Google has been officially registered to lobby the Federal Government since 2008. But don’t worry, it’s not like it will lead to major laws getting changed, or anything like that. Canuck Law is a serious site, and does not tolerate conspiracy theories.
1. Developments In Free Speech Struggle
There is already a lot of information on the free speech series on the site. Free speech, while an important topic, doesn’t stand on its own, and is typically intertwined with other categories. For background information for this, please visit: Digital Cooperation; the IGF, or Internet Governance Forum; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter; big tech collusion in coronavirus; Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal, and Facebook lobbying.
Google is currently in talks with the Federal Government if they install energy efficient or “smart” thermostats, and potential rebates. Presumably, these rebates would be financed by tax dollars or additional debt.
4. Google Lobbying On Many Subjects
Subject Matter Details Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
-Copyright Act, in respect of amendments related to user rights and intermediary liability.
-Copyright Act, in respect of reforms to the Copyright Board of Canada
-Income Tax Act, in respect of a proposed ‘digital renovation tax credit’ for small and medium sized businesses.
-Income Tax Act, specifically expanding section 19 to cover digital advertising.
. Policies or Program
–Broadcasting policy, specifically related to governing online content.
–COVID-19 pandemic, more specifically potential collaboration between the Government of Canada and Google on remote work practices, chatbots, community mobility reports, and network infrastructure.
-Consideration of the creation of a Government digital service, a central office to coordinate digital transformation of the Government of Canada
-Government of Canada consultation on Canadian Content in a Digital World
–Immigration and visa policies, specifically policies that will promote and maintain a highly-skilled workforce.
-Innovation policy, specifically policies or programs related to the adoption of technology by small and medium-sized enterprises.
-Intellectual Property Strategy, as it relates to intangible assets.
-Internet advertising policy, specifically the adoption of digital media and advertising by government.
-Internet policy, specifically as it relates to cyber-security and national security.
-Internet policy, specifically the implementation of policy affecting the governance of the internet.
-Policies that would encourage growth of The Toronto-Waterloo Region Corridor, an 100-km stretch that is the second largest technology cluster in North America and is a global centre of talent, growth, innovation and discovery
-Procurement policy, specifically policy related to the provision of technology services by the Government of Canada.
-Providing feedback to a Canada Revenue Agency employee on draft government communications training program
-Public service polices to create greater digital skills
-Public service policies to encourage more open government
-Taxation policy, specifically proposed changes to the taxation of technology companies.
–Technological developments related to artificial intelligence.
-Technology policy, specifically promoting the development of technological infrastructure through the Smart Cities Challenge.
. Policies or Program, Regulation
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), specifically provisions related to intellectual property and digital trade.
These are the things that Google is currently in talks with the Federal Government in order to implement.
It would be nice to have more information on what “network infrastructure” actually meant, but most people can probably guess what it is.
5. Google Lobbying Canadian Politicians
Former Facebook lobbyist, and current CPC leader, Erin O’Toole, was lobbied twice in 2018 by Google.
This is hardly an exhaustive list. Members of all parties have been lobbied for years by Google. There are some 300 communications reports listed in the Lobbying Registry.
6. WHO Partners With Social Media
WHO is working with manufacturers and distributors of personal protective equipment to ensure a reliable supply of the tools health workers need to do their job safely and effectively.
But we’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic.
Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous.
That’s why we’re also working with search and media companies like Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Tencent, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube and others to counter the spread of rumours and misinformation.
We call on all governments, companies and news organizations to work with us to sound the appropriate level of alarm, without fanning the flames of hysteria.
The World Health Organization openly admits to partnering with social media companies to “combat misinformation” related to this so-called pandemic. It was mid-February that this Munich Conference happened. On March 31, the Rakuten Viber app was launched by WHO, and on April 15, a Facebook app was set.
Misinformation, of course, is simply anything that conflicts with the ever-shifting official narrative.
7. Google Supports Free Speech On YouTube
Google demonstrates its commitment to free speech, by hiring 10,000 people to scrub videos from YouTube (which Google owns). Nothing to worry about, as only hateful and extremist content will be erased.
8. Nothing To See Here, People
Despite the vast array of subjects which Google is lobbying the Federal Government on, there is no need to be concerned. There is nothing malevolent about it. After all, Google would never lie or mislead.
In fact, social media companies are following the lead of the World Health Organization to ensure that only the official sources of information get released to the public.
The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; and (f) losses to communities when major employers leave. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.
2. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada
For much on efforts to replace the Canadian population, see here and see here. The scale which this goes on is quite mind blowing. Contrary to popular belief, mass LEGAL immigration is a much larger problem than the illegal kind, at least for now. That’s not to say that illegal crossings should be ignored.
On July 1, 2020, the United States, Mexico & Canada Agreement (USMCA) replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Some may wonder why this deal had to be replaced. However, upon reading the new treaty, it becomes clear that USMCA is far more reaching and covers areas which NAFTA didn’t. In short, this is not merely an alteration of NAFTA, but a new agreement which contains many more globalist provisions. This is far more than a trade agreement.
This review will not address all of the points of USMCA, just the more alarming or interesting ones.
5. National Treatment Provisions
Article 2.3: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of another Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994, including its interpretative notes, and to this end, Article III of the GATT 1994 and its interpretative notes are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement, mutatis mutandis.
2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a regional level of government, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment that regional level of government accords to any like, directly competitive, or substitutable goods, as the case may be, of the Party of which it forms a part.
Article 14.4: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
2. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments in its territory of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
Article 17.3: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own investors, in like circumstances, with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of financial institutions, and investments in financial institutions in its territory.
2. Each Party shall accord to financial institutions of another Party, and to investments of investors of another Party in financial institutions, treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own financial institutions, and to investments of its own investors in financial institutions, in like circumstances, with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of financial institutions and investments.
Article 20.8: National Treatment
1. In respect of all categories of intellectual property covered in this Chapter, each Party shall accord to nationals of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property rights.
So what’s the problem here? Why would it be wrong to enforce rules that ensure equal treatment between the parties?
Quite simply, it makes protecting your own industries and businesses illegal. In fact, the Canadian Government has been sued –successfully — in the 1990s. This was because NAFTA meant that we could no longer enforce things like environmental laws if they were bad for business.
Governments (should) take steps to ensure that people are able to have decent work in their communities. However, that becomes much harder when foreign companies can come in and undercut local merchants. This works in a similar way when mass migration creates downward pressure on wages.
While this may result in lower costs for good and services, there is a bigger picture to consider. Decimating communities that are dependent on a few big employers is not offset by having cheaper products at Walmart.
However, this concern for society becomes a thing of the past. Note: these provisions were in other trade deals as well such as NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
6. Ch #14: Investments And Corporations
Article 14.11: Senior Management and Boards of Directors
1. No Party shall require that an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment appoint to senior management positions a natural person of a particular nationality.
2. A Party may require that a majority of the board of directors, or any committee thereof, of an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment, be of a particular nationality, or resident in the territory of the Party, provided that the requirement does not materially impair the ability of the investor to exercise control over its investment.
While much of the chapter is okay, this is rather disturbing. The reason is that appointing foreigners to head a corporation (much like putting foreigners in government), leads to a conflict of interest. In order to ensure the well being of a company — and its employees — it’s important to have people loyal to the country in question.
Call it bigoted, but I don’t believe this dual loyalty can be resolved in a way that benefits society as a whole.
7. Ch #16: Temporary Entries Must Be Allowed
It has been discussed here many times how Canada is experiencing a flood of people coming under: (a) Temporary Foreign Worker Program; (b) International Mobility Program; (c) student visas; and (d) other programs. However, USMCA contains provisions in Chapter 16 for this to happen on an even bigger scale (at least regarding workers).
Article 16.4: Grant of Temporary Entry
2. A Party may refuse to grant temporary entry or issue an immigration document authorizing employment to a business person where the temporary entry of that person might adversely affect:
(a) the settlement of a labor dispute that is in progress at the place or intended place of employment; or
(b) the employment of a person who is involved in that dispute.
Article 16.7: Dispute Settlement
1. A Party may not initiate proceedings under Article 31.5 (Commission Good Offices, Conciliation, and Mediation) regarding a refusal to grant temporary entry under this Chapter or a particular case arising under Article 16.3(1) unless:
(a) the matter involves a pattern of practice; and
(b) the business person has exhausted the available administrative remedies regarding the particular matter.
It should be pointed out there are a few good provisions in this chapter. These include not importing workers to cross picket lines, and limiting ability to challenge refusals. That being said, there are many bad provisions.
Article 16.2: Scope
1. This Chapter applies to measures affecting the temporary entry of business persons of a Party into the territory of another Party.
2. This Chapter does not apply to measures affecting natural persons seeking access to the employment market of another Party, nor does it apply to measures regarding citizenship, nationality, residence or employment on a permanent basis.
3. Nothing in this Agreement prevents a Party from applying measures to regulate the entry of natural persons of another Party into, or their temporary stay in, its territory, including those measures necessary to protect the integrity of, and to ensure the orderly movement of natural persons across, its borders, provided that those measures are not applied in a manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any Party under this Chapter.
While this sounds great in theory, the reality is that Canada offers many options to “temporary” workers and students to remain in the country much longer and work towards permanent residence. This just lowers the threshold for getting the foot in the door.
Article 16.5: Provision of Information
1. Further to Article 29.2 (Publication), each Party shall publish online or otherwise make publicly available explanatory material regarding the requirements for temporary entry under this Chapter that will enable a business person of another Party to become acquainted with them.
On the surface, nothing wrong with this. However, it is unsettling to publish or make available instructions for how to bring hordes of people into the country.
Article 16.6: Temporary Entry Working Group
1. The Parties hereby establish a Temporary Entry Working Group, comprising representatives of each Party, including representatives of immigration authorities.
2. The Working Group shall meet at least once each year to consider:
(a) the implementation and administration of this Chapter;
(b) the development of measures to further facilitate temporary entry of business persons on a reciprocal basis;
(c) the waiving of labor certification tests or procedures of similar effect for spouses of business persons who have been granted temporary entry for more than one year under Section B, C or D of Annex 16-A (Temporary Entry for Business Persons);
(d) proposed modifications of or additions to this Chapter; and
(e) issues of common interest related to the temporary entry of business persons, such as the use of technologies related to processing of applications, that can be further explored among the Parties in other fora.
While this is presented as a very limited admission for business, it makes it pretty clear that it include bringing spouses along, and can be modified to include other groups of workers. How difficult would it be to lower the requirements so that entry level workers can be added?
Looking at the list of “professionals” who qualify for temporary entry, one has to wonder how this will effect wages and job prospects of locals. After all, flooding the market with more workers (supply) has consequences to the wages (demand) of those already here.
A section of Chapter 17, specifically 17.5(1)(d)(iv), provides a loophole in that there are no limits to the number of employees a company may have. Theoretically, a company can have an almost endless number of workers who need to cross the border
1. No Party shall adopt or maintain with respect to:
(d) imposes a limitation on:
(iv) the total number of natural persons that may be employed in a particular financial service sector or that a financial institution or cross-border financial service supplier may employ and who are necessary for, and directly related to, the supply of a specific financial service in the form of numerical quotas or the requirement of an economic needs test; or
In fact, once (almost) free movement is factored in alongside this free trade, it begins to look like a North American version of CANZUK. That of course is official CPC policy.
Of course, even when there is a fake pandemic, and millions of Canadians are unemployed, our government still finds it necessary to import hundreds of thousands of workers. Seriously, if the Government won’t protect Canadians’ jobs in a time like this, they won’t ever do it.
8. Ch #19: Social Media, Interactive Services
Article 19.17: Interactive Computer Services
1. The Parties recognize the importance of the promotion of interactive computer services, including for small and medium-sized enterprises, as vital to the growth of digital trade.
2. To that end, other than as provided in paragraph 4, no Party shall adopt or maintain measures that treat a supplier or user of an interactive computer service as an information content provider in determining liability for harms related to information stored, processed, transmitted, distributed, or made available by the service, except to the extent the supplier or user has, in whole or in part, created, or developed the information.
3. No Party shall impose liability on a supplier or user of an interactive computer service on account of:
(a) any action voluntarily taken in good faith by the supplier or user to restrict access to or availability of material that is accessible or available through its supply or use of the interactive computer services and that the supplier or user considers to be harmful or objectionable; or
(b) any action taken to enable or make available the technical means that enable an information content provider or other persons to restrict access to material that it considers to be harmful or objectionable.
Doesn’t look too good for protecting free speech and viewpoint diversity. No consequences for deplatforming people with dissident viewpoints.
9. Ch #20: Intellectual Property Rights
Article 20.7: International Agreements
1. Each Party affirms that it has ratified or acceded to the following agreements:
(a) Patent Cooperation Treaty, as amended on September 28, 1979, and modified on February 3, 1984;
(b) Paris Convention;
(c) Berne Convention;
(d) WCT; and
2. Each Party shall ratify or accede to each of the following agreements, if it is not already a party to that agreement, by the date of entry into force of this Agreement:
(a) Madrid Protocol;
(b) Budapest Treaty;
(c) Singapore Treaty;
(d) UPOV 1991;
(e) Hague Agreement; and
(f) Brussels Convention.
This isn’t merely a trade agreement we have signed. It also forces to be committed to 11 different international treaties on intellectual property. Essentially, this is setting a global standard for I.P. In fairness, Canada is a party to many of them already. However, what will happen when people with Canadian patents are forced to compete with people holding similar patents elsewhere?
Considering that patenting genes and other biological material is already a reality, what will happen to health care currently available?
10. Ch #22: State Owned Enterprises
1. Each Party shall ensure that each of its state-owned enterprises, when engaging in commercial activities:
(a) acts in accordance with commercial considerations in its purchase or sale of a good or service, except to fulfil the terms of its public service mandate that are not inconsistent with subparagraphs (b) or (c)(ii);
(b) in its purchase of a good or service:
(i) accords to a good or service supplied by an enterprise of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to a like good or a like service supplied by enterprises of the Party, of any other Party or of a non-Party, and
(ii) accords to a good or service supplied by an enterprise that is a covered investment in the Party’s territory treatment no less favorable than it accords to a like good or a like service supplied by enterprises in the relevant market in the Party’s territory that are investments of investors of the Party, of another Party or of a non-Party; and
(c) in its sale of a good or service:
(i) accords to an enterprise of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to enterprises of the Party, of any other Party or of a non-Party, and
(ii) accords to an enterprise that is a covered investment in the Party’s territory treatment no less favorable than it accords to enterprises in the relevant market in the Party’s territory that are investments of investors of the Party, of another Party or of a non-Party
While this “sounds” okay, consider that state owned enterprises are typically funded by taxpayer dollars. They typically mean Crown Corporations and branches of the Government. Under the national treatment rules, these public groups will have to compete with foreigners, and treat them no worse. This comes despite the fact that foreigners don’t pay the taxes that keep them going. This is, in effect, a tax subsidy.
Article 23.2: Statement of Shared Commitments
1. The Parties affirm their obligations as members of the ILO, including those stated in the ILO Declaration on Rights at Work and the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008).
2. The Parties recognize the important role of workers’ and employers’ organizations in protecting internationally recognized labor rights.
3. The Parties also recognize the goal of trading only in goods produced in compliance with this Chapter.
The International Labour Organization (ILO) is a UN group which Canada, the U.S., and Mexico are all part of. In essence, this gives the UN a very large role in setting the agenda for work standards on the continent.
Article 23.14: Labor Council
1. The Parties hereby establish a Labor Council composed of senior governmental representatives at the ministerial or other level from trade and labor ministries, as designated by each Party.
2. The Labor Council shall meet within one year of the date of entry into force of this Agreement and thereafter every two years, unless the Parties decide otherwise.
3. The Labor Council may consider any matter within the scope of this Chapter and perform other functions as the Parties may decide.
4. In conducting its activities, including meetings, the Labor Council shall provide a means for receiving and considering the views of interested persons on matters related to this Chapter. If practicable, meetings will include a public session or other means for Council members to meet with the public to discuss matters relating to the implementation of this Chapter.
5. During the fifth year after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, or as otherwise decided by the Parties, the Labor Council shall review the operation and effectiveness of this Chapter and thereafter may undertake subsequent reviews as decided by the Parties.
6. Labor Council decisions and reports shall be made by consensus and be made publicly available, unless the Council decides otherwise.
7. The Labor Council shall issue a joint summary report or statement on its work at the end of each Council meeting.
This Council is to be made up of members chosen by the governments. There’s no indication that the public will have any say in choosing them. Decisions don’t have to be made public, which means we may never see what goes on. Meetings are to take place once every 2 years (as a default). Not very accountable.
UN SDGs International Labour Organization Partnered With
BORDERLESS SUSTAINABLE INITIATIVES FORUM
Economic inclusion and sustainable development of Andean grain producers in Ayacucho and Puno
Equal Pay International Coalition
Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data
Improving transitions from school to work through engaging youth in policy dialogue
Japanese Technical Cooperation Project for Promotion of Regional Initiative on Solid Waste Management in Pacific Island Countries (J-PRISM)
Pacific Financial Inclusion Programme (PFIF)
Pacific Youth Development Framework Partnership (PYDF Partnership)
Solutions for Youth Employment (S4YE)
Strengthening Women’s Ability for Productive New Opportunities (SWAPNO) in Bangladesh
United Nations Pacific Interagency Task Force on Noncommunicable Disease Prevention and Control (UN PIATF)
It’s beyond the scope of this article to go into each group that ILO partners with. However, take a look at the webpage to see for yourself what ILO does with the rest of its time. Anyhow, this is the group whose labour standards we must now comply with.
12. Ch #24: UNSDA Environmental Agenda
Article 24.1: Definitions
For the purposes of this Chapter:
environmental law means a statute or regulation of a Party, or provision thereof, including any that implements the Party’s obligations under a multilateral environmental agreement, the primary purpose of which is the protection of the environment, or the prevention of a danger to human life or health, through:
(a) the prevention, abatement, or control of the release, discharge, or emission of pollutants or environmental contaminants;
Article 24.2: Scope and Objectives
1. The Parties recognize that a healthy environment is an integral element of sustainable development and recognize the contribution that trade makes to sustainable development.
2. The objectives of this Chapter are to promote mutually supportive trade and environmental policies and practices; promote high levels of environmental protection and effective enforcement of environmental laws; and enhance the capacities of the Parties to address trade-related environmental issues, including through cooperation, in the furtherance of sustainable development.
A lot of the content here looks like it was cut and pasted directly from Agenda 2030. There are also references to pollution and emissions, which one can assume refers to the Paris Accord and the climate change scam. Quite the long read.
Article 26.1: North American Competitiveness Committee
1. Recognizing their unique economic and commercial ties, close proximity, and extensive trade flows across their borders, the Parties affirm their shared interest in strengthening regional economic growth, prosperity, and competitiveness.
2. With a view to promoting further economic integration among the Parties and enhancing the competitiveness of North American exports, the Parties hereby establish a North American Competitiveness Committee (Competitiveness Committee), composed of government representatives of each Party.
3. Each Party shall designate a contact point for the Competitiveness Committee, notify the other Parties of the contact point, and promptly notify the other Parties of any subsequent changes. Recognizing the need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to enhance North American competitiveness, each Party’s contact point shall coordinate with its relevant government departments and agencies.
There is to be a committee to enhance competitiveness. In practice, it means a committee devoted to goods and services at the lowest possible cost. Certainly this group will ensure that countries aren’t able to enact any protectionist policies to aid their own people.
14. Ch #27: Anticorruption Measures
6. In order to prevent corruption, each Party shall adopt or maintain measures as may be necessary in accordance with its laws and regulations, regarding the maintenance of books and records, financial statement disclosures, and accounting and auditing standards, to prohibit the following acts carried out for the purpose of committing the offenses described in paragraph 1:
(a) the establishment of off-the-books accounts;
(b) the making of off-the-books or inadequately identified transactions;
(c) the recording of non-existent expenditure;
(d) the entry of liabilities with incorrect identification of their objects;
(e) the use of false documents; and
(f) the intentional destruction of bookkeeping documents earlier than foreseen by the law.
While these certainly are good things to prohibit, it’s unclear why this is being put into a trade agreement. It’s also ambiguous how there would be any real enforcement of such clauses.
15. USMCA A New Level Of Globalism
USMCA is touted as NAFTA 2.0, or the New NAFTA. However, much of its contents have nothing to do with trade, but enforcing other areas of society.
Chapter 2 (and elsewhere), make local protection impossible
Chapter 14 focuses on “investments”, which is extremely broad
Chapter 16 makes it easier to being people across the borders for work purposes. Touted as temporary, but we all know this isn’t the case
Chapter 17 allows for an unlimited number of workers
Chapter 19 restricts free speech protections online
Chapter 20 is uniform intellectual property laws
Chapter 22 undermines government agencies and organization
Chapter 23 forces compliance with ILO social justice agenda
Chapter 24 brings back all the environmental agendas
Chapter 26 focuses on competitiveness (lowest cost) over protectionism
Chapter 27 focuses on corruption.
Of course this is not all of USMCA’s content, but the more important parts. Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are signing away large parts of their (remaining) autonomy with this deal.
So far there are 27 pieces on the coronavirus planned-emic, (it started at #0). Much of it focuses on the lobbying and corruption that is at the heart of it. Once you follow the money, it becomes quite clear how and why this happening. Very tedious, but it is a wealth of information, very little of it shared by official sources.
2. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption
Lies and distortion by the media are nothing new. In order to convince people to undertake extreme measures, it’s often necessary to get them believing the absurd. Here is the series so far on media corruption on the website, a few of them directly related to the CV planned-emic. More examples are surely on the way.
3. Remember: Only Trust The Experts
Anthony Fauci later claimed he only recommended against masks in order to prevent a buying spree which would have left no masks available for health care workers. Motives aside, he blatantly lied to the public. In the third video, he appears to take the mask off as soon as the cameras are off. But remember, trust the experts and official sources.
4. UNESCO Guidelines On Fake News
For the original source of these audio clips, check the page on the UNESCO website. It is creepy the level to which they tell others to ignore contradictory viewpoints.
(1) Only official sources and trusted media outlets are to be listened to. Assume that if it conflicts with the settled narrative, it’s fake news.
(2) Teach your child that if a piece of information on CV is not from an official source, it should not be listed, let alone shared with anyone.
(3) If an “expert” is not from an approved or official agency, chances are they are a disinformation agent whose goal is deceive and mislead the public.
(4) CV information can be created and released in such a way as to be emotionally manipulative. Remember, the only ones allowed to manipulate are official sources. Don’t trust any others
(5) Disinformation is a serious problem. Therefore, the only sources of information that can be trusted are official, public ones. All others are to be viewed with suspicion.
(6) Quality journalism is important, but the only journalists who can be trusted are those reporting the official narrative on CV.
(7) Remember: UNESCO tells you to not like or share any information you see on social media if you don’t know where it cam from. First, you should check with the World Health Organization. If the information conflicts, feel free to post WHO talking points on the other media.
(8) Access to public information is essential. Just remember, the only sources we can trust are official ones. Freedom of the media is our strength.
(9) Apparently this planned-emic is a great opportunity to squash racism and come together as one human race. Unity through diversity apparently.
Remember folks: the only sources of information you can trust are official media outlets, certain organizations, and government officials. Everything else to be met with skepticism, if not rejected out of hand.
It’s interesting that UNESCO doesn’t encourage people to think critically, or try to spot conflicting or illogical claims. UNESCO doesn’t ask people to apply any logic or reasoning and get to the truth themselves. Instead, it is drilled in that only official sources are to be trusted.
Then there are the many ways that journalism can respond directly to disinformation and misinformation. These include resisting manipulation, through to investigating and direct exposing disinformation campaigns. But these have to be accompanied by major efforts to improve journalism in general (see below).
The “major efforts” which Cherilyn Ireton and Julie Posetti list below are chilling. They are absolutely an attack on independent journalism, and against people who don’t tow the line. It’s interesting to note that the authors are not merely acknowledging that this happens. They openly call for it.
Societal responses to ‘information disorder’ and challenges thrown up by social media platforms are varied and take place on multiple levels. Solutions are evolving – some rapidly. Many originate in the U .S., where the social media companies and Google are headquartered. Some evolving tech-related initiatives to address misinformation include:
(a) A commitment to engineering out of search results and news feeds what the company (not without controversy) deems to be fraudulent news
(b) Starving disinformation providers of click-driven advertising revenue
(c) Providing tech-driven solutions for verifying digital content and images
(d) Funding of supportive journalism initiatives that are at the intersection of journalism, technology and academic research
(e) The development and use of technical standards, or trust signals, to help consumers (and algorithms) identify news emanating from credible providers.
This is from page 37 of the book. Techniques to combat what they refer to as “misinformation”. It looks an awful lot like Objective 17(c) of the UN Global Migration Compact.
1. Satire and Parody
Including satire in a typology about disinformation and misinformation, is perhaps surprising. Satire and parody could be considered as a form of art. However, in a world where people increasingly receive information via their social feeds, there has been confusion when it is not understood a site is satirical. An example is from The Khabaristan Times, a satirical column and site that were part of the news site Pakistan Today. 60 In January 2017, the site was blocked in Pakistan and therefore stopped publishing.
From page 46, apparently satire qualifies as misinformation since people can’t always tell when people are being satirical.
In some instances, journalists have been targeted in acts of ‘astroturfing’ and ‘trolling’ – deliberate attempts to “mislead, misinform, befuddle, or endanger journalists” with the sharing of information designed to distract and misdirect them, or their potential sources. Alternatively, journalists might be targeted to trick them into sharing inaccurate information which feeds a false interpretation of the facts or, when it is revealed as fake, diminishes the credibility of the journalist (and the news organisation with which they are affiliated). In other cases, they face digital threats designed to expose their sources, breach their privacy to expose them to risk, or access their unpublished data.
There is also the phenomenon of governments mobilising ‘digital hate squads’ to chill critical commentary and quash freedom of expression.
Cherilyn Ireton and Julie Posetti, on page 109, talk about journalists being targeted for harassment, or having unwarranted attacks on their work. They hypocrisy is obvious, as they promote having viewpoints they deem “misinformation” to be hidden from searches, or have authors bankrupted via ad revenue loss. Furthermore, they suggest bankrolling or subsidizing their competitors, or “trustworthy” media.
6. Parallel Of Coronavirus & Climate Change
(17:50) the speaker talks of how the science is always moving. Yet critics are dismissed when they question official narratives.
(20:00) How to get children to spread the right news.
(30:30) scrolling internet to determine truth is impractical.
(47:00) parallel between CV and global warming.
Of course there are other topics discussed in that video, but those were a few worth focusing on.
UNESCO reminds us to be careful about lies and misinformation, and to only trust official sources for information on the CV pandemic. Don’t share info that contradicts the ever changing narrative.
UNESCO held a webinar on June 22nd, to talk about human rights abuses that had gone on as a result of the CV-19 “pandemic”. This is morbidly amusing, as UNESCO repeatedly recommends that people only listen to and trust official channels and sources. Guess who were the people calling for restrictions of human rights?
Here is a call by UNESCO to support so-called “Digital Cooperation”. What is it, and why is it so bad? UN Digital Cooperation is a program that is already underway, to attempt global internet regulation. It’s a horrible idea, since it would eventually lead to global control of internet activity. Ideas and views that are deemed “inappropriate” for whatever reason could be shut down.
See this piece for a previous review on the topic of digital cooperation. It’s worth noting that the shooting in New Zealand in 2019 has been an excuse to try to bring in a “digital charter“. However, the principle of global internet control long precedes that shooting.
Notice that all attempts to shut down free speech and a free media are done under some guise of “public safety” or of “preventing emotional harm”. Very rarely, of ever, is it admitted that the goal is to eliminate free speech.
From a debate in a 2019 Burnaby South by-election, then Liberal Candidate Richard Lee openly suggested that the United Nations should have a department to regulate the internet. Perhaps he was unaware that this was already in the works.
The scale, spread and speed of change brought about by digital technology is unprecedented, and the current means and levels of international cooperation are unequal to the challenge. Digital technologies make a significant contribution to the realisation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and cut uniquely across international boundaries, policy silos and professional domains. Cooperation across domains and across borders is therefore critical to realising the full social and economic potential of digital technologies, mitigating the risks they pose, and curtailing any unintended consequences.
The High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation was convened by the UN Secretary-General to provide recommendations on how the international community could work together to optimise the use of digital technologies and mitigate the risks. In June 2019, the Panel published their report “The Age of Digital Interdependence” and with it a series of recommendations to improve digital cooperation.
Sounds pretty Orwellian, doesn’t it? Instead of nations determining their own internet policies, there will soon be a “global consensus” on how the internet should be used, and for what purposes. UNESCO presumably supports this all.
The world can only contain the virus and its impacts if every person has access to accurate, reliable information. That’s down to all of us. Verified is a United Nations initiative to encourage us all to check the advice we share. Sign up to receive content you can trust: life-saving information, fact-based advice, and stories from the best of humanity. Look out for the double tick.
Apparently this site is an agent of disinformation, considering all of the effort done to expose the lobbying and corruption behind the vaccine agenda. Remember folks, only trust verified sources of information, and assume all others are lying to you.
10. China Falsified Reporting
China had supposedly brought this to the attention of the World Health Organization in late 2019. However, that was revealed to be a lie. Still, according to UNESCO, we should only trust official sources.
11. UNESCO Is Propaganda Outlet
UNESCO promotes various Un agendas, which is not surprising given that it is part of the UN. In various outlets, the group reiterates that only official and verified sources can be trusted, and that others are to be viewed with skepticism.
The reality is the UNESCO, and the UN as a whole, are not interested in truth or research that contradicts their narratives. Better to smear contradictory sources as “misinformation” than to answer the hard questions they pose.
That’s the reaction I got from watching the CPC debate. Real issues were shoved aside in favour of extremely superficial discussion. Granted, political debates are rarely meant to be engaging and in depth, and this was no exception.
This could be easily forgiven if official platforms and discussions were in depth on the important matters. However, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
If this group represents the future of the Conservative Party of Canada, then it’s probably best to just let the party collapse, and focus on other alternatives. It is every bit as globalist as the Liberal Party, and meaningful differences are few and far between.
2. Border Security & Enforcement
While Conservatives used to brag about how they would close the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement, that talking point seems to have dropped from their agendas. True, the agreement was modified, but many of the same issues still exist.
Of course they don’t mentioned that they never implemented a proper entry/exit system either, despite a recent decade in power. They never brought up that S3CA was drafted in such a way that the United Nations was a party to it, and consultations were required. They didn’t ever address the NGOs (many Jewish) who have been fighting in court for decades to keep the Canada/U.S. border open. Conservatives also downplayed the expediting of work permits to illegals, and amnesty for illegals.
It would be nice for conservatives to address abominations like Sanctuary Cities, which encourage and reward people for being in the country illegally. However, few seem to care.
In fact, conservatives have been, and remain, complicit, in ensuring that there isn’t any real border security in Canada. Closing the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is just a tiny piece of it. There is silence on so much else.
3. True Scale Of Immigration Into Canada
This has been brought up repeatedly on this site, but the “official” immigration numbers in no way reflect the number of people actually entering Canada with some pathway to stay longer. Each year, hundreds of thousands of students and “temporary” workers enter Canada. But this is noticeably absent from the discussion. Remittances drain our national coffers, pilot programs are varied and numerous, immigration is pushed even during times of high unemployment, and rich people can simply purchase a pathway to permanent residence. These are just a few examples of the mess that is the Canadian immigration system.
This also should be noted: every year thousands of “inadmissibles” are denied entry originally, but then allowed in LEGALLY anyway. What’s even the point?
This also ties back to the last section. Since Canada doesn’t actually have a proper entry/exit system in place, how can he ensure that students and temporary workers, (and the inadmissibles) are actually leaving the country afterwards?
Sloan (to his credit), made a few vague references to reducing immigration, but has never addressed the true size of the problem.
4. Lack Of Transparency On CANZUK
O’Toole repeatedly brought up CANZUK as a free trade agreement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. What he left out was that CANZUK also has a free movement provision, which allows citizens to freely move between countries. O’Toole deliberately omits as well that he fully intends to expand CANZUK to other nations as well. Watch 2:00 in the video.
5. Continued Population Replacement
(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)
This is by no means everyone entering Canada, but does demonstrate a point. In recent decades, immigration to Canada has overwhelmingly been from the 3rd world. This has resulted in irreversible demographic changes, to balkanization, and to a society where many feel no need to integrate.
Instead of addressing this, the candidates all cucked hard at the issue of “systemic racism. Instead of calling out the farce being played out live, they all submitted. Candidates all, to various degrees, played along with the horrors that people of colour experience on a daily basis.
Never mind that the only group that it’s legal to discriminate against is whites. In particular this means white men. This display was truly revolting to watch.
6. Silence On “Gladue Rights” Hypocrisy
If conservatives really wanted to address inequality in the criminal justice system, they could have brought up “Gladue rights”, which entrench special rights and considerations for Aboriginals and blacks. This abomination has been upheld as legal by the Supreme Court of Canada, and is now commonplace in criminal courts. Yes, we actually have race-based-discounts in criminal courts, even in sentencing. If this isn’t systematic racism, then what is?
Critics have claimed this is necessary, given the overrepresentation in prisons. While there is overrepresentation, these same critics try to avoid the key issue: CRIME RATES. They will look to any other reason to explain this disparity, other than actual criminal behaviour.
It was Gladue rights that allowed Terri McClintic to go to a healing lodge, for a brief period at least. This has been the law since the 1990s, but yet no one in power talks about that systemic racism.
7. International Banking Cartel
While Conservatives do whine about the debt, they deliberately avoid discussing WHY the situation is so bad. Specifically, since 1974, Canada has been borrowing primarily from private sources. Money is always artificially created, but when it’s owed to – say the Bank of Canada – the debt stays in Canadian hands. It can be paid off or cancelled at any time. Not the case when it is private institutions doing this.
In fact, over 90% of Canada’s national debt has been from accumulated interest. Liberals and Conservatives alike play along with this fraud, ensuring the balance grows.
Canada currently owes about 30% to foreign interests, which give them great leverage over us. Despite vague talking points, supporters have never been able to explain how private loans reduce inflation, and even if true, why this is better than simply using the Bank of Canada. Worse, Conservatives were in power when this was challenged in court by COMER, so they can’t claim ignorance on the issue.
Fiscal conservatives will always focus on a symptom (the debt), and not on the disease (the international banking cartel). They are complicit in helping this scheme along.
8. Silence On Climate Change Scam
I can’t even be happy about the approach here, and this is why. It’s another case of the Conservatives focusing on symptoms (Paris Accord, Carbon tax), while ignoring the underlying disease (the climate change industry). The candidates repeatedly say that the Carbon tax is an ineffective means for implementing a climate plan. The point to Provincial court challenges, while omitting that they are really just a form of controlled opposition.
The problem is that the entire climate change industry is built on lies and deception. Carbon Dioxide is plant food, and playing along with this hoax does not serve Canadians’ interests in the slightest. Broadly speaking, money which Western nations provide (with debt of course), are used for climate bonds, and predatory loans to the 3rd world.
None of this benefits Canadians, nor helps the environment in any way. Yet conservatives are quite willing to play along with the agenda, even if they claim to oppose the Carbon tax.
9. Support For Internationalist Agenda
Throughout the “debate”, candidates were criticizing Trudeau for how he handles affairs internationally.
Problem is, they criticize his handing of it only. They have no problem with the agendas themselves. Conservatives have no issue with being in bed with the U.N., or groups like the Trilateral Commission, the Bank for International Settlements, the World Trade Organization, CANZUK, or supporting agreements like the USMCA or the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
To reiterate: conservatives are only being critical for how Trudeau handles the globalism agenda. They have no problem with the agenda itself.
10. Two-Faced On Trade Protectionism
This was amusing to see the mental gymnastics at play. The Conservatives support the globalized trade agenda: NAFTA; (it’s successor USMCA); CANZUK; Trans-Pacific Partnership; FIPA, and countless more deals.
Problem is, as long as a part supports the offshoring agenda, they will never believe in protectionist policies. While all candidates gave lip service to wanting to be self sufficient, the reality is that they don’t. Keeping control over the production of essential goods necessitates protectionist policies — and an anti-free trade mentality. Conservative policies over the years have directly contributed to the dependence on foreign powers that are hostile to us.
11. Social Conservatives Thrown Under Bus
There was some talk from all candidates about the need for a “bigger tent”, and for bringing social conservatives in.
The problem is: there’s no sincerity behind this movement. Social conservatives are nothing more than a voting base to be tapped into. This party supports diversity, multiculturalism, gay “marriage”, the gender agenda, widespread abortion, and other non-traditional beliefs. In fact, the more diverse a country becomes, the less there is to conserve socially.
Read between the lines here. Soc-Cons are to be used as a vote supplement, nothing more.
12. Shift From Identity To “Values”
A major problem with conservatives is that they don’t believe that national identity is worth protecting. Whether it be demographics, culture, language, heritage, customs, traditions, religion, etc… As such, they don’t make any effort (other than platitudes), to preserve the makeup of the country.
Instead, they go with the much more vague and malleable notion of “values”. These are simply ideas that can be changed or watered down to suit political purposes.
13. Miscellaneous Points To Add
(Peter Mackay pledges – in writing – no merger with Alliance if he wins)
(Peter MacKay sticking the knife in again?)
MacKay has been around for a long time, and was involved in Harper’s globalist agenda all along. He and Maxime Bernier helped with the 2007 endorsement of the UN Parliamentary Assembly vote. There’s also his history of stabbing his colleagues in the back, from David Orchard to Andrew Scheer. MacKay is also connected to the Desmarais family, having previously dated Paul Desmarais Jr.’s daughter.
Aside from pandering constantly, O’Toole has tweeted out that he is a shill for foreign interests, or one in particular. Makes ones reasonably question his loyalty and commitment to Canada. Also noteworthy is that he spent a few years at the (now defunct) law firm of Heenan Blaikie. This is the same firm Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau worked at. It had also been infiltrated heavily by the Desmarais Family.
Dr. Lewis graduated magna cum laude from the University of Toronto (Trinity College). Thereafter, she obtained a Juris Doctorate from Osgoode Hall Law School, a Masters in Environmental Studies from York University, with a Concentration in Business and the Environment from the Schulich School of Business, and completed a PhD from Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. Dr. Lewis is the Managing Partner of Lewis Law Professional Corporation and has developed a specialized commercial litigation and international contract trade practice which focuses on energy policy. She has two decades of strong litigation experience beginning with some of the strongest Bay Street law firms, prior to starting this firm. She has published numerous articles in peer reviewed journals on international law, contracts, climate change and the feed-in-tariff system in renewable energy projects. Her local practice focuses on corporate commercial, real estate and estates, while her international practice is concentrated in the area of cross-border services including immigration, energy law.
While career politicians are distasteful as a rule, Leslyn seems to have come out of nowhere. She finished her PhD dissertation in 2019, at the age of 48. She seems professionally invested in the climate change scam and to have a globalist/internationalist mindset. Not sure this is the best choice for a party that desperately needs to ditch its globalist ties.
14. Forced VS Optional Vaccines
It was nice to hear the candidates say that no vaccines would ever be forced on Canadians — an obvious reference to the CV planned-emic. However, a point has to be made about that.
WHY are they so okay with vaccines in the first place? Given the deception and lies behind the reporting and the overblown nature, why aren’t they questioning the vaxx agenda itself? Why aren’t they questioning the rampant lobbying and conflict of interest here? Instead, the “opposition” seems limited as to whether vaccines should be made mandatory.
15. Just Let It Implode
This is some random tweet referring to the Republican Party in the United States. However, the exact same reasoning applies to “conservative” parties in Canada. They co-opt and corrupt nationalist and populist movements in order to incorporate (or appear to incorporate) them into their platform.
The result is that an extremely watered down — or non-existent — version of populist sentiment gets put into the mainstream. This is where puppet journalists obediently parrot the talking points and deceive the public.
The Conservative Party of Canada is not worth saving, or reforming, or overhauling. It needs to die. With it out of the way, more nationalist leaning alternatives can flourish and grow.
Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. There is so much information that politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” are withholding.
CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention. CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan. CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement). CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974. CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.
2. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade
CLICK HERE, for #1: thoughts on potential free trade with China. CLICK HERE, for #2: NAFTA, lawsuits, job losses, sovereignty. CLICK HERE, for #3: looking at NAFTA’s hidden/ignored costs. CLICK HERE, for #4: Bill C-79, Trans-Pacific Partnership. CLICK HERE, for #5: why Trump abandoned the T.P.P. CLICK HERE, for #6: CANZUK erasing our sovereignty. CLICK HERE, for #7: outsourcing, other trade deals, CANZUK. CLICK HERE, for #8: professional outsourcing, wages, immigration. CLICK HERE, for #9: EPI research on social costs of free trade.
As proponents of a new and exciting geopolitical union between the four CANZUK nations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK), we’re very often met with one particular question: looking ahead, who else might be able to join the partnership?
It should be said that a new Commonwealth union would be welcoming of any potential members – with each being considered on a case-by-case basis – and that the CANZUK project is very much a work in progress; always receptive of fresh ideas and potential avenues to explore.
A useful way to begin is by taking a look at the CANZUK countries’ dependent territories, such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands and Anguilla, for example, which are dependencies of Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, respectively, as well as the UK’s Crown dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man).
Each area would naturally become full members of the new group along with the nations to which they are related. Some advocates claim that these small islands, and their generally sparse populations, are currently under-utilised, and that a CANZUK alliance would offer a tremendous opportunity for their communities to acquire a far more extensive set of rights by becoming equal partners in a union, while shaking off their somewhat colonial tint.
Widening our scope, we arrive at the Commonwealth realms. These realms are sovereign states who are members of the Commonwealth and who currently share Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch, of which, there are 16 including the CANZUK countries.
A further concern, and no doubt the most pressing, is that a union involving most or all of the current Commonwealth would be a political impossibility, with almost every country having broken off colonial ties with the British in order to achieve their independence, which says nothing for the relationships between some of the nations (India and Pakistan or Bangladesh and Pakistan, for example). Of course, it would be entirely possible for individual Commonwealth countries to make a solo membership claim.
When weighing up the potential barriers to entry that many of these Commonwealth countries have, we’re often confronted with the challenge that this new alliance is concerned only with nations that are populated by white folk. Such criticism is fairly lazy and can be easily dealt with. Firstly, as we’ve just seen, there’s absolutely no reason why these countries couldn’t join in the future, so long as efforts were directed at bringing them up to par in the ways just discussed.
The original article was deleted, but thankfully it is archived. CANZUK researcher Luke Fortmann writes about the possible expansion and states that options are “always being considered”. To be blunt, this 4 nation alliance could swell.
Also, he does acknowledge that expansion would lead to mass migration to the original 4 nations, and to their demographic replacement. But he doesn’t seem to care as long as it’s done in an orderly fashion.
We can take it to the next level, to show that multi-later organizations can be aspirational. Where you have the rule of law, GDP, respect for rights, the Common Law system, the ability to support a free market, that you’ll work more together. Then we let more and more countries in, and revolutionize opportunities with CANZUK. Please support it. Thank you.
5. Australian Senator Paterson Supports It
Senator Paterson has also let it slip that he sees expanding the CANZUK zone as quite possible as soon as it is operational. The initial 4 are just the starting point. Interestingly, he points out that CANZUK is effectively an expansion of the 1973 Trans-Tasmanian Agreement.
(3:50) Rather than drafting a new agreement entirely from scratch, Australia should advocate adding Canada and the U.K. to the [Closer Economic Relations] Agreement, with only a few major changes if required…. Like the CER, CANZUK would include the freedom of movement between the 4 Commonwealth countries.
It could act as a strong voice in favour of the rules-based liberal order, that is under attack from populist movements on both sides of the political aisle around the world. Over time, this is a group which could grow. In the past week, I’ve had many good suggestions of countries that would make logical additions to CANZUK. Getting the core building block in place, though, I think makes sense.
Again, a bait-and-switch. Promoting it as just a 4 nation pact is the selling feature. Goal is to expand it once it’s fully operational.
6. Free Movement Is Primary Goal
Steve Paiken points out that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. happen to be majority white “for now”. Great emphasis. Knowing that it will change pretty soon. The people in the video make it clear they don’t care about demographic change.
7. ExtraNewsFeed Article On CANZUK
That leads into the benefit for the group in terms of geopolitics. Forming a close economic alliance with the EU would be easier for the bloc, and the two unions combined would have a population of 600 million people, around an eleventh of the world’s population. The combined economies of the two blocs would represent over a quarter of world GDP, at around $23 trillion.
Throw the US in as a partner, and this Western/Anglophone bloc is now worth half of the world’s economy and hosts an eighth of its people.
Some have mooted that the US or some African Anglophone countries might also join such a union, although this would certainly complicate trade matters and the idea of free movement. Perhaps a second “outer ring” union, with a pathway to full membership contingent on democratisation and economic development, could be created for other Anglophone countries.
That’s right. The article promoting CANZUK suggests creating a “secondary” level of nations, with a pathway to eventual full partnership.
8. CANZUK.org On Expanding The Zone
So, each of the CANZUK nations have focused on their local geographic regions with their trade deals, for reasons of proximity and ease of transport. But there would seem to be a huge opportunity here – for collaboration in free trade deals with each other’s home regions. For example, Australia and New Zealand already have free trade deals with China – Canada and the UK could hitch a ride onto these existing channels. And all four nations are interested in a trade deal with India – why not combine efforts?
These would have small effects to start with; but when combined over three regions – Asia-Pacific, North America and Europe, the effects would accumulate. Essentially, trade deals which would be too marginal to be worth pursuing on an individual national basis (for example, Australia-Norway) could be wrapped into a CANZUK framework. In this case, the UK would be the lead partner, opening their region to the other CANZUK partners.
Exactly how this would work remains to be seen. You could have a single CANZUK trade delegation, working together to land bigger deals, or a piecemeal approach, where the region lead partner(s) initiates the approach, bringing the others along for the ride as negotiations proceed.
While the talk of expansion appears to be in the context of trade, it would lead to economic harm, given how places like India and China can simply underbid local companies and put them out of work. And who’s to say it “won’t” lead to free movement at some point?
9. UK CANZUK On Expanding The Zone
I’m an advocate of creating a new geopolitical partnership between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK (CANZUK). This would begin with a free trade agreement, an agreement for free movement to live and work, and a defence and security partnership. If that were seen to function well, we might move on to establish an ever closer union principle, and create some formal mechanisms for caucusing our views in global debates and enhancing mutual recognition of regulation and coordinating in other relevant ways. The aim would not be to create a new integrated superstate (certainly not at first, and probably not for many decades or centuries, if at all) but, rather, a geopolitical partnership, akin to the European Economic Community or Warsaw Pact partnerships of the 1970s.
However, a more natural way to proceed would surely be to get CANZUK established and if those initial countries worked well together for a few decades, we could then consider adding the Bahamas, Barbados, Antigua and St Kitts, perhaps after some providing some assistance to raise their GDPs per capita a little closer to ours.
Overall, then, it would be best to begin with the narrower set of countries that are most compatible. That will be challenge enough to start with. That does not mean that in some decades time we should not consider adding countries with similar constitutions, such as The Bahamas or Barbados, if they can raise their GDP per capita and reduce their murder rates. But decisions on that question are, at this stage, many decades away.
Yet another piece reiterating that the current list (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom), are not the end result. Many more countries could be added at some point.
From a socio-economic standpoint, it is clear that integrating other Commonwealth nations within a facilitated migration initiative at this time would not work. At present, additional countries (such as South Africa, India, Jamaica and Pakistan, to name a few) do not meet the economic criteria that is essential for facilitated migration to succeed, as the benefits of reciprocal migration can only be guaranteed by Commonwealth countries that are very similar in terms of socio-economic characteristics.
There is no reason why additional countries within the Commonwealth would not be able to eventually join a facilitated migration initiative, but for the foreseeable future, the CANZUK countries are so similar in terms of social, economic, cultural and historical factors, it would be folly not to promote reciprocal migration, free trade and foreign policy among these countries and observe the benefits that such arrangements would bring
Read between the lines (page 9 of the report). Expanding CANZUK beyond the original 4 members doesn’t seem feasible, but doesn’t mean that it can’t or won’t happen at some point.
11. CANZUK Bait-And-Switch
It is sold to the public as a free trade and free movement (visa free) pact between 4 very similar countries. While this may not sound too bad in principle, fact is that expanding it to other countries is also being talked about. What people are being sold on is not the entire story.
Of course, there are other references available to CANZUK expansion, but hopefully the point has already been made here.
Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. There is so much information that politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” are withholding.
CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention. CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan. CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement). CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974. CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.
Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.
This table was complied using data from 2004 to 2019 Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. As “Shadow Minister” for Immigration, Rempel would presumably have read these reports.
5. Temporary Workers Getting PR
That is from page 15 of the most recent (2019) Annual Immigration Report to Parliament, which covers the year 2018. It does quite clearly state that temporary workers are transitioning to permanent residents.
The same information is also available from Statistics Canada, although they only seem to estimate the overall rates for students and also temporary workers.
6. Official CPC Policy Is TFW ==> PR
Article 139 of the CPC Policy Declaration is to convert temporary workers to permanent residents where possible. Rempel, as Immigration “Shadow Minister” or “Critic” presumably would have known that.
7. Rempel Supports Cheap Foreign Labour
Consider this for a moment: Michelle Rempel nearly became Immigration Minister. She supports putting Canadians to work in agriculture ONLY if it’s not possible to import a foreign work force. Nice to see a conservative finally being honest about this though.
It’s nice (in some sense) to see Rempel come out and admit that these “temporary” workers are in fact driving wages down, but she seems to support the idea.
8. Rempel Indifferent To Remittances Sent Off
Yes, temporary workers in Canada (and other Western nations) will often send money back home? But it’s no big deal, right? It won’t have any harmful effect? Perhaps not.
To 1st World
To 3rd World
Sources For The Chart CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2013. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2015. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2016. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2017. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2018.
Another interesting article on the subject of remittances came from the Vancouver Sun. It echoed the World Bank’s estimate of $24 billion leaving Canada in 2012, but covered other relevant points as well.
ABUSE AND DUBIOUS MOTIVATIONS
Since the migration of one person to another country is often a family decision, many migrants feel guilty and pressured to send money to people, some of whom they fear may misuse it.
Most migrants remit in the belief the money will go to food, housing, health care and education. But reports frequently arise about how hard-earned remittance money is misspent, going to big-screen TVs or even drinking binges.
In addition, Canadian economist John Hoddinot says many migrants send remittances to their parents, uncles and aunts to “ensure hereditary rights,” meaning they have to do so for the long haul and have no guarantees their goal will be realized.
Conservatives claim that these “temporary” workers will boost the local economy. But how exactly is that the case when billions are sent away annually as remittances? It’s not like Rempel doesn’t know this is happening.
9. Real Effects Of CANZUK
In keeping with conservative mentality that we only need to conserve economic growth, let’s look at CANZUK. It is official CPC policy, addressed in article 152 of the policy declaration. See a previous review of it.
Think about it: CANZUK essentially comprises two elements (a) free trade; and (b) open movement. It also has the potential to expand to include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and other Commonwealth nations.
(a) In a free trade system, jobs get sent overseas to where things can be made cheaper, which will DECREASE the supply of jobs in Canada.
(b) With open immigration, people can come to Canada freely, which will INCREASE the demand for what jobs remain.
In a situation where you have many more people competing for far fewer jobs, what happens to the wages? They are driven down, and this is a policy conservative politicians in general support.
10. Thoughts On Rempel Tweets
It is absurd that such a high ranking official seems to know nothing about the temp-to-PR pipeline in Canada. Either that, or she knows and just pretends it doesn’t exist.
While it was nice to see the effect on wages addressed, it’s frustrating that Rempel supports the very policies that drive them down in the first place. One would think that ensuring your own citizens have work and livelihoods is more important than importing foreign scabs who will work for less.
The concept of remittances destroys the narrative that economic immigration is beneficial to the local economy. Sending billions out of the country each year does nothing to help.
But this is the difference between conservatives and nationalists. CONSERVATIVES seem to think only in terms of economic growth, stock markets and low prices. NATIONALISTS, on the other hand, care about the well being and stability of their own people. Different priorities.