Category: Free Trade

Posted on

Google Lobbying: Smart Thermostats; Digital Taxes; Smart Cities; 5G Infrastructure; Content Regulation

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.

2. Important Links

(1) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=365072&regId=897489&blnk=1
(2) https://archive.is/TaD59
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=16607&regId=898683&blnk=1
(4) https://archive.is/2NNky
(5) Google’s Recent Communications Reports
(6) https://archive.is/v0jDY
(7) https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/munich-security-conference
(8) https://archive.is/VlN8K
(9) https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-and-rakuten-viber-fight-covid-19-misinformation-with-interactive-chatbot
(10) https://archive.is/fWfYY
(11) https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-launches-a-chatbot-powered-facebook-messenger-to-combat-covid-19-misinformation
(12) https://archive.is/PRIHD

3. Google And Smart Thermostats

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.

Please move along.

Posted on

The New USMCA & Its Globalist Provisions

1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; 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.

3. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for USMCA on US Trade/Commerce site.
CLICK HERE, for ILO labour standards.
CLICK HERE, for SDGs that ILO is partnered with.

usmca.chapter.02.national.treatment
usmca.chapter.14.investments
usmca.chapter.16.temporary.entry
usmca.chapter.17.financial.services
usmca.chapter.20.intellectual.property
usmca.chapter.22.state.owned.enterprises
usmca.chapter.23.labour
usmca.chapter.24.environmental.regulations
usmca.chapter.26.competitiveness.committee
usmca.chapter.27.corruption

cpc.policy.declaration

4. Context For This Article

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).

usmca.chapter.16.temporary.entry

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

usmca.chapter.17.financial.services

Section 139 of the Conservative Party Policy Declaration promotes generating more pilot programs for mass migration, and converting “temps” to permanent residents where possible.

Section 152 of the Conservative Party Policy Declaration refers to CANZUK, an open border scheme that may be extended beyond just Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

cpc.policy.declaration

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
.
(e) WPPT

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.

usmca.chapter.20.intellectual.property

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

usmca.chapter.22.state.owned.enterprises

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.

11. Ch #23: International Labour Org. (UN Group)

usmca.chapter.23.labour

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
  • FarmBiz Youth
  • 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
  • Sustainable Week
  • 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.

usmca.chapter.24.environmental.regulations

13. Ch #26: Focus On Competitiveness

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.

usmca.chapter.26.competitiveness.committee

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.

usmca.chapter.27.corruption

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.

Posted on

IMM #1(B): CANZUK Expansion, The Open Borders Bait-And-Switch

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

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.

3. Important Links

(1) https://www.canzukinternational.com/2018/07/which-countries.html
(2) http://archive.is/vH7wu
(3) Which Countries Could Eventually Join CANZUK_ – CANZUK International
(4) https://extranewsfeed.com/how-canzuk-could-change-the-shape-of-the-modern-world-64caf3756933
(5) http://archive.is/7ckF7
(6) https://www.canzuk.org/canzuk_a_bold_idea_for_a_new_kind_of_trade_bloc.php
(7) http://archive.is/TAcAU
(8) https://www.canzuk.co.uk/single-post/2017/03/10/Lilico-What-other-countries-might-eventually-join-CANZUK
(9) http://archive.is/Il7Br

4. CANZUK’s Luke Fortmann On Expansion

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.

4. Erin O’Toole Supports Expanding CANZUK

Listen to Erin O’Toole at 2:00 in the video

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.

10. CANZUK Report Addresses Expansion

CANZUK-International-The-Future-of-Post-Brexit-Britain-2019

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.

Posted on

Michelle Rempel Lies: Temporary Foreign Workers “ARE” Eligible For PR Pathway

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

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

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

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for CPC policy declaration.
conservative.party.of.canada.policy.declaration

CLICK HERE, for Rempel tweet #1.
CLICK HERE, for Rempel tweet #2.
CLICK HERE, for Rempel tweet #3.
CLICK HERE, for Rempel tweet #4.

3. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

2004.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2005.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2006.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2007.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2008.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2009.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2010.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2011.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2012.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2013.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2014.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2015.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2016.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2017.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2018.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2019.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament

(0) Archived listings of Reports

4. Scale Of “Temporary” Migration

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 – 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 – 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 – 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 – 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 – 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 – 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 – 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 – 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 – 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 – 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 – 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

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.

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

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

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.

Posted on

Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs #3: Information About This “Non-Profit”

1. Important Links

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/foreign-interference-in-canadas-democracy-centre-for-israel-and-jewish-affairs/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/centre-for-israel-and-jewish-affairs-an-assault-on-free-speech-and-democracy-in-canada/

(3) Corporations Canada Search
(4) http://archive.is/XBouH
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/clntCmmLgs?cno=111&regId=895791
(6) http://archive.is/czbFk
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=895791&blnk=1
(8) http://archive.is/NR9tZ

2. Context For This Article

In the first piece, we looked at the extended pattern of political lobbying by CIJA, including Senators, and MPs in the House of Commons from all parties. Over 1200 “communications reports” took place over the last 20 years, or about 1 every 6 days.

Period (2019-09-01 to 2020-01-14)

The second article covered the agenda that CIJA was pushing. Beyond generic business interests, CIJA is pushing an anti-free speech agenda. “Hate speech” according to this group, is essentially anything Jews don’t like and can claim to be offended by.

In fact, CIJA has, for many years, been lobbying the Federal Government to make licensing of media personalities mandatory. This is so the Israeli lobby can claim “hate speech” to shut down people and views that they disagree with. It can also be used to silence those who speak uncomfortable truths.

Now, let’s get into the nuts and bolts of this Federal “Non-Profit” Group which is waging war on free speech in Canada.

3. Corporate Documents & Filings

cija.01.directors
cija.02.directors
cija.03.director.changes
cija.04.Form4006
cija.05.Form4022.annual.return
cija.06.Form4006.changes.among.directors
cija.07.bylaws.and.governance
cija.08.certificate.of.continuance

By no means is this an exhaustive list of the documents available, but it should provide a good indication of what CIJA is, how it operates, and what its goals are.

4. By-Laws: Voting Members

Member Number of Memberships
The Atlantic Jewish Council 3
Calgary Jewish Federation 1
Jewish Federation of Edmonton 1
Hamilton Jewish Federation 1
Jewish Federation of Ottawa 3
The Jewish Federation of Victoria and Vancouver Island Society 1
Jewish Federation of Winnipeg Inc. 3
London Jewish Federation 1
the Montreal Federation 13
the Toronto Federation 15
UIAC 4
UIAC, in trust for the Jewish community of Regina* 1
UIAC, in trust for the Jewish community of Saskatoon* 1
UIAC, in trust for RJCO (excluding London and Windsor)* 1
the Vancouver Federation 4 Windsor Jewish Federation 1
TOTAL 54

Unsurprisingly, it is weighted so that larger areas like Toronto and Montreal get more voting power. This happens in many organizations.

Worth asking: do all of these branches support CIJA’s overall war on free speech? Do they all support the suppression of ideas they don’t like, and uncomfortable truths?

5. CIJA’s Agenda (Certificate Of Continuance)

cija.08.certificate.of.continuance

Now let’s take a look at the actual goals.

Straight from the source. CIJA’s goal (among others) is to influence political affairs in “its” version of what it views as hate speech and anti-Semitism. In other words, ban things that Jews don’t like.

From the first article, it was shown that CIJA had 1248 “communications reports” over the last 20 years. Could it be they have finally made some progress in clamping down on free speech in Canada?

6. Politicians In Bed With Israeli Lobby

Current candidate for leadership of the CPC, Erin O’Toole, openly shills for Israel. See here, and here for just a few examples.

When Maxime Bernier ran for the CPC leadership in 2016/2017, his main critique of the UN is that it was dysfunctional, and spends too much time condemning Israel. Really? For an ex-Foreign Affairs Minister, that is the best you can do?

Two non-voting Directors of CIJA are of a particular interest. One is John Baird, former CPC Cabinet Minister. The other is Dexter Darrell, former Premier of Nova Scotia.

cija.02.directors

Stockwell Day, ex-CPC Cabinet Minister was on CIJA BOD
Sheila Copps, ex-LPC Cabinet Minister was on CIJA BOD

Rafi Brass: Raphael (Rafi) Brass has been a government consultant at Bluesky Strategy Group since April 2015 and worked on Parliament Hill for two Liberal MPs. He will be joining the Board as a delegate from CIJA’s Young Leaders Circle.

Rafi Brass is an ex-staffer, for 2 Liberal MPs.
Now he’s a Director with CIJA.

Of course, these names here represent only a small portion of what actually goes on. More to come in a follow-up article.

7. Where Things Stand

CIJA is a lobbying organization that is extremely influential in Canada. It has political connections across party lines and spends an inordinate amount of time lobbying and promoting Jewish interests.

By itself, this may not be a problem. However, promoting the interests that this group does directly interferes with Canadian interests. A politician cannot be “CANADA FIRST” and be an Israeli shill at the same time. As the expression goes, a dog cannot have 2 masters.

This group is anti-Canada, and anti-free speech, to name just a few criticisms. Showing what it really does is important to educate the public.

Posted on

Economic Policy Institute Research On Societal Costs

(From U.S. Census Bureau in 2014)

(EPI reports on rise in “temporary” labour)

(EPI on surging U.S. trade deficit with China)

(EPI on globalist trade driving down wages)

(EPI on free trade & mass migration removing bargaining power)

(EPI on responding to currency manipulation with tariffs)

(EPI on 3.4M jobs lost to China)

(CPC policies are to: create new immigration pilot programs, transition “temps” to permanent residents where possible)

(CPC policy is also implementation of CANZUK)

(Tucker Carlson on foreign replacements at Uber getting preferential treatment. He also calls out Charlie Kirk’s “stapling green cards to diplomas” line)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKmUsTyKqvc

1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

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

2. Important Links

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/facts-figures-the-ugly-truth-about-replacement-migration-in-canada/
(2) https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-130.html
(3) https://prospect.org/power/stem-shortage-myth/
(4) https://www.epi.org/publication/pm195-stem-labor-shortages-microsoft-report-distorts/
(5) https://www.epi.org/publication/temporary-labor-migration-programs-governance-migrant-worker-rights-and-recommendations-for-the-u-n-global-compact-for-migration/
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2014/06/government-canada-overhauls-temporary-foreign-worker-program-ensuring-canadians-are-first-line-available-jobs.html
(7) https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_fdi_fdi/
(8) https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_11052003/
(9) https://www.epi.org/publication/standard-models-benchmark-costs-globalization/
(10) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
(11) https://www.epi.org/publication/adding-insult-to-injury-how-bad-policy-decisions-have-amplified-globalizations-costs-for-american-workers/
(12) https://www.epi.org/press/tariffs-are-not-an-appropriate-response-to-currency-manipulation/
(13) https://www.epi.org/publication/the-china-toll-deepens-growth-in-the-bilateral-trade-deficit-between-2001-and-2017-cost-3-4-million-u-s-jobs-with-losses-in-every-state-and-congressional-district/
(14) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/tpp-ptp/text-texte/09.aspx?lang=eng

3. Context For This Article

True, the content of this site is primarily focused on Canada. However, the issues that face the United States are similar. What happens over there spills over here, and there is lots of data available on it.

There are 2 linked concepts to discuss:

  • Mass Economic Immigration
  • Free Trade Agreements

How are these ideas linked? Because they are 2 ends of the same problem. Mass economic immigration involves importing large numbers of people into a country. It leads to a much higher supply of workers, and more competition for the same jobs. As a result, it helps drive down wages as it becomes an employer’s market. It INCREASES the demand for jobs in developed countries. Free trade works by exporting jobs and entire industries to other nations where the work can be done for less. In other words, it DECREASES the supply of local jobs available. Now combine them.

MORE competition + LESS work = disaster.

For the purposes of this article, concerns that the U.S. has can be viewed as happening (or at risk to happen) in Canada as well.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is a left leaning think tank in Washington. Among the topics it covers are free trade and immigration. EPI points out repeatedly that there are high social costs to the conservative or libertarian policies. Let’s get into it.

4. STEM Field Is Glutted

The U.S. Census Bureau reported today that 74 percent of those who have a bachelor’s degree in science, technology, engineering and math — commonly referred to as STEM — are not employed in STEM occupations.

“STEM graduates have relatively low unemployment, however these graduates are not necessarily employed in STEM occupations,” said Liana Christin Landivar, a sociologist in the Census Bureau’s Industry and Occupation Statistics Branch.

According to new statistics from the 2012 American Community Survey, engineering and computer, math and statistics majors had the largest share of graduates going into a STEM field with about half employed in a STEM occupation. Science majors had fewer of their graduates employed in STEM. About 26 percent of physical science majors; 15 percent of biological, environmental and agricultural sciences majors; 10 percent of psychology majors; and 7 percent of social science majors were employed in STEM.

These numbers are shocking. It speaks volumes about the state of education when half (or more) of STEM graduates aren’t even employed in fields relating to their studies.

The EPI report tends to focus on the relevance of these findings to guest worker programs and other immigration issues. The tech industry has long suggested that it cannot find STEM workers in America and therefore needs immigration changes that will enable it to bring in more workers from abroad. Skeptics have rebuffed that the tech industry really is just interested in cheaper STEM labor and that its proclamations about a dearth of STEM-qualified domestic workers is just a convenient cover story. This report provides ammunition to the latter camp to say the least.

It’s a long repeated myth that the United States (and Canada too) cannot find qualified STEM people. Strange, as there are so many of them coming out of schools. But the real issue seems to be finding “cheaper” workers.

Contrary to its report and public statements, Microsoft (and other employers in STEM fields) already have plenty of avenues to hire and retain new foreign graduates to work in STEM occupations. Recent research suggesting that the most highly educated graduates in STEM fields are in fact remaining in the United States for the long term supports this conclusion. Keeping the best and brightest foreign STEM workers in the United States to fill labor shortages in STEM occupations should be a national priority, but recent data show that no significant labor shortages exist, and suggest that an adequate number of foreign graduates in STEM fields are already remaining in the United States to fill the limited job openings available in the stagnating U.S. labor market.

The EPI study claims there is no shortage of tech workers available, and that rather this is a manufactured crisis used to bring in even more people. Why? To drive down wages. U.S. workers will often be willing to work for less if they know it’s easy to replace them. And if need be, just replace them anyway.

5. “Temporary” Workers Depressing Wages

What appears to be a neat match between excess labor supply in some countries and unfulfilled demand in others is often messy in practice. Economics teaches that there are often alternative ways of producing goods and services, so that recruiting and hiring migrant workers is only one option available to firms and employers. The alternatives may include making jobs more attractive to local workers, using labor-saving mechanization, or increasing imports. Employers who approach governments for permission to hire migrant workers have usually decided that employing migrant workers is their best or least expensive option, and the question for governments is whether to permit employers to hire migrants and to determine how to regulate the movement and employment of migrant workers.

The major policy question for governments weighing claims of labor shortages is whether they should allow naturally occurring wage changes to balance labor supply and demand when employers complain of labor shortages, or whether they should use migration policy to admit new workers into the country to address shortages. And if governments decide to admit new migrant workers, the next question that arises is what the terms and conditions of their admission should be. For example, should new migrant workers be admitted as permanent immigrants with freedom in the labor market or as temporary workers who are tied to a particular employer? In recent decades, many governments have chosen the latter, leading to a proliferation of TLMPs.

Many countries have youth exchange programs to facilitate cultural exchanges and promote development in poorer countries (Table 1, row 4). Japan allows employers to hire trainees who work and learn for several years, while the J-1 visa program in the United States allows exchange visitors to work while learning about the United States and traveling, for a few months to a few years, depending on the program. Australia has a Working Holiday Maker program that allows youth from many countries to work to earn money to cover the cost of their vacation in the country. While these are not standard TLMPs, they are included in Table 1 because some of these programs have been criticized as operating mainly as employment rather than cultural exchange programs and, as a sort of “TLMP in disguise,” offering few protections for local workers and fewer protections and benefits for migrants than traditional TLMPs (Costa 2011; Stewart 2015; Osumi 2018).

Other rationales for TLMPs include allowing multinational corporations and firms to move employees between offices and subsidiary companies in different countries. These mobile workers include intra-company or intra-corporate transferees (ICTs), and “posted” workers, who are workers employed by a company in one country who are sent or posted to work in another. As with other programs not linked explicitly to labor shortages, governments usually allow multinational corporations to move managers and workers with specialized skills from one country to another with minimum bureaucracy. However, abuses have arisen, and some employers wind up using ICTs and posted workers as low-cost guest workers because the programs sometimes lack prevailing wage rules, or the ICT or posted-worker wages are exempt from all or some payroll taxes (Avalos 2014; Flinders 2011).

I would disagree with this report in one area: the notion that these are temporary workers. The reality is that people are staying longer and longer, and many transitioning into permanent residents. So the temporary label is somewhat misleading.

In Canada, the Temporary Foreign Worker was loudly criticized for replacing Canadians with cheap foreign labour. The response was to split up the TFWP, and to boost the International Mobility Program (which was basically an open work permit). This was a cosmetic solution that didn’t address the real problem.

EPI points out that a lot of these temporary positions pay less and have less job security. That is true. The response will be to enshrine ever more rights on these “temporary” workers. EPI is also correct that a lot of the support behind increasing these programs is the cheaper labour that results from it.

6. Remittances Sent Abroad

This was covered in a previous article, but what about the money that gets sent overseas by “temporary” workers in this country? It is billions every year.

Aside from welfare cases (which is another story), yes the wages were fairly earned. But it is disingenuous to exclude this fact from the debate. Economic immigration leads to money being sent outside the country.

7. Free Trade, Soaring Trade Deficits

The rapidly growing U.S. trade deficit with China is directly linked to the growth of multinational firms operating in China. Of China’s more than $200 billion in exports in 1998, over 40% had their source in multinational firms operating in China (Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation 2000).

• The activities of U.S. multinational firms, together with China’s protectionist trade policies, have had a significant role in increasing the U.S. trade deficit with China. A 10% increase in the level of U.S. direct investment in an industry in China is associated with a 7.3% increase in the volume of U.S. imports from China and a 2.1% decline in U.S. exports to China in that industry. • Supporters of China’s WTO and PNTR agenda typically assert that jobs lost to China trade threaten only low-skill, low-wage jobs in the United States, while expanded exports to China will create high-wage U.S. jobs. However, the changing composition of imports from China over the last 10 years has led increasingly to job losses among higher-wage and more-skilled U.S. manufacturing workers. Although in 1989 only 30% of imports from China competed against goods produced by high-wage industries in the U.S. market, by 1999 that percentage had risen to 50%. [2] To make matters worse, although U.S. workers are five times as productive as their Chinese counterparts, average compensation in the United States is at least 10 and maybe even 20 times larger than that paid by U.S. multinationals to Chinese workers. Thus, U.S. workers will be unable to compete with the much cheaper labor in China despite their higher levels of productivity. U.S. firms build export-oriented production base in China

Trade between the U.S. and China is not a level playing field, to put it mildly. Hypocritically, China relies on its own protectionist measures while doing what it can to secure access to U.S. markets. And because many of the U.S. corporate leaders put profit over well being of their people, they are quite happy to outsource U.S. to China. Products get made cheaper, but American workers pay with their jobs and livelihoods. Of course, this is not limited to one country. NAFTA caused the same problems.

In addition to the lost jobs, this creates a huge trade deficit, where hundreds of billions of dollars leave the U.S. annually. Certainly there will always be some surpluses and deficits in trading internationally. But it can’t be so one sided as it is simply unsustainable.

8. Free Trade Driving Down Wages

A standard model estimating the impact of trade on American wages indicates that growing trade with less-developed countries lowered wages in 2011 by 5.5 percent—or by roughly $1,800—for a full-time, full-year worker earning the average wage for workers without a four-year college degree. One-third of this total effect is due to growing trade with just China.

Trade with low-wage countries can explain roughly a third of the overall rise since 1979 in the wage premium earned by workers with at least a four-year college degree relative to those without one. However, trade with low-wage countries explains more than 90 percent of the rise in this premium since 1995.

For full-time wage earners without a college degree, annual earnings losses due to trade with low-wage nations are larger than income losses under a hypothetical policy that permanently extends the Bush-era tax cuts by making across-the-board cuts to government transfer payments such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance.

Free trade has hurt the middle class more than anyone else. Manufacturing was a booming industry that people — mainly men — could earn a decent living even without higher education. However, profit driven corporations have outsourced more and more of that manufacturing, leaving those worker to fight for lower paying jobs.

The topic of wage stagnation has also been covered by Pew Research. If wages stay the same, or decrease, but inflation remains, then real buying power decreases.

Serious question: how much will it help these companies in the end when no one can afford to buy their products?

9. Free Trade Removes Bargaining Power

The textbook analysis of the effects of trade on wage suppression discussed earlier assume that these effects run through trade flows that shift the relative demand for different types of labor. But trade’s effects on wages could run through other channels as well. After all, in the real world, wages are not set in perfectly competitive labor markets solely through shifts in demand and supply curves. Rather, the relative bargaining power of employers and employees matters greatly for wage-setting, and the threat effects of growing globalization surely hamstring this bargaining power for many American workers. In previous eras, the only fallback position for employers in the face of a breakdown in wage bargaining was to stop production. Now employers have the option of setting up production facilities abroad. This improved fallback position boosts employers’ bargaining power vis-à-vis their American employees, and this can lead to substantial downward pressure on wages.

As is always the case, measuring bargaining power at all, let alone its ebb and fall, is difficult, so the precise empirical impact of this channel of globalization’s wage-suppressing effects is hard to gauge. But there is growing evidence that these effects could be significant. Bertrand (2004), for example, shows that import competition tears down the protection that incumbent workers’ wages have traditionally enjoyed against rising unemployment. Senses (2007) finds that offshoring is associated with greater elasticity of labor demand—implying that wage gains will cut more sharply into employment gains. Bivens (2006) finds evidence that industry-level rent-sharing is eroded by growing import shares. Jayadev (2007) finds capital account openness associated with a shift from labor to capital income shares across countries, and attributes this finding to the bargaining channel. Anderson, Tang, and Wood (2006) construct a model of globalization eroding American workers’ privileged access to institutional and human capital and lowering wages through this channel. They find empirically that greater ease of movement of high-credential, high-skill managers leads to wage declines for American labor, supporting the predictions of their model.

To clarify, this article faults both the mass migration policies and free trade policies in creating these problems. In both cases, it becomes a race to the bottom. Either we import a replacement workforce here, or we export the work to the foreign labour force. The result is much the same.

It is also pointed out that collective bargaining and other rights get eroded once the option to replace the workforce becomes practical. So much for looking after your own.

10. Tariffs V.S. Currency Manipulation

According to Scott, Trump’s proposals fail to effectively address currency manipulation, the single largest cause of manufacturing job loss over the past 20 years. While Trump cites currency manipulation as a major problem, Scott argues, his strategy for dealing with it—calling for higher tariffs on imports from currency manipulators and promising to negotiate “better” trade deals—doesn’t reflect an analytical understanding of how currency manipulation works and what to do about it.

“Trump could not, as pledged, bring back American manufacturing jobs by negotiating ‘great trade deals’ because he doesn’t understand why globalization and trade and investment deals have hurt U.S. workers,” said Scott.

Trump’s plan to deal with currency manipulation by imposing tariffs would make other countries’ goods more expensive in the United States but do nothing to make U.S. goods less expensive in those countries. Scott recommends that the Fed conduct countervailing currency intervention (CCI) by buying up large amounts of foreign assets denominated in the currencies of the surplus countries, and impose a “market access charge,” a tax or fee on all capital inflows that would reduce the demand for dollar-denominated assets and hence the value of the currency.

It’s nice to see currency manipulation being addressed. Of course, if one or more parties plays games with their currency, they can in effect create products dirt cheap. They won’t have to worry about massive imports, since other nations won’t be able to undercut their manipulated prices.

Trump seems to have a fight-fire-with-fire mentality, but it doesn’t really work when others are not willing to act in good faith.

11. Free Trade Wrecks Communities

The growth of the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2017 was responsible for the loss of 3.4 million U.S. jobs, including 1.3 million jobs lost since 2008 (the first full year of the Great Recession, which technically began at the end of 2007). Nearly three-fourths (74.4 percent) of the jobs lost between 2001 and 2017 were in manufacturing (2.5 million manufacturing jobs lost).

The growing trade deficit with China has cost jobs in all 50 states and in every congressional district in the United States. The 10 hardest-hit states, when looking at job loss as a share of total state employment, were New Hampshire, Oregon, California, Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Texas. Job losses in these states ranged from 2.57 percent (in Texas) to 3.55 percent (in New Hampshire) of total state employment. The five hardest-hit states based on total jobs lost were California (562,500 jobs lost), Texas (314,000), New York (183,500), Illinois (148,200), and Pennsylvania (136,100).

The trade deficit in the computer and electronic parts industry grew the most: 1,209,000 jobs were lost in that industry, accounting for 36.0 percent of the 2001–2017 total jobs lost. Not surprisingly, the hardest-hit congressional districts (those ranking in the top 20 districts in terms of jobs lost as a share of all jobs in the district) included districts in Arizona, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Texas, where jobs in that industry are concentrated. A district in Georgia and another in North Carolina were also especially hard hit by trade-related job displacement in a variety of manufacturing industries, including computer and electronic parts, textiles and apparel, and furniture.

Between 2001 and 2011 alone, growing trade deficits with China reduced the incomes of directly impacted workers by $37 billion per year, and in 2011 alone, growing competition with imports from China and other low wage-countries reduced the wages of all U.S. non–college graduates by a total of $180 billion. Most of that income was redistributed to corporations in the form of higher profits and to workers with college degrees at the very top of the income distribution through higher wages.

Trade with China has caused an estimated 3.4 million jobs to be lost from 2001 to 2017. These job losses have hit every state, and every community.

Directly impacted workers lost $37 billion in wages, and non-college graduates $180 billion overall. How is this at all desirable, or even sustainable to keep driving down wages and incomes? How is outsourcing many of the better paying jobs good for the host country?

Again, it doesn’t matter how cheaply China (or other 3rd world nations) can build their products. If no one can afford to buy them, then they won’t sell.

12. Loss Of Sovereignty

This has been addressed in other posts, but nearly all free trade deals contain a “National Treatment” Clause. In plain English, these clauses prohibit nations from taking any measures to protect jobs or industries. Canada has ben successfully sued for doing so in the past.

See Article 9.4 in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or Chapter 11 in NAFTA.

13. How Does This Benefit Us?

In short, it doesn’t.

Allowing large numbers of people into the country, causing extra demand for work and driving down wages doesn’t help. And we haven’t even gotten into cultural compatibility. Nor the money removed from the economy when vast sums of remittances are sent abroad.

Nor does outsourcing our industries and jobs to the 3rd World help us. Sure, products get made cheaper, but these offshoring kills people’s livelihoods. And what good is all of the formal education received if the jobs that should have resulted are sent away?

Mass economic migration and free trade are two sides of the same coin. The effects are much the same. But you won’t hear conservatives or libertarians talk about this. Ironically, more left leaning political parties are inclined to address such topics.

Globalism (and globalization) kill societies.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress