UN Parliamentary Assembly Proposed (a.k.a Global Government)

(The globalist UN, showing its true colours once again)

(In 2007, the Canadian House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee voted to endorse the idea of the UN Parliament. Stephen Harper was Prime Minister. Self-identified “populist” Maxime Bernier would soon be the Foreign Affairs Minister, and say nothing.)

(Seriously, this was previously approved in 1993?)

(1) https://en.unpacampaign.org/proposal/
(2) http://archive.is/GMgwO
(3) https://en.unpacampaign.org/supporters/survey/
(4) http://archive.is/KpIqW
(5) https://en.unpacampaign.org/supporters/overview/?mapcountry=CA&mapgroup=mem
(6) http://archive.is/P7ZS9

(7) https://en.unpacampaign.org/meetings/november2007/
(8) http://archive.is/NKaj8
(9) http://archive.is/kRdVJ
(10) https://en.unpacampaign.org/meetings/november2008/
(11) http://archive.is/z1jUo
(12) http://archive.is/tNX9Z
(13) https://en.unpacampaign.org/239/establishment-of-a-global-parliament-discussed-at-international-meeting-in-new-york/
(14) http://archive.is/5lMyX
(15) http://archive.is/dXbo6
(16) https://en.unpacampaign.org/265/declaration-calls-for-intergovernmental-conference-on-un-parliament/
(17) http://archive.is/dXbo6
(18) https://en.unpacampaign.org/311/post-2015-agenda-should-include-elected-un-assembly-to-strengthen-democratic-participation/
(19) http://archive.is/xloAX
(20) archive.is/I4Mtb
(21) https://en.unpacampaign.org/files/declaration/en.pdf

To all the conspiracy theorists who believe that the UN is proposing setting up a one world government, your fears just became validation.

The UN formally proposes to do exactly that.

2. Quotes From Site

The proposal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly
The proposal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly
In this age of globalization, more and more issues have a global dimension that requires global cooperation. At the UN and other international fora, governments come together to negotiate and decide on policies that affect us all.
The UN Charter begins on the promising opening words: “We the peoples.” However, one will seek in vain for any clause in the document that specifies a means by which ordinary people can play a role in the organization’s deliberations and decision-making.
The bodies of the UN and international organizations are occupied by officials who are appointed by the executive branches of national governments. In view of the growing importance of international organizations and their decisions, this is no longer sufficient.
A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) for the first time would give popularly elected representatives a formal role in global affairs. As an additional body, the assembly will directly represent the world’s citizens and not governments.
Initially, states could choose whether their UNPA members would come from national parliaments, reflecting their political spectrum and gender equality, or whether they would be directly elected. Eventually, the goal is to have all members directly elected.
Starting as a largely consultative body, the rights and powers of the UNPA could be expanded over time as its democratic legitimacy increases. The assembly will act as an independent watchdog in the UN system and as a democratic reflection of the diversity of world public opinion.
In the long run, once its members are all democratically elected, the assembly could be developed into a world parliament which – under certain conditions and in conjunction with the UN General Assembly – may be able to adopt universally binding regulations.
In short, the UN should evolve from what many believe to be a generally ineffectual “talk-shop” into a viable democratic and legislative body.

Okay, let’s break this down a bit:

”In this age of globalization, more and more issues have a global dimension that requires global cooperation. At the UN and other international fora, governments come together to negotiate and decide on policies that affect us all.”

So what? This seems to deliberately conflate cooperation with sovereignty. Nations can and do discuss and cooperate on issues all the time. This is a solution to an artificial problem.

”The UN Charter begins on the promising opening words: “We the peoples.” However, one will seek in vain for any clause in the document that specifies a means by which ordinary people can play a role in the organization’s deliberations and decision-making.”

Searching in vain for any clause that says ordinary people can play a role in decision making? Is this a good thing? Shouldn’t people have some ability to influence decision making?

”The bodies of the UN and international organizations are occupied by officials who are appointed by the executive branches of national governments. In view of the growing importance of international organizations and their decisions, this is no longer sufficient.”

How so? Do we not want people who are directly chosen by the host nation to be taking part in such discussions?

”A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) for the first time would give popularly elected representatives a formal role in global affairs. As an additional body, the assembly will directly represent the world’s citizens and not governments.

Logistical question: how do you decide if a leader is ”popularly elected”? Military dictators frequently hold sham elections and win close to 100% of the vote.

Further, what if the values of a block of nations (such as the 50+ members of Islamic nations) democratically overrule nations which believe in human rights?

”Initially, states could choose whether their UNPA members would come from national parliaments, reflecting their political spectrum and gender equality, or whether they would be directly elected. Eventually, the goal is to have all members directly elected.

If they are not being directly elected by their people, then who is electing them? Should the UN get to decide who ”represents” the Nation of Canada, the US, Australia, or Japan?

”Starting as a largely consultative body, the rights and powers of the UNPA could be expanded over time as its democratic legitimacy increases. The assembly will act as an independent watchdog in the UN system and as a democratic reflection of the diversity of world public opinion.”

Ah, non-binding and consultative bodies which eventually become legally binding? Kind of like the UN Global Migration Compact.

How exactly would there be ”oversight” when this would effectively take away actual representative government from host nations?

”In the long run, once its members are all democratically elected, the assembly could be developed into a world parliament which – under certain conditions and in conjunction with the UN General Assembly – may be able to adopt universally binding regulations


In short, the UN should evolve from what many believe to be a generally ineffectual “talk-shop” into a viable democratic and legislative body.”

How would this possibly be democratic? It takes control even further from the public. If you think your MP or MPP or MLA or Senators don’t represent you now, how would you gain more representation from being even further removed.

3. UN Claims To Have Conducted Research

CLICK HERE, for survey results

Survey on a UN Parliamentary Assembly
survey graphic -donought -readyOn behalf of the British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, in 2004/05 the research institute GlobeScan conducted representative surveys in 18 countries representing 61% of the world population.

In one of the questions concerning reforms of the United Nations, participants were asked about their opinion on “creating a new UN Parliament, made up of representatives directly elected by citizens, having powers equal to the current UN General Assembly that is controlled by national governments.”

On average, 63% supported the reform proposal, while only 20% rejected it. For the first time, this survey provides empirical evidence that the world’s citizens overwhelmingly support the establishment of a directly elected world parliament.

Country results
In every surveyed nation the supporters of a UN Parliament significantly outnumbered the opponents. Overall, support to opposition margins show overwhelming majorities in all nations favoring the creation of a UN Parliament.

Let’s see: Only 18 countries were surveyed

UN claims these 18 countries represent 61% of the population.

UN Claims that 63% of populations surveyed support global government
1/ Argentina
2/ Australia
3/ Brazil
4/ Canada
5/ Chile
6/ China
7/ Germany
8/ Great Britain (UK)
9/ India
10/ Indonesia
11/ Italy
12/ Mexico
13/ Phillipines
14/ Poland
15/ Russia
16/ South Korea
17/ Turkey
18/ USA

Assuming the numbers are true, that means that all but 18 countries were left out of the survey

It means that 39% of national populations were not consulted at all

It means that 37% (of consulted nations) oppose the measure.

A better level might be to use (0.63)*(0.61) = .03843 = 38%
(A tad silly, but this research is not representative)

Assuming this research is even accurate, that would mean that only 38% would support such a measure. Of course, the site doesn’t list any of the SAMPLE SIZES, which would help give a more accurate picture.

Were 100 people interviewed in each country? 1,000? 10,000? Can we see the questions that were asked?

Of course, none of this addresses the central question: why is it that there has been no public consultation on us signing away our sovereignty? Shouldn’t we have the final say?

Wait, globalists don’t care what people think. Now it makes sense.

4. Globalist Politicians In Canada

Justin Trudeau, and Elizabeth May are on here. Jagmeet Singh probably would be, if he actually was an M.P.

Members of Parliament from Canada
Diane Bellemare
Senator, economist and politician from Quebec, Canada


Carolyn Bennett
MP, Canada

Sheri Benson
Member of Parliament for Saskatoon West, Canada

Daniel Blaikie
MP, Canada

Rachel Blaney
MP, Canada

Sean Casey
Member of Parliament, Canada

François Choquette
MP, Canada

David Christopherson
Member of Parliament, Canada

Jane Cordy
Senator, Canada

Jane Cordy
Senator, Canada

Nathan Cullen
MP, Canada

Julie Dabrusin
Member of Parliament for Toronto-Danforth, Canada

Don Davies
MP, elected 2008; Lawyer, trade union representative, Canada

Fin Donnelly
MP, Canada

Julie Dzerowicz
MP, Canada

Wayne Easter
MP, Canada

Art Eggleton
Canadian Senator, Canada

Ali Ehsassi
MP, Canada

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Hedy Fry
MP, Canada

Marc Garneau
MP; first Canadian in outer space; President, Canadian Space Agency (2001-2006), Canada

Randall Garrison
MP, Canada

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones
MP for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Canada


Claude Gravelle
Member of Parliament, Nickel Belt, Canada

Laurie Hawn
Member of Parliament since 2006 Privy Councillor Royal Canadian Air Force Veteran, Canada

Carol Hughes
MP, Canada

Mobina Jaffer
Member of the Canadian Senate, representing British Columbia, Canada

Janis G. Johnson
Senator, Canada

Peter Julian
MP, Canada

Frances Lankin
Senator, Canada

Dr. Hélène Laverdière
Foreign Affairs Critic for the New Democratic Party of Canada and MP for Laurier – Ste-Marie, Canada

Dominic LeBlanc
MP, Canada

Hélène LeBlanc
MP, Canada

Alistair MacGregor
MP, Canada

Brian Masse
MP, Canada

Irene Mathyssen

Elizabeth May
MP; Leader, Green Party of Canada, Canada


Dr. John McCallum


The Honourable John McKay P.C., M.P.
Canadian Member of Parliament for the Riding of Scarborough-Guildwood., Canada


Alexandra Mendes
MP, Canada

Don Meredith
Senator, Canada

Maryann Mihychuk

Wilfred P. Moore
Senator, Canada

Isabelle Morin
MP, Canada

Joyce Murray
MP, Canada

Thanh Hai Ngo
Senator, Canada

Robert Oliphant
MP, Canada

John Oliver
Member of Parliament , Canada

Joe Peschisolido

Rose-May Poirier
Senator, Canada

Tracey Ramsey
MP, Canada

Murray Rankin
MP, Canada

Pablo Rodriguez
MP, Canada

Dan Ruimy
MP, Canada

Nancy Ruth
Senator, Canada

Francis Scarpaleggia
MP, Canada

Judy Sgro
MP; Canadian Member of Parliament for the Riding of York West, Canada

Scott Simms
MP, Canada

Wayne Stetski
MP, Canada

Dr. Kennedy Stewart
MP, Canada

Justin Trudeau
Member of Parliament, Canada

David Wells
Senator, Canada

Borys Wrzesnewskyj
MP, Canada

Kate Young
MP, Canada

5. First UNPA Int’l Meeting in 2007

First international meeting on a UNPA
Palais des Nations, Geneva, November 2007
The first international meeting on a UNPA was held in November 2007 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva under the patronage of former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and was hosted by the Society for Threatened Peoples International.
Parliamentarians, representatives of non-governmental organizations and other activists of the UNPA campaign from 18 countries gathered for an exchange on the UNPA concept and the Campaign strategy.
The meeting reiterated the principles laid down in the international appeal for a UNPA such as the gradual approach which allows first steps beneath the threshold of UN Charter reform. It was also stressed, however, that at the same time the eventual goal of a world parliament should be communicated.
While some questions were vividly debated, the meeting also concluded, among other things, that a UNPA should be open for participation of regional parliamentary assemblies and should offer innovative ways for strong NGO participation.
Read more

Conclusions regarding policies of the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly
At its meeting on 19-20 November 2007 in the “Palais des Nations” in Geneva, the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) has reiterated the policies laid down in the “Appeal for the Establishment for a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations” and notes in particular that:
-the Campaign pursues a politically pragmatic and gradual approach to achieve the eventual long-term goal of a world parliament;
-in a first step the Campaign advocates the establishment of a UNPA by means which do not require a change of the UN Charter;
-the Campaign’s appeal states that a consultative UNPA initially could be composed of national parliamentarians and that this statement does not exclude the option to advocate the participation of other entities. For example, the Campaign also advocates the participation of regional parliamentary assemblies in a UNPA, such as the European Parliament and the Pan-African Parliament, and consideration may be given for the inclusion of local authorities in the consultative UNPA ;
-the aforementioned statement also does not exclude to advocate a flexible approach to the mode of elections. The Campaign supports the approach that already in the first step the UNPA’s Statutes should allow the participating states to opt for direct elections of their delegates if they wish to do so;
-the Campaign advocates a UNPA which is inclusive and open to all UN member states. However, direct elections of the UNPA’s delegates are regarded as a precondition for vesting the body with legislative rights.
the Campaign policy clearly embraces the demand that a UNPA has to provide for strong and efficient ways to include civil society, in particular NGOs, and local administrations into its work;
-the Campaign’s policy pursues the goal that the UNPA, once established, would advocate and facilitate a reform of the present system of international institutions and global governance;
-the Campaign understands that whereas the appeal refers to “the UN and the organizations of the UN system,” that this could be interpreted to include the Bretton Woods Institutions.

Some takeaways from this:
(a) Yes, this is about a world government
(b) Changes to UN Charter may not be needed
(c) NGO/Civil Societies to be given roles to work

6. Second UNPA Int’l Meeting in 2008

Second international meeting on a UNPA
European Parliament, Brussels, November 2008
The second international meeting on a UNPA was held on November 4-5, 2008, at the European Parliament in Brussels and was hosted by European deputy Jo Leinen.
Representatives of non-governmental organizations and stakeholders of the UNPA campaign from around 15 countries gathered for an exchange on the campaign’s progress within the past year, an outlook onto the coming activities and to discuss political questions. The meeting included a Round Table consultation and an evening reception with invited guests.
In a welcome message published on the occasion of the meeting, the President of the European Parliament affirmed the parliament’s support for a UNPA.
One of the conclusions reached at the meeting was that a UNPA would be complementary to the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s work.
Read more
The establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly and the Inter-Parliamentary Union

The establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly and the Inter-Parliamentary Union
At its meeting on 4-5 November 2008 in the European Parliament in Brussels, the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) deliberated on the relation between the proposed UNPA and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and the possible roles and functions of the two parliamentary bodies.
The Campaign concluded that the proposed UNPA and the IPU would be complementary institutions. A UNPA would not replace or duplicate the IPU’s functions. Quite the contrary, a UNPA would provide a response to the democratic deficit in global governance which the IPU in its current structure is unable to offer.
The Campaign noted in particular:
(1) The IPU is an association of national parliaments. One of its activities is to provide for a “parliamentary dimension to international cooperation”. The IPU’s goal in this context is to strengthen the ability of national parliaments to exercise their oversight functions at the national level in matters of international nature. The Campaign underlines the importance of this dimension.
(2) The purpose of a UNPA is to exercise parliamentary functions directly at the international level in its own right. One of the goals is to make the UN executives and its institutions accountable to a global parliamentary body. The IPU has no such capacity and currently also does not aspire to develop such an oversight function.
(3) The IPU’s purpose is to be a facilitator for the work of national parliaments. In contrast, a UNPA would be composed of individual parliamentarians who would be called upon to take a global view.
(4) The precedent of the Pan-African Parliament and the African Parliamentary Union shows that the UNPA and the IPU need not be mutually exclusive.
(5) In the long run, a UNPA could be composed of directly elected members. The precedent of the European Parliament and the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union shows that a largely directly elected UNPA and the IPU would be complementary and indeed both necessary.
(6) The Campaign supports the work of the IPU and appreciates any and all active contributions from the IPU and IPU members in the efforts for the establishment of a UNPA.

7. Third UNPA Int’l Meeting in 2009

Third international meeting on a UNPA
New York, October 2009
The third international meeting on a UNPA was held in October 2009 across the United Nations headquarters in New York. Around 60 participants from 19 countries, among them 12 Members of Parliament and numerous representatives of non-governmental organizations who are part of the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly attended the event in order to exchange experiences and views. Participants in the meeting generally felt that the campaign has gathered considerable political momentum over the past two and a half years since its launch in April 2007.

Establishment of a global parliament discussed at international meeting in New York
30. October 2009
The progress of the international efforts for the establishment of a global parliamentary assembly was discussed at a meeting across the United Nations headquarters in New York. Around 60 participants from 19 countries, among them 12 Members of Parliament and numerous representatives of non-governmental organizations who are part of the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) attended the event on Monday in order to exchange their different experiences and views.
In her welcome remarks Senator Sonia Escudero, Secretary-General of the Latin-American Parliament, pointed out that the United Nations, established in 1945, “reproduces an age old international order.” Said Senator Escudero: “One of the challenges that the United Nations will have to face in order not to become obsolete is its own reform. It is imperative to undertake an integral reform of the United Nations taking into account that any representative institution, that is to say democratic institution, should have an structure that honours this characteristic. It is clear that the establishment of a UN Parliamentary Assembly would be a decisive step towards the democratic consolidation in the United Nations system.”
Jo Leinen, Member of the European Parliament, stressed the long-standing support of the European Parliament for the creation of a UNPA. The most recent resolution was adopted in June 2005. Mr Leinen noted that a new effort to reiterate the parliament’s support will be taken in the current new legislature. A representative of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, Fernando Iglesias, reported on a resolution calling for a UNPA adopted by his parliament in August this year. Mr Iglesias promoted that the participants in the campaign reach out intensively to civil society and the academic world as well in order to build a broader base of public awareness. This approach was endorsed by Mike Sebalu, Member of the East African Legislative Assembly, saying that “it is crucial to reach critical mass of supporters from all walks of life.”
Presenting a report adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on the reform of the United Nations a few weeks ago, Andreas Gross, a Swiss Member of Parliament and leader of the Socialist Group in PACE, pointed out that the modernization of the UN should include by necessity a parliamentary dimension. Giving the example of the Council of Europe, Gross stressed that the UN runs the risk of becoming irrelevant in the long-term if no Parliamentary Assembly is established. “If the Council of Europe were a government organization alone, without a parliamentary body, its importance would have diminished completely by now,” Gross said.
The afternoon session concentrated, among other things, on a debate on the concept of a UN Parliamentary Assembly and, more in particular, models for the possible distribution of seats in a UNPA. The Chair of the Committee for a Democratic U.N., Andreas Bummel, presented a paper on the subject. He outlined that the report shows the feasibility of the proposal and that there are realistic and pragmatic options on the table. Joseph Schwartzberg, Professor emeritus of the University of Minnesota, presented his own incremental approach for the creation of a UNPA and elaborated on his suggestion to distribute seats according to population, equality, and share in UN membership dues. Andrew Strauss, Professor of Law at the Widener University School of Law, argued that a UNPA should be established through a stand-alone treaty rather than as a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly.
Participants in the meeting generally felt that the campaign has gathered considerable political momentum over the past two and a half years since its launch in April 2007. The event was filmed by a crew led by Lisa Russell who recently won an Emmy Award and works on a documentary on U.S.-UN relations.

Okay, this is getting to be much more than theoretical. There are actual discussions on how the seats should be distributed should this Parliament ever become a reality.

8. Fourth UNPA Int’l Meeting in 2010

Declaration calls for intergovernmental conference on UN Parliament
5. October 2010
An international meeting of the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly in the Senate of Argentina in Buenos Aires has called on the United Nations and its member states to initiate a “preparatory process towards an intergovernmental conference for the purpose of establishing a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations.“ A declaration adopted by around 50 participants from 20 countries, among them ten Members of Parliament and representatives of 20 civil society organizations, states that “the need to democratize global governance is one of the greatest political challenges of our times. It calls on individual world citizens, and
Group picture of the participants
Image: Democracia Global
especially parliamentarians, governments, the international donor community, and civil society to make a commitment to democratic global change.”
At the opening session the Argentinian deputy Fernando Iglesias reiterated the need for global democratization through a UN Parliamentary Assembly. As a guest speaker Olivier Giscard d’Estaing, former Member of Parliament from France, voiced his disappointment over the enduring failure to bring about any substantial reform of the United Nations. Mr. Giscard d’Estaing called for the creation of “new world institutions dealing with world problems, including a world parliament.” The Executive Director of the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, William Pace, severely criticized the G8 and G20. “These informal governance mechanism have failed dramatically,” Mr. Pace stated. “Our goal is to replace the brutality of imperialism with constitutional and parliamentary principles at the global level,” he said.
In a written welcome note to the meeting, the parliamentarian and former Prime Minister of Malta, Alfred Sant, stated that “the goal of establishing a UN Parliamentary Assembly may appear to be far away down the road, but global realities are changing so fast that the relevance of an Assembly may become salient much sooner than is now supposed.” The European parliamentarian Jo Leinen noted in a message that “the proposal now has to be taken up by a group of like-minded governments”.
In the plenary session, participants deliberated on the outcome document and on their activities in the previous year. In the afternoon, parallel workshops were held. The former clerk of the Pan-African Parliament, Werunga Murumba, now at the Centre for Parliamentary Studies and Training of the Kenya National Assembly, spoke about lessons learned from the creation of existing international parliamentary assemblies. Other workshops were held on the next steps in the Latin-American region and on the creation of a UN Parliamentary Assembly and UN Charter reform.
The event that was held in the premises of the Senate of Argentina on Monday was the fourth meeting of an international campaign that was launched in April 2007. The head of the Campaign’s Secretariat, Andreas Bummel, noted that in this time span around 900 Members of Parliament from over 90 countries expressed their support, representing over 100 million people from their constituencies. Around 750 are currently in office.
The meeting was preceded by a seminar of the Latin-American Parliament on regional integration and the reform of international institutions that was held in the previous week. One of the sessions was devoted to the proposal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly. The UNPA-Campaign meeting was part of a ten-day programme in Buenos Aires coordinated by the Argentinian non-governmental organization Democracia Global.

Again, more talks about how the logistics of such a proposal would work. Not a question of whether we should be doing this, or what the public might say. Rather, we agree, now let’s talk details.

9. Fifth UNPA Int’l Meeting in 2013

Fifth international meeting on a UNPA
European Parliament, Brussels, October 2013
The fifth international meeting on a UNPA was held on 15-16 October 2013 in the European Parliament in Brussels and was hosted by the Members of the European Parliament Elmar Brok, Jo Leinen, Isabella Lövin, and Graham Watson from the four largest political groups European People’s Party EPP, Socialists and Democrats S&D, the Greens, and the liberal ALDE group respectively.
In a final declaration, participants from around thirty countries unanimously expressed concern that “no adequate measures have been taken to address the democratic deficit of global governance in general and of the United Nations in particular.” The conference suggested that “a global democratic body of elected representatives” should be established “to bring global governance in the pursuit of post-2015 development goals” closer to the world’s citizens.

Post-2015 Agenda should include elected UN Assembly to strengthen democratic participation
22. October 2013
5th International Meeting of the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly concludes with declaration / Strong support from key Members of the European Parliament
The fifth international conference on a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly held in the European Parliament in Brussels on 16th and 17th October called on the United Nations and the international community to make democratic participation a key

One of the conference panels
Image: European Parliament
element of the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
In a final declaration, participants from around thirty countries unanimously expressed concern that “no adequate measures have been taken to address the democratic deficit of global governance in general and of the United Nations in particular.” The conference suggested that “a global democratic body of elected representatives” should be established “to bring global governance in the pursuit of post-2015 development goals” closer to the world’s citizens.

Conference hosted in the European Parliament
The conference was hosted by the Members of the European Parliament Elmar Brok, Jo Leinen, Isabella Lövin, and Graham Watson from the four largest political groups European People’s Party EPP, Socialists and Democrats S&D, the Greens, and the liberal ALDE group respectively. At the opening of the conference, Elmar Brok who serves as chairman of the European Parliament’s Commission on Foreign Affairs stated that a consultative UN Parliamentary Assembly would “allow world civil society to be directly associated in the global decision-making process.”

Jo Leinen who is a co-chair of the advisory board of the international campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly emphasized that until now no formal body exists that would give citizen-elected representatives a say in global governance. At best they had an observer status. “This is not acceptable,” said Mr Leinen. “In a democratic system, the representatives of the citizens are not observers of what the governments do. They should provide oversight and hold the government executives accountable.”
At a panel discussion Isabella Lövin used the example of the global fishery policy to show that the system of international governance is dysfunctional. “It’s still governed by 16th century principles,” she said. Graham Watson pointed out that “there will be times when national interests and global interests collide. A UN Parliamentary Assembly could act as an arbiter and ensure that the voice of the world’s citizens is heard.

In a message issued on the occasion of the conference, the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, emphasized the longstanding support for the proposal by the European Parliament. In addition, he declared that “The European Parliament may serve as a model for how a UN Parliamentary Assembly could develop over time. What once began as an advisory body composed of national parliamentarians is a directly elected legislature today.”

Consultation with the UN’s Independent Expert
A similar position was taken by the UN’s Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order, Alfred de Zayas, who was participating as a special guest. In a statement delivered at a special consultation, he confirmed that “Participation is a hallmark of democratic governance” and that “civil society is entitled to more space.” He said that the establishment of a World Parliamentary Assembly was “a promising avenue” to achieve this and could be modelled according to the example of the European Parliament. Mr de Zayas pointed out that his upcoming report to the UN General Assembly includes the recommendation that it “may consider convening a conference to discuss promising initiatives such as the creation of a World Parliamentary Assembly.”
In a comment following the statement by Mr de Zayas, the Member of the European Parliament and chairperson of Democracy International, Gerald Häfner, said that “We cannot leave the world to decision-making that is in the interest of big money or big powers – but not in the interest of the world’s citizens. A UN Parliamentary Assembly is a first step to establish global democracy.”

The final declaration adopted by the conference welcomes “the decision of the UN’s Human Rights Council to mandate an Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order,” and encourages the Independent Expert “to keep considering the question of a UNPA and in particular to examine possible processes towards its creation.”
Main points of the final declaration
In the discussion the Secretary-General of the campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, Andreas Bummel, emphasized three elements in the final declaration: That it puts the proposal for a UN Parliamentary

Gathering in front of the European Parliament
Assembly in the context of the Post-2015 Development Agenda, that it highlights the possibility of having a UN Parliamentary Assembly act as a “network of networks” and finally that the document says that “innovative forms of civic participation” in a UNPA through models of electronic democracy could be considered. In its last session, the conference also deliberated on a possible roadmap towards a UN Parliamentary Assembly as well as on the campaign’s goals and strategy.
Other speakers at the conference included, among others, Andrew Strauss from Widener University School of Law in the United States, the UN’s representative in Brussels, Antonio Vigilante, the Member of the European Parliament and President of the Union of European Federalists Andrew Duff, the European Parliament’s Vice-President Anni Podimata, Swiss parliamentarian Daniel Jositsch as well as Juan Behrend as representative of the Global Greens Coordination, Gregory Engels as representative of Pirate Parties International, and Hanno Schedler of the Society for Threatened Peoples.

Week of Action for a World Parliament
The conference was also a kick-off event for the Global Week of Action for a World Parliament that takes place until UN day on 24 October. At the end of the conference participants gathered in front of the European Parliament at Place du Luxembourg in Brussels and displayed the week’s slogan, “World Parliament Now!”

Okay, the United Human Rights Council will have a say in matters here. Considering the members on it, that is not at all encouraging.

Some alleged “research” is presented elsewhere on the website, claiming that there is widespread support across nations for a global government. Seems rather self serving.

10. Duplicity Of “Populist” Maxime Bernier

This wasn’t in the original version, but worth pointing out to the readers.

Maxime Bernier, a self-identified “populist” left the Conservative Party of Canada in August 2018 and started the People’s Party of Canada. Despite its Communist sounding name, it is marketed as a nationalist/populist party.

The problem is that Bernier was Foreign Affairs Minister in 2007, when this issue was being discussed. Very unethical to remain silent for 12 years, and now claim to oppose it.

While this petition seems to be a welcome change, it cannot be taken at face value. Bernier introduces a petition to prevent Canada from joining any such organization, despite his Committee earlier endorsing it.

CBC Propaganda #5: Resistance (And Borders) Are Futile

(CBC produces another “pro-illegal immigration” article)

Okay, securing borders is a tough job, so why even bother?

For my grandparents, divorce was unthinkable. My parents’ generation did that. For my parents’ generation, gay marriage was unthinkable. My generation did that. For my generation, more open borders is probably unthinkable. The next generation will do that.

An actual quote from the article.

CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.

CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.
Okay, where to start with this gem? CLICK HERE, for the article itself.

“In 2015, there were 244 million international migrants — nearly seven times the population of Canada.
The total includes the more than 65 million people forcibly displaced from their homes by conflict and persecution. It is the highest number on record, surpassing even the years following WWII.
It also includes people whose homelands have cracked apart in earthquakes, withered in droughts or suffered through famines.
Some migrants are pushed from their homes by poverty and drawn to countries in the global north by the promise of a better life. Others cross borders to join their families or pursue an education.”

An interesting start. And some things we can take from it.

First, it says 244 million (yes, million) international migrants. That is absurd. But don’t worry, some globalist bodies (EU, UN) will force countries to take them in.

Second, there are 244 million “migrants”, yet only 65 million of them are “refugees”. Assuming, for the sake of argument that the numbers are correct, that would be 65 million refugees, and 179 million migrants. As percentages, those are 27% refugees, and the other 73% are migrants

Third, it lists natural disasters as reason to leave, but it seems unclear if these are “refugees” or migrants”. The article doesn’t specify.

Fourth, yes, many are drawn by: 1/ poverty; 2/ search of a better life; 3/ join families; or 4/ pursue an education. Those are called economic migrants, and moving to another country for those reasons is not considered a human right.

The numbers are going to keep growing. Researchers predict there could be 1 billion climate refugees by the middle of this century, and 2 billion by its end.

The CBC quotes this article, from Cornell University. Although the article provides no actual evidence for its claims, it does make many dire predictions

“Earth’s escalating population is expected to top 9 billion people by 2050 and climb to 11 billion people by 2100, according to a United Nations report. Feeding that population will require more arable land even as swelling oceans consume fertile coastal zones and river deltas, driving people to seek new places to dwell.”

Yes, predictions about rising sea levels submerging the land have been floated for decades. No evidence of it happening though.

For the last six years, Canadian lawyer François Crépeau has served as the United Nations’ leading investigator and expert on the human rights of migrants. His post put him on the frontlines of an international crisis, during some of the most challenging years in recent memory.

The CBC links this UN page. It will be done in another article. Bottom line, the UN views migration (even illegal immigration) as a human right.

“François Crépeau: I should start by saying that migration is part of humankind, of who we are. We were born as a species 250,000 years ago in Africa. We came out of Africa around 70,000 years ago, arrived in Australia 60,000 years ago when there was a land bridge, entered Europe 40,000 years ago when the ice retreated, and entered North America between 20 and 25,000 years ago.

Since then, we’ve moved around all the time. We are a migrating animal species. The numbers are high today, but they represent on average 3 per cent of the world population. We’re told by anthropologists and sociologists that this was the proportion 50 years ago, and this was the proportion 100 years ago. [Migration] is the constant of who we are.

The problem we’re facing today, what we call a crisis, is because we invented — about 400 to 500 years ago — borders. We implemented borders in the second half of the 19th century when we invented the passport. So for the past 200 years, we’ve had this idea that we should stop people at borders, but 200 years is very little as compared to 250,000 years.”

Nice history lesson, but where we were 250,000 years ago, or 20,000 years ago is irrelevant. He makes an argument since that because humans have moved around for centuries, that actual borders and border enforcement are a strange an abhorrent concept.

He either doesn’t get (or pretends not to get) that borders and nations are what allows societies to function. People united by heritage, language, culture, traditions, and yes, ethnicity have formed the basis of societies for a very, VERY long time. Though the concept of a nation-state is newer, the principles behind it are not.

“Michael Enright: This is the whole idea of the sovereign state — that sovereignty allows nation states to control their borders and keep people out.

It’s been said to be one of the attributes of state sovereignty, but it’s never happened. All borders are porous and democratic borders are more porous than others. Even the Soviet Union had porous borders. At that time, the people we called the smugglers and we present as terrible criminals today were actually helping people getting out of USSR, and we called them heroes.”

Yes, borders are porous, but they “shouldn’t” be. They exist for a purpose: to be a barrier and an outside limit for that nation.

“I think states have to accept that borders are not meant to stop everyone they would like to stop. Borders may mean knowing who enters and stays in the country. In order to get that knowledge, you have to have people come to border guards so that they can be identified, numbered, etc. In order to do that you have to provide them with papers. If you try to stop everyone you don’t like, the only thing you do is you create underground markets for smugglers.

A question of terminology here: what’s the difference between a refugee and migrant?
‘Refugee’ is defined in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees. It’s someone who is outside his or her country of origin and fears persecution for five reasons: race, religion, nationality, belonging to a particular social group, and political opinions.

Refugees are a kind of migrant. But there are many other people who do not fear persecution or who fear many other things: people who are fleeing drought, tsunamis, poverty. These are good reasons to try to move somewhere else. This is a social stress, and migration has always been a human answer to social stress. It’s going to continue, and we have to adapt to that rather than try to refuse it.”

(1) Okay, this person flat out says that borders are not meant to stop everyone. Yeah, that “is” what they are for.

(2) If you stop everyone you don’t like, you create underground markets for smugglers? Sure, if someone isn’t allowed it, for whatever reason, just pay someone to smuggle them in.

(3) “Providing papers” is standard practice when you show up at a foreign border. Border guards need to know who people are, and whether they are admissible or not.

(4) Yes, refugees are something different than migrant, but throughout this article, you blur the lines. You don’t seem to care if they are fleeing some legitimate horror, or are just looking for a better life.

(5) “fleeing drought, tsunamis, poverty”? Poverty isn’t a natural disaster, and none of these are legitimate reasons to be considered a refugee. It is just blurring the lines here.

“In the last six years, in your position with the UN, you’ve travelled around the world. You’ve visited detention centres, camps, places where people try to cross borders. What stands out in your mind now from those visits?

I was expecting this to be very grim. And what stood out from day one, when visiting detention centres or camps, was the sheer determination, the grit, the courage of those people — the fact that even if they were detained, in their mind they were already somewhere else. They were already in the next step of their journey. They might be sent back home, but they would come back.

They are going to come whether we like it or not, because this is what humankind has always done. They are going to try to find a place where they can thrive, flourish, feed their kids and educate their kids. They don’t do it, often, because they like it. They do it because that’s where the future lies for themselves and their families.”

This is creepy. There is almost an awe that these migrants — attempting to enter illegally — will just keep trying again and again. And in the next paragraph, reiterating that it is people looking for a better life. Economic migrants, not refugees.

“Some countries have responded to this influx of refugees and migrants into Europe by trying to close their borders. You say there’s no such thing as a fully sealed border.

I mean, you can seal a border that deflects migration to other weak points along the border, but borders are very long. I suppose you could put a soldier every 10 meters with orders to shoot on sight. Democracies don’t do that, really.

If you try to stop [migration], the only thing you’re creating is an underground market for criminals. That’s what’s happened with the prohibition era between Canada and the U.S. We made the fortune of several Montreal families. That’s what’s happening with 40 years of the war on drugs. The cartels are not cowed, and are deadlier than ever.”

The pattern throughout the article is that people have the right to migrate — wherever, whenever, however — they want. There is no sympathy shown for the host nations who are forced to provide costs for security. No sympathy for the housing, education, health care, etc… that these open border policies force on host nations.

It is undemocratic to defend your border? Does a nation just “give up” enforcement if the illegal immigrants are determined to cross?

This is the same kind of nonsensical arguments that “safe injection sites” are founded on: provide for these people, otherwise, they will hurt themselves. Selfish.

This is not really surprising to read though. The UN has made it clear repeatedly that it DOES NOT respect national borders.

“But do nations have a moral responsibility to take in migrants?
I don’t think it’s a question of moral responsibility. It’s a question of facing the facts. Migrants are going to come.

Migrations occur because of push and pull factors. We very often discuss the push factors — environmental catastrophes, violence, war, economic deprivation. We never talk about the pull factors.

The main pull factor for countries in the global north is that we have huge labour markets that need those migrants. The undocumented migrants we have in Canada and Europe and the U.S., they all work. They all perform economic functions and there are millions of employers ready to employ them.”

A bit of honesty here. He says screw morality.

But that is where the honesty ends. True, there are many who do work, but there are many more (especially from the Middle East and Africa), who do not work, and are an economic burden.

Furthermore, there is no mention of the damage done to host nations, even by those working. A huge influx of workers leads to more competition for jobs, drives down wages, and often sees citizens being replaced in favour of cheap foreign labour.

“What about the suggestion that migrants coming into my country will somehow change or subvert the common culture?

That’s often heard. It’s not supported by social science. The biggest changes in our culture are linked to generational changes.. For my grandparents, divorce was unthinkable. My parents’ generation did that. For my parents’ generation, gay marriage was unthinkable. My generation did that. For my generation, more open borders is probably unthinkable. The next generation will do that.

Changes in values are much more important because of the passage of time — because we react to what our parents did — than by people coming in. We haven’t seen a change in democratic values because we had millions of people coming from undemocratic countries.”

Finally a good question, but the answers are chilling

(1) The speaker is either not aware, or deliberately lying, about mass migration changing the culture. Particularly with Islamic immigration, there is nothing but culture clash and violence.

(2) The speaker says he believes open borders will become a reality.

“Isn’t there an argument to be put forward that countries like France or Sweden have found it very difficult to integrate migrants into the common culture?

No one ever said that welcoming migrants was easy. It’s always been difficult. There are ways of making it easier — putting people in language courses very early on, training, trying to have mechanisms so that the skills and experience they have can be translated into Canadian experience and skills.

Countries like France have had migrants for generations. But in the post-war period they have turned a complete blind eye to integration, because all those migrant workers of the 50s, 60s and 70s were supposed to go back home, and France never realised that they would stay. So integration was not part of the process.

You have a marginalized community if you don’t have proper integration policies. Now, that is true for migrants. But that is true for Roma people in in Europe. That is true for Aboriginal people in Canada. That is true for poor people in most of our cities. It’s true for older people. Integration is not simply an immigration problem; it’s a social problem that we collectively have for several communities who are excluded from the mainstream.”

Notice that again there is no concern for the host countries now forced to deal with many thousands of “migrants”.

But an interesting point, you need proper integration. But if people are just going to migrate anyway, then all of this is cast aside. Again, it is selfish to just force these burdens on host countries.

And this is to say nothing of Islam, which rejects assimilation, and attempts to conquer and dominate anyway, via mass migration. Let’s be clear, Islam is a political ideology, not a religion.

“What about the argument of politicians and people who say, well, embedded in the intake of migrants, there may be terrorists who pose a threat to my individual and national security?

That’s true. There are bad apples in every community. There are bad apples in our communities who have been here for several centuries, and there are bad people in Aboriginal communities, and there are bad people in immigrant communities. That exists. It’s true. So, we could exclude everyone, try to prevent everyone from coming.

The issue is, if you talk to anti-terrorism people, they are not interested in migration policies, and they will tell you as much. Migration policy, stopping everyone at the border, it doesn’t give [them] any information on the precise person who poses a danger. To identify a person who poses danger, this is intelligence, and intelligence means groundwork with communities. Most terrorist attacks in the global north have been done by people who were either born or integrated in those countries.”

Going out of the way to miss the point. Should we not bother with borders and screening at all then, since bad apples have gotten through? Moreover, if we can determine who is not a good fit, then it makes it more likely to prevent their radicalised children from becoming a threat to the public.

“How young would they be, the ones that are alone?
Most of them are between 13 and 18. You have a very small minority who are younger, sometimes 9, 10, 11. They are often not those who are found on boats, because they simply don’t have the social capital to be able to negotiate that. But they will be found, for example, trying to cross into the U.S. from Mexico.

The older ones, 13 to 18 — this is an age where you become an adult in many societies. So we consider them as children, and they are in terms of their development, but certainly they don’t take the responsibilities of children. They take the responsibilities of adults. In countries like Afghanistan, where often the men have disappeared due to conflict, the oldest boy at 14 or 15 becomes the man of the family and does what it takes.”

Actually, there have been many cases of adult men claiming to be boys for 2 reasons: 1/ harder to deport; and 2/ more generous welfare. It has gotten so bad in Europe they started doing bone scans to better estimate ages.

“How much of the resistance to migration, to migrants, to refugees, is simple old-fashioned bigotry or racism? When you hear David Cameron, the former British prime minister, talking about migrants as a “swarm” and then his foreign secretary calls them “marauding” and, of course, we know what the current president of the United States thinks — how much of that is just pure racism?

I think racism and bigotry is a great percentage of the populist nationalist discourse on migration, and we have to understand why it’s possible.

We’ve had bigotry, racism and discrimination against all marginalized groups in society forever. The Jews, the Roma, women, Aboriginals. I mean, you name them. Slowly these people started fighting back, claiming their rights as equal citizens. Industrial workers fought back, and women fought back, and Indigenous people fought back. Gays and lesbians fought back.

It’s only when they started coming out and saying publicly, “we’re not going to take it anymore,” that politicians started changing their tune and stopping doing sexist jokes — well, they still do sexist jokes, but in much less quantity than when I was young.

This is not going to happen anytime soon for migrants. They don’t vote. They have no influence on politicians whatsoever, and they don’t participate in the public debates. Normally you would make policies with the people concerned. Try to imagine policies about women made by committees of men, as it was done 100 years ago. Today it would sound ludicrous. Well, migration policies are made by people who are not migrants and have no idea what migration means in most countries.”

(a) Folks, if you oppose mass illegal migration, chances are it is because you are a racist and a bigot.

(b) Illegal immigrants are just another discriminated against group? Really?

(c) Illegal immigrants don’t vote in Canada — yet. But there are moves being made to change that.

(d) They don’t influence or participate in debate? Have you turned on a TV lately?

Final Thoughts
This review doesn’t cover every passage. However, it is disturbing: CBC, our state funded broadcaster airing a speaker who blatantly promotes open borders.

He is not pushed or challenged on his beliefs. Nor are the demands and consequences imposed on the Canadian (or other host nation) explored. Remember, The public will be the ones footing the bill for this mass migration.

There seems to be little concern for: 1/ medical screening; 2/ police screening; 3/ state security screening; 4/ language abilities; 5/ cultural compatibility; or general employment prospects. The entire article is written though the lens of those wishing — no demanding — access to whatever country they wish. Remember this quote:

For my grandparents, divorce was unthinkable. My parents’ generation did that. For my parents’ generation, gay marriage was unthinkable. My generation did that. For my generation, more open borders is probably unthinkable. The next generation will do that.

National sovereignty be damned.

Poly #1: CPC Supports UN Global Migration Compact (& More)

(Rempel, starting 4:48, dodging the issue)


(A fine review of Rempel by CanandaPoli. Watch his channel.)

Who says democracy doesn’t always work? (Rhetorical question). After repeated attempts to contact Conservative MPs, and getting not a single response, it seemed better to try at home. To be fair, the MP didn’t know I had any party loyalty.

I sat down with my Member of Parliament, Cathy McLeod, on Tuesday, November 13. While mainly wanting information on the U.N. Global Migration Compact, I actually got a lot of information on other topics. In 45 minutes we covered a lot. And to be frank, her honesty was quite refreshing. That will be listed below.

Cathy McLeod, CPC MP

Futile Attempt To Get CPC MPs to Email on UN Compact

(Sent in several emails): all CPC MPs were contacted to get information on the global migration compact. When this failed, I went to my local MP in Kamloops-Thompson.

From: editor@canucklaw.ca
To: Ziad.Aboultaif@parl.gc.ca, Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca, harold.albrecht@parl.gc.ca, Leona.Alleslev@parl.gc.ca, dean.allison@parl.gc.ca, david.anderson@parl.gc.ca, Mel.Arnold@parl.gc.ca
Cc: John.Barlow@parl.gc.ca, blaine.calkins@parl.gc.ca
Bcc: John.Brassard@parl.gc.ca, Sylvie.Boucher@parl.gc.ca

From: editor@canucklaw.ca
To: colin.carrie@parl.gc.ca, michael.chong@parl.gc.ca, Alupa.Clarke@parl.gc.ca, Michael.Cooper@parl.gc.ca, Gerard.Deltell@parl.gc.ca, Kerry.Diotte@parl.gc.ca, Todd.Doherty@parl.gc.ca, earl.dreeshen@parl.gc.ca
Cc: Jim.Eglinski@parl.gc.ca, Rosemarie.Falk@parl.gc.ca, Ted.Falk@parl.gc.ca, diane.finley@parl.gc.ca
Bcc: Rheal.Fortin@parl.gc.ca, cheryl.gallant@parl.gc.ca, Bernard.Genereux@parl.gc.ca

From: editor@canucklaw.ca
To: Garnett.Genuis@parl.gc.ca, Marilyn.Gladu@parl.gc.ca, Joel.Godin@parl.gc.ca, jacques.gourde@parl.gc.ca, Rachael.Harder@parl.gc.ca, randy.hoback@parl.gc.ca, Matt.Jeneroux@parl.gc.ca, Pat.Kelly@parl.gc.ca
Cc: peter.kent@parl.gc.ca, Dane.Lloyd@parl.gc.ca, ben.lobb@parl.gc.ca, tom.lukiwski@parl.gc.ca
Bcc: dave.mackenzie@parl.gc.ca, Larry.Maguire@parl.gc.ca, Richard.Martel@parl.gc.ca

From: editor@canucklaw.ca
To: Kelly.McCauley@parl.gc.ca, phil.mccoleman@parl.gc.ca, Glen.Motz@parl.gc.ca, John.Nater@parl.gc.ca, rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca
Cc: Alex.Nuttall@parl.gc.ca, deepak.obhrai@parl.gc.ca, Erin.OToole@parl.gc.ca
Bcc: Pierre.Paul-Hus@parl.gc.ca, lisa.raitt@parl.gc.ca, Alain.Rayes@parl.gc.ca, scott.reid@parl.gc.ca

From: editor@canucklaw.ca
To: Michelle.Rempel@parl.gc.ca, blake.richards@parl.gc.ca, Bob.Saroya@parl.gc.ca, andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca, Jamie.Schmale@parl.gc.ca, Martin.Shields@parl.gc.ca, bev.shipley@parl.gc.ca
Cc: robert.sopuck@parl.gc.ca, kevin.sorenson@parl.gc.ca, bruce.stanton@parl.gc.ca, Mark.Strahl@parl.gc.ca
Bcc: Shannon.Stubbs@parl.gc.ca, david.sweet@parl.gc.ca, david.tilson@parl.gc.ca, brad.trost@parl.gc.ca

Media Inquiry on UN Global Migration Compact (to all CPC members)
Sat 10/11/2018 01:55
From: editor@canucklaw.ca
To: dave.vankesteren@parl.gc.ca, Arnold.Viersen@parl.gc.ca, Cathay.Wagantall@parl.gc.ca, mark.warawa@parl.gc.ca, chris.warkentin@parl.gc.ca, Kevin.Waugh@parl.gc.ca
Cc: Len.Webber@parl.gc.ca, alice.wong@parl.gc.ca, David.Yurdiga@parl.gc.ca, Bob.Zimmer@parl.gc.ca


I work for a small independent website out of BC, covering law and legal topics.

This inquiry has to do with the UN Global Migration Compact, which Trudeau is expected to sign in December.

Most Canadians would be shocked at the proposal of giving the UN control over our immigration laws. However, I have not been able to find any definitive information from your party. Moreover, I don’t see any indication that the CPC is even concerned about this.

This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Canadians need to know who sides with Canadians, and who sides with globalists.

And your immigration ”Shadow Minister”, Michelle Rempel seems determined to avoid the topic altogether. I have attempted several times unsuccessfully to get an answer.

2 Questions:

(1) Do you support or oppose the UN global migration compact?

(2) Do you support or oppose Petition E-1906 (from Max Bernier) to reject the compact?



Please sign this petition
PETITION E-1906 (IMMIGRATION), to reject the ”Global Migration Compact”
Keep Canada’s borders intact

To date, no one has answered the email.

When emailing didn’t work, I took a visit to the local MP. Here is a summary:

(1) U.N. Global Migration Compact
This was the topic that was hardest to get any information out of Ms. McLeod. After asking several times about the Migration Compact, she did eventually admit that the CPC does not oppose it. Rather they will ”study” the issue, and likely get experts to appear.

Regarding Petition E-1906 (yes, this petition sponsored by Maxime Bernier), she dismissed it as a populous move, and trying to attract attention.

Ms. McLeod said that since it was non-binding, there was little to worry about. There was no risk of people flooding in, that this was nothing like the situation in Central America. She also seemed uninterested when it was pointed out that the UN doesn’t respect nations’ borders.

The United Nations Migration Agency, IOM, is providing support and assistance to migrants crossing Central America in several self-styled caravans, while expressing concern over “the stress and demands” they are placing on host countries.

All migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status – IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico

All things said, it was strange how indifferent Ms. McLeod seemed about the entire Compact. She claimed that there would be no giving up on Canada’s sovereignty and borders. There was no reason to be alarmed and that other scandals going on merited far more outrage.

Personally, I think the CPC fully supports this UN deal, but doesn’t want to talk about it since it would be political suicide. Better to stay quiet.

(2) Disdain for Maxime Bernier
Ms. McLeod didn’t hide her disdain for Maxime Bernier. It was really the same old talking points about how he is selfish, and is more concerned with his ego. Interestingly, she never said ”how” his policies were bad, or how CPC policies were better. And that leads to the next topic….

(3) No Platform on Website
Those looking to run for office often put their platform online so anyone can take a look. However, the CPC has decided not to. Ms. McLeod explained that posting a platform was unnecessary, since an election would not be for a year. It would be rolled out bit by bit.

When I explained that other ”right leaning” parties, such as People’s Party (Bernier); the Libertarian Party (Moen); and the Nationalist Party (Patron), all did. The response was that (to paraphrase), unless there is actually an election, there is no need to post what you stand for.

Bernier claims that the CPC governs by polls, and their beliefs change along with the polls. It seems he has a point. People’s Party has a detailed agenda up, while Conservatives just post stories bashing Trudeau.

(4) Fake Refugees Coming Into Canada
The Conservative Party is willing to declare the entire US/Canada border a ”POINT OF ENTRY”, at which a potential refugee would have to cross and apply for asylum.

However, there is no real will for removing some 30,000-40,000 people who have illegally crossed from the United States. Declaring the whole border a ”POINT OF ENTRY” does nothing to the people already here. Further, Ms. McLeod gave the impression that the CPC wasn’t willing to take harsh measures to prevent what were obviously fraudulent claims. New York is not a war zone.

And while not willing to immediately deport people sneaking across the border, CPC would shorten the refugee hearings. A start, I suppose.

(5) Corporate Welfare
From the talk today, I have to wonder if the CPC even supports free trade at all. On the topics of ”bailouts” and of ”subsidies”, I was told that yes, this is how things are done in the real world. Apparently (my paraphrasing) major businesses can only succeed if they get large amounts of taxpayer money.

Note: One could argue that nationalising might be a better option. Although taxpayers are still on the hook, at least they would be part owners.

(6) Supply Management
Yes, the Conservative Party supports farmers, and Bernier keeps bringing it up for political points. That was pretty much the response.

(7) Equalization Payments
As far as attracting votes, I got the impression it would be political suicide to attempt any real reform.

(8) Terri McClintic and Gladue/Ipeelee
To the Conservative’s credit, they were quite thorough in bringing this up, and in seeing a child killer put back in prison.

However, there seems to be no will to address the underlying issue: the racist laws in Canada, which permitted this abomination to happen. Different sentencing guidelines base on race or ethnicity have no place in an equal society.

While living conditions and history were cited by the MP as justifications, it was refuted easily. Even if harsh 3rd world conditions result in higher crime, then lessening the punishments won’t erase the 3rd world conditions. Removing the effect won’t stop the cause.

(9) Statistics Canada
Originally, I thought this was a hoax story. It was actually quite nice to see the CPC fighting against this Orwellian scheme to raid the banking information of 500,000 Canadians (per year). See here, and see here.

Global News first exposed this story, and it became a national outrage. It was stunning to see this attempt at prying such personal data for ”research purposes”. Due to public backlash, formal complaints and legal challenges, the program is on hold indefinitely.

(10) Back Door Gun Registry
This was mainly in reference to bill C-71, and Ms. McLeod admitted that it was a ”backdoor gun registry”, and that CPC will oppose it. That was nice to hear.

(11) Carbon Tax, Paris Accord
The CPC opposes the carbon tax, which does nothing to reduce pollution. But to be fair, why vote for the Paris Accord at all, which specifically “endorses” a carbon tax? It does so in several passages.

However, the CPC still supports the Paris Accord, and in our talk, Ms. McLeod conflated carbon dioxide (which is plant food used in photosynthesis), with actual carbon products to be eliminated. They oppose the tax, but still support the Accord, as they don’t want to be seen as anti-environmental.

(12) Civility in the House of Commons
This touched a nerve, mentioning the childish behaviour, grandstanding, and being evasive that goes on in the house. It didn’t matter who sat in power, the antics were an embarrassment to watch. Here is one of a great many examples.

The response to my comments were that things still get done at times.

(13) M-103 — anti blasphemy motion
Ms. McLeod said that it was non-binding, but shurgged off my comments that it would (if it became law), prohibit truthful speech, and that it gives preferential treatment.

Are Conservatives an Alternative to the Liberals?
Not really. With all of the hype notwithstanding, there appear to be few differences:

(1) Conservatives oppose the carbon tax, while supporting Paris Accord
(2) Conservatives actually support legal gun owners

That is about it. Even the identity politics and pandering they are starting to embrace even more. Legitimate questions about multiculturalism and Canadian values is off limits. CPC does go out its way to avoid saying anything meaningful on the subject, or its challenges. Bernier found that out the hard way. Liberal issues like corporate welfare; trade barriers; and equalization are embraced.

Someone like Michelle Rempel is actually quite dangerous. Rather than opposing the disaster of a government, she creates the illusion of opposing. The so-called ”opposition MPs” focus on the small details, it makes one wonder how sincere they are.

To be fair, the CPC does play the outrage card quite well when scandals break: (a) Ethics breaches; (b) Terri McClintic; (c) StatsCan; (d) Illegal immigration in Canada. However, ”any” party could do this, and it serves as a distraction for the lack of real differention between LPC and CPC. One can legitimately ask: what is conservative about this party, other than the name?

Regarding the UN Global Migration Compact: the CPC is not opposing it, but will go through the motions of ”studying” it. See Point #1.

It seems that walking away from traditional parties was the right one. If all the CPC has to say is ”we’re not Trudeau”, while acting Liberal-lite, then I want nothing to do with them. While getting some honest information from my MP was nice, it actually did confirm everything Max Bernier said when he left the party.

It could be very messy for ”Conservatives” in October 2019.

Update to the Posting
There have been a few questions as to the authenticity of the article.

After pondering it, I’ve decided to post it. The voices are a bit wonky, haven’t been able to fix it yet,

Again, CPC doesn’t actually “oppose” UN global migration compact.

Further Update to the Posting
The CPC has now said that they oppose the UN Compact. More on that in another video

CBC Propaganda #1: Canada Should be 100 Million People (w/Audio)

(CBC aired a piece on October 12, from “Century Initiative”)

CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.

CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.

(A 9:37 long interview aired on the CBC)

On October 12, CBC aired this piece, promoting the boosting of Canada’s population to 100 million by the year 2100.

In fairness to CBC, it looks like they are just airing the opinion piece, rather than simply endorsing it. However, it appears that no scrutiny or fact checking has actually been done.

From the audio, it is clear what questions are NOT asked. Nothing about:
(a) Integration issues form vastly different cultures and backgrounds
(b) Proper identification and screening
(c) Any potential health issues, along with transmissible diseases
(d) Requirements to speak or learn the language
(e) No addressing the work shortages current Canadians face.

From the CBC Article

If Canada sticks with current practices, our population will grow to between 51 to 53 million by the end of the century.
A non-profit group called The Century Initiative advocates doubling that, to 100 million. That’s about triple our current population.
“We recognize that it may be counterintuitive,” Shari Austin, CEO of the Century Initiative, told The Sunday Edition’s guest host Peter Armstrong.
It’s the only way, she argued, that Canada can face the economic challenges ahead and strengthen its international influence.
Currently, Canada accepts 310,000 immigrants per year. The Century Initiative suggests that number should be closer to 450,000.
“It’s a big, audacious goal,” she conceded. But it has been done before. Since 1945 to the present day, Canada’s population has tripled.
Long term view and short term pain
According to Austin, if this goal isn’t met, Canada will struggle financially and governments won’t have enough to pay for the services we have come to expect in this country.
“We need to be prepared to put more money into certain things that will make sure our growth is successful,” she warned.
She also sees this as a way to create “a more diverse, more interesting, dynamic population.”
“It’s an exciting opportunity to be proactive about what we want to look like in fifty years, in a hundred years. It’s also an opportunity to leave a better world for our kids and our grandkids.”

Century Initiative’s site is here, and it’s “team” is here. Here are a few quotes off of its website, which are chilling in how blunt they are.

Our Purpose Ensure an influential and prosperous future for Canada
Our Vision A competitive global nation of 100 Million Canadians unified by diversity and prosperity
Our Mission Build a prosperous, bold, and dynamic future for Canada by driving national discourse on strategic population growth and stimulating change through coordinated action and thought leadership
Our Values Ambition, Pluralism, Prosperity

A brief history of the Century Initiative
The Century Initiative was started by a group of prominent Canadians concerned about the Canada we will leave to the next generation. After extensive issue mapping and discussion of the potential for positive impact, it was decided that the Century Initiative will focus on responsibly growing the population of Canada to 100 million by 2100. This will significantly impact our economic strength at home and our influence abroad.

The country we will leave to the next generation risks becoming far less prosperous and far less relevant on the world stage. Canada is on track for a 53% decline in annual real GDP growth. Canada’s population base is currently forecast to be 53 million in the year 2100. This places Canada outside of the top 45 countries, behind Madagascar and Burkina Faso. Interested in prosperity, growth and pluralism, and motivated to reverse these trends, the group established the Century Initiative.

The Century Initiative is focused on responsibly and thoughtfully growing the population of Canada to 100 million by 2100. Success for this project will be measured by Canadians in the year 2100 saying that the project has helped define the country and has had a transformational impact on Canada in the 21st Century.

Influencing Change
With your input, we aspire to define a vision for Canada in 2100 and offer insights on best practices, possible actions, and avenues for impact.

We will collaborate with members of the private and public sectors and consult with the public at large. We aspire to shine a light on challenges and opportunities, share best practices, motivate corporate employers to act, and convene conversations among interested parties. We will collect data, seek out the advice of experts, assess Canada’s position, set goals, and build a business case and strategy to achieve the goals for each pillar.

We seek to develop an inaugural initiative that builds upon this work. It will focus at least in part on unlocking Canada’s potential through bringing the best of what a new immigrant population can provide: above average engagement, health outcomes and new entrepreneurial activity.

There you have it: CBC published an article by this “Century Initiative”, which is calling for the boosting of Canada’s population to 100 million by the end of the century. Apparently the 51-53 million it is already projected to be isn’t enough.

Of course, each person is allowed to have their own opinion. However, it seems unsettling that CBC, which is funded by our taxes, would air such a piece. If it were just this website on its own, it would be just another globalist, open borders shill. But again, we are forced to fund coverage of this.

Century Initiative’s site is surprisingly limited when it comes to details. Here is an email I sent to them:


I came across your site and am rather troubled by what I see. You advocate for boosting Canada’s population to 100 million, but many details are lacking:

(1) Who funds you exactly, and what is their political ideology?

(2) Does CBC endorse the article you did?

(3) Why should Canada be concerned with tripling its population?

(4) What would you say to critics who would argue that this is unnecessary, and just globalist propaganda?

(5) With this focus on mass immigration, why don’t you mention the many challenges that it has had, such as: (a) incompatible cultures; (b) language barriers; (c) difficulties doing proper screening — ISIS; (d) high unemployment, (e) stresses on the host nation; (f) medical and health issues and so on?

(6) Why focus on immigration when their are so many Canadian youth struggling to get meaningful work?

(7) Why focus on immigration to boost population when there are so many Canadians who would like to have more kids?

(8) Is your goal to change the nature and culture of Canada through mass immigration?

(9) Is your goal to dismantle or take away any of Canada’s sovereignty?

(10) Is your goal economic migration or “humanitarian” migration? And considering how many “refugees” become public charges, would that not be a drain on the public funds?

(11) Do you believe in open borders or globalism?

These questions have been sent via their contact page, and as of the writing of this article, unanswered. However, should a response come forward, it will be posted in full.

This is definitely worth looking into. CBC is allowing this sort of thing on tax-payer funded news without any question. Who are these people at Century Initiative?

Canada Should Leave The U.N. Entirely

(The U.S. leaving the UN Human Rights Council. The violators are part of the council)

(The Hungarian Foreign Minister defending “legal-only” migration)

CLICK HERE, for the main page of the United Nations (in English).

1. Previous Solutions Offered

A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.

2. Reasons To Dump The UN

The main argument here is that Canada would be MUCH better off as a country if we left the United Nations, permanently. No deals, no special arrangements, no reform, just leave forever.

For the political junkies, take this to heart: traditional arguments of “left v.s. right” are no longer relevant. The choice we must face is the “globalist v.s. nationalist” one. Is Canada a sovereign nation, one that determines its own future, or is it a U.N. colony or puppet state? If Canada is to be a free and independent nation, then the U.N. is the last thing we need. Here are several reasons, each to be explored.

(1) The U.N. Articles are incompatible with free and sovereign nations.
(2) The U.N. destroys borders through political means.
(3) The U.N. destroys borders through direct means.
(4) The U.N. destroys national sovereignty
(5) The U.N. erodes individual cultures and societies.
(6) The U.N. has become a money pit, with the climate change scam
(7) The U.N. funds do not go where they are supposed to
(8) The U.N. “councils” are beyond hypocritical.
(9) The U.N. would just be a bigger version of the E.U.

Of course, this list could be much, MUCH longer. However, the point is to demonstrate that the U.N. is a globalist institution, and that it has no respect for individual nations.

(1) The U.N. Articles are incompatible with free and sovereign nations.

Click here, for the full text, but here are some worth noting:

Article 8
The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs.

This is a bit amusing, since many of its members do not believe in women’s rights.

Article 19
A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member.

No money, no vote. Sort of a pay-to-play system.

Article 24
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.
The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.

Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

So, if 8 nations got together, they could override the nation’s sovereignty. Great idea.

Article 32
Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council or any state which is not a Member of the United Nations, if it is a party to a dispute under consideration by the Security Council, shall be invited to participate, without vote, in the discussion relating to the dispute. The Security Council shall lay down such conditions as it deems just for the participation of a state which is not a Member of the United Nations.

Yes, no joke, you won’t even get a vote if you are not on the council.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations

If this weren’t the United Nations doing this, it would seem an awful lot like the mafia. There are more clauses, but the point here has been made. Signing on with the U.N. means losing control of your country.

(2) The U.N. destroys borders through political means.
This was addressed in an earlier article. The U.N. does try to push mass immigration (a.k.a. “open borders”) on the rest of the world. The latest effort is the global compact for migration, which would effectively give the U.N. control over the host countries’ borders.

Interestingly, the U.N. site has both a: compact for migration and a compact on refugees. However, the U.N. seems hell bent on pushing migrants.

(3) The U.N. destroys borders through direct means.
It is not enough for the U.N. to destroy borders with political means. The agency also directly aids and abets others, such as the Honduran migrant caravan. The U.N. openly admits helping to help thousands of economic migrants “illegally” get into the U.S.

And they admit it here.

“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” said Christopher Gascon, UN Migration’s Chief of Mission in Mexico.

In other words, we don’t care if they are illegal economic migrants. How is this not human smuggling? Further, the U.N. has been known to help flood Europe with more than 1 million “refugees” since 2015.

(4) The U.N. destroys national sovereignty
Too many examples to cite, but here are a few from the U.N. website.

(a) If you think Trudeau is bad, gender neutral language is a serious thing here.

(b) The U.N. is big on stopping terrorism, but its efforts are seriously called into question considering how much it pushes migration.

(c) The Human Rights Council has ruled that the French burka ban is a human rights violation. Interestingly, the Council doesn’t mention that being forced to wear it is a human right, or the security risk it poses is an issue.

(d) Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without gender quotas.

(e) Here is some Trudeau style concern for ISIS terrorists.

(5) The U.N. erodes individual cultures and societies.

The U.N pages make many references to respecting religion and culture, particularly on the migration pages. Funny, they never mention assimilation

Throughout its many sections on migration, the U.N. talks about how religions and cultures need to be respected, but notably absent is any expectation to respect the host country. Acceptance has to be a 2-way street.

(6) The U.N. has become a money pit, with the climate change scam
This was covered in a another article. The short story is that the U.N. is knowingly pushing a bogus climate change narrative, in order to extract large amounts of money, for “polluting” with carbon dioxide.

(7) The U.N. funds do not go where they are supposed to
There are many examples, but an infamous one was the oil for food program imposed on Iraq after the 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Under the scheme, Iraq could keep exporting oil, and the proceeds were supposed to help the citizenry. However, the program served largely to enrich Saddam Hussein and his family, while leaving the population in poor conditions.

(8) The U.N. “councils” are beyond hypocritical.
This was alluded to in the video at the start.
Members with the worst human rights records are part of the Human Rights Council. See here for the 2018 list. The list includes: Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, U.A.E., and others

The U.N. Status of Women Council is just as big a joke. Their membership, elected for 4 year terms, includes: Algeria, Congo, Kenya, Iraq, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and others.

The Human Rights Council is filled with member states who don’t believe in human rights. The Status of Women Council is filled with member states who don’t believe women should have equal right. Kind of flies in the face of the U.N.’s own declarations.

(9) The U.N. would just be a bigger version of the E.U.
Where to start here. The E.U. triggered Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty against both Hungary and Poland for rejecting “migrant quotas”, which would strip them of their voting rights. Yes, Poland and Hungary might lose voting rights for daring to say that “they” will choose who lives in their own countries.

Italy has had its budget blocked by the EU. Yes, the democratically elected government needs to get approval of their own budget. Brexit was a rejection of E.U. controls, and Nigel Farage addresses it well.

While there are too many examples to cite, the point with #9, is that the European Union effectively destroys the sovereignty of the European States. The U.N. would just be a global example of the same problem.

3. Does The UN Serve Any Purpose?

I would argue, yes, to a point. However, we need to be concerned with our borders, and the sovereignty of our national policies. Becoming a province of the U.N. will only destroy Canada, as will flooding our borders with migrants (the U.N. doesn’t pretend they are refugees at times).

As for worthwhile causes, it would be better to decide for ourselves on a case by case basis whether to add any funding, or to send any personnel.

The battle for Canada will not be Left v. Right, or of Liberal v. Conservative, or of Poor v. Rich. It will be of Globalism v. Nationalism. As such, Canada should get the heck out of the U.N.

Canada for Canadians.

Offering Something To The Other Side

Disclaimer: At the current time, I am affiliated with no party. These observations where made in (what seems like) a very different time.

Maxime Bernier makes policy arguments about why he left the CPC: (a) Equalization formula being unfair; (b) Supply management screwing over Canadians; (c) Free trade not supported by CPC members; (d) Trade war looming with U.S. over NAFTA and tariffs; (e) Corporate subsidies, to Ford, Bombardier, and others, which are a form of welfare; (f) Bloating bureaucracy with new ministers; (g) Vote buying in individual regions; (h) Refusing to discuss immigration and multiculturalism for fear of offending; (i) Pandering to ethnic groups and identity politics to buy votes; (j) Relying on polls and focus groups rather than having principles; (k) CPC has become morally bankrupt and stands for nothing; (l) Politics should be done differently

Andrew Scheer makes personal arguments about why Bernier left the party: (a) MB refusing to accept his 2017 loss; (b) MB is selfish; (c) MB needs to offer ideas and never did; (d) MB is putting personal ambition over party success.

At 0:20 (in the top video), Bernier states: ”My job is to offer solutions from a conservative perspective. Otherwise, what would be the point of getting involved in politics?”

Here is the main point of the article. Bernier started the PPC in order to advance conservative ideas, and to offer an alternative voice to millions of Canadians. However, there are some conservative policies that can benefit more left leaning voters as well, if the benefits are discussed honestly.

In order to attract Canadians from all areas on the political spectrum, it is necessary to offer ideas that benefit Canadians from all sides of the political spectrum. Not to pander to any particular group, but to offer common solutions.

Here are some ideas: (1) Lowering immigration; (2) Questioning identity politics; (3) Promoting unity; (4) Dismantling crown corporations; (5) Environmental Protection.

#1: Cutting Immigration Benefits Low Income Canadians

This is not to assert at all that there are not benefits to limited and controlled immigration. And to preempt any such claims, no, it is not a call to racial supremacy. However, there are a number of valid arguments to support this position:

(a) The employment rate is a supply/demand type of issue. When the number of job seekers (supply) rises, then the relative need (demand) falls. It means more people competing for fewer jobs, and that employers are in a position to pay less. That impacts lower earners the most. This is not racial claim in any way, just acknowledging a fact: more workers for less jobs drives down wages. Ann Coulter explains it very well.

(b) As social justice types like to point out, people usually don’t commit crime because they are bad, but often because of poverty, society, and lack of opportunities. To a degree, they are right. By that logic, wouldn’t it reduce some of the stressers that lead to crime?

(c) Housing prices, likewise, are also determined in a supply/demand fashion. See this article. More people competing for the same amount of housing drives prices up for both buying and renting.

(d) School learning may be drastically altered depending on the demographics and size of the immigration. For example, in California, Proposition 58 overturned the requirement that school be taught in English. Many parents were outraged that American born students were now having lessons taught in Spanish. This isn’t bigotry. The U.S. is an English country. And who attends public schools as opposed to private schools?

(e) Publicly funded health care is something the left claims is fundamental to being a Canadian. And to a degree, they are right. However, with higher immigration rates, it will put a burden on Canada’a public system, especially for those coming from countries where health care is relatively lacking. This results in longer wait times, and it won’t be the wealthy in those long waiting lines. It will be lower income people.

(f) If less money is spent on immigration programs, then there will be more money available to promotes Canadians to have more children. Which socio-economic group would benefit most from that?

(g) Regarding illegal immigration, the above still applies, but with the added downside that it is a slap in the face to those who come through legally. It rewards people for breaking the law, and punishes those who follow the law.

#2: Ending Identity Politics Benefits All Canadians?

This could have been added to #1, but after some thought, it deserves its own category.

That is explained here, here, here, and here. We do not need race hustlers like this, or like this.

While this sounds great in principle, how does one protect their identity otherwise? When hostile and incompatible cultures move to your country in large numbers, is it not your identity that is threatened? Does your way of life not risk being replaced by people who are cohesive, and who vote as a block?

In some sense this sounds lovely, but is unrealistic. The idea of ending identity politics only works when everyone is willing to do it, which of course is not the case.

That said, it still is baffling how people who support identity politics are offended by the idea of a national identity. A nation is reflected by its people. Rather than standing as one unit (albeit with some internal differences), those would support dividing the nation into small tribes that consider each other enemies.

#3: Unity is Our Strength, Regardless of Your Politics

The whole idea of multiculturalism is absurd. Having nothing in common with your neighbours does not make for a strong society. Tolerating everything, including this, becomes more important than defining what a nation is. To repeat, we can have differences between people, and different groups of people, but there has to be something that binds us together.

Civic nationalism is the concept that a nation and its people are held together by civic values, such as freedom and equality. The nation are bonded by abstract ideas, which are shared and promoted within. There certainly is a strong case to made that values and laws bind us.

However, what makes one civic nationalist country different than another? Don’t they all support freedom, tolerance and equality? And besides values, don’t people need something to bond them? If not values, then identity?

Tucker Carlson argued at PolitiCon that a common language is a strong unifier. Vladimir Putin argued that religion is such a unifier. Writer Steve Turley argues that religion and cultural traditions are what hold a society together. Candace Malcolm wrote that diversity is only one part of the picture. Maxime Bernier himself tweeted about focusing on traditions. All argue a form of ethno nationalism. (And no, it doesn’t have to be about race). There are many of these types of unifiers, but the underlying element is that the people have to have something in common. Values alone is insufficient.

Nations have been splitting up over the last century because they had nothing in common. They were balkanised. One exception is East and West Germany reuniting because they had a common language and culture.

It would be far more productive than what the status quo to have an honest discussion about what unites us as Canadians, and how we can make the society more cohesive. Unity is our strength.

#4: Dismantling Crown Corporations Makes Things Affordable

In short, a private business must operate efficiently in order to survive. If it delivers poor service, strikes frequently, or has huge cost overruns, then it goes out of business.

A government agency, for the most part, does not have to worry about such things. It is being supported by the public, and usually holds a monopoly. If it is run inefficiently, just raise taxes. If the workers strike every year, oh well. If the service and employees are truly awful, it doesn’t matter, as they are the only game in town.

2 such examples are ICBC, and Canada Post. Privatizing services where possible leads to more affordable products.

#5: Protecting the Environment Benefits Everyone

The UN global warming summits are a complete hoax. Polluting is okay as long as you pay a tax, or fly tens of thousands of people every year to summits to discuss cutting carbon emissions.

However, that is not to say there are not significant issues to address. There are: lacks of clean drinking water in areas; forest fires in the west annually; issues around oil extraction and pipelines; air quality in some areas; hazards in mining; forestry and invasive species; and many other problems.

The environment should be of everyone’s concern regardless of whether you view it from: an individual point of view, or a societal point of view. Unfortunately, when money and politics gets involved, honesty is about the first thing to go.

Admission: I don’t know nearly enough to advocate for specific policies. However, this is an issue which we have a common interest.

These are just a few ideas to consider, but in order to run a society effectively, something has to be offered to everyone. That said, it is much easier if the society is more homogenous and intact. It prevents fracturing.

Unity is strength.
Diversity (of thought) is strength.