to be taken. Basically, they admitted that all of the Federal Government’s claims were true. All that the SKCOA had to do was answer some technical questions about whether this taxation format was legal.

Like Doug Ford, Scott Moe sabotaged his Provincial Reference Question by ceding to the pseudo-science that the UNIPCC puts out. Had he challenged it, it is quite likely that the Carbon taxes would have been gone by now.

6. Capitulation By “The Resistance”

The industry tax is being set at a higher level per tonne than Mr. Kenney promised during the spring election, $30 instead of $20, in a move to ensure that the provincial government’s plan is in compliance with the federal climate law. Due to the size of Alberta’s industrial base, especially the province’s large oil and gas industry, the expected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the plan will contribute significantly to meeting national targets.

Speaking with reporters on Tuesday before he tabled the legislation, Environment Minister Jason Nixon said industries across Alberta were close to unanimous that they wanted the province to set the tax at a level where the federal government would not take over and regulate their emissions.

The minister added that he will consult on future increases to the provincial tax. The federal carbon price for industry is set to increase by $10 annually until it reaches $50-per-tonne in 2022. If Alberta’s tax were to fall below the federal threshold, Ottawa would likely impose a higher tax under a provision in the federal law known as the backstop.

This is a strange version of fighting for your constituents: surrender and gouge them yourselves, so that Ottawa won’t be the one doing the gouging.

7. Federal Conservatives Not Any Better


The CPC policy declaration, Article 28 does explicitly state no Carbon tax. That said, it tacitly endorses the climate change scam by suggesting that Provinces should develop their own plan. In other words, the CPC supports it, but would not impose this one specific measure.

8. Elephant In The Room: Junk Science

Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is touted as a “greenhouse gas” which contributes to all kinds of environmental disasters.

”Global warming” is a term not used as much anymore, since “climate change” is more vague, and can be more easily adapted.

However, carbon dioxide occurs naturally, just from breathing.

The human body converts carbohydrates, fatty acids, and proteins into smaller “waste products” such as water and carbon dioxide in order to extract energy from them.

Carbon dioxide is not a “waste product” to be eliminated. It is a necessary resource plants use for photosynthesis

6 CO2 (carbon dioxide) + 6 H20 (water) + sunlight ===> C6H1206 (sugar) + 6 02 (oxygen)

While only plants engage in photosynthesis, both plants and animals respire

C6H1206 (sugar) + 6 02 (oxygen) ===> 6 CO2 (carbon dioxide) + 6 H20 (water) + usable energy

The photosynthesis and respiration cycles are not some big mystery. They have been taught in grade schools for many years.