(Temporary Foreign Workers can become Permanent Residents)
(One option for college, university graduates is the Provincial Nominee Program. Its name varies slightly by Province)
(From the 2018 Report to Parliament)
(From the 2018 Report to Parliament)
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.
If a Conservative or Nationalist isn’t willing to talk about the FULL SCALE of immigration into the country, there’s no reason to trust anything they say on the subject.
Remember this message.
4. Rants Derek Drops The Red Pill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04h7e-Gnn68
Derek dropped a number of truth bombs in this video. Watch 1:10 to 1:50 for the relevant facts. His channel is a great resource for Canadians on many topics.
Hundreds of thousands of temporary workers, with a pathway to permanent residence status
Hundreds of thousands of student visas, with a pathway to permanent residence status
Actual number close to 1 million
1/2 million new citizens in a year
Surge in citizens means surge in voters
5. From the 2018 Report To Parliament
Year
TFW
Int Mobility
Student
2015
73,016
175,967
218,147
2016
78,402
207,829
265,111
2017
78,788
224,033
317,328
Remember: This table only covers “temporary” entrants (workers and students), and is outside what politicians typically declare. While these programs are officially marketed as temporary, there are a number of avenues to stay longer and become a permanent resident.
Now, combine the 2017 “temporary” totals with the approximately 330,000 permanent and refugees that the government declares and you get this.
Correction: while the 2017 totals for Permanent and Refugee were aimed at around 300-350K, the 350K is the one frequently touted. As such, it was the number used originally in the article. The actual is 330K, which is slightly lower.
Now it is certainly true that many will not stay. However, the vast majority of them will try to. There are many legal avenues to extend a visa, or get a new one. Then there comes the sticky issue of chain migration
Think about it: why drop $100,000 on a useless college degree or program, or work for slave labour for years, UNLESS the ultimate goal was a better life?
While these programs are sold to the public as “temporary”, the reality is that they are backdoor migration.
However, so-called Conservatives, and even some self-identified Nationalists don’t want to talk about the full scope of mass migration in Canada. They prefer to parrot the talking points of the mainstream political parties, who claim there is about 310,000 to 350,000 annually in Canada.
This applies to proposed “reductions” to 250K/annually, (now pegged at 100-150K), while ignoring the true size of the issue. A common talking point of “populists”.
Remember the rule from before.
6. Canada’s Population Isn’t Decreasing Naturally
Note: Difference = Live Births – Total Deaths
Note: Per Day = (Difference)/365 or 366
Year
Birth
Deaths
Diff
Day
1991
402,533
195,569
206,964
567
1992
398,643
196,535
202,108
552
1993
388,394
204,912
183,482
503
1994
385,114
207,077
178,037
488
1995
378,016
210,733
167,283
458
1996
366,200
212,880
153,320
419
1997
348,598
215,669
132,929
364
1998
342,418
218,091
124,327
341
1999
337,249
219,530
117,719
323
2000
327,882
218,062
109,820
300
2001
333,744
219,538
114,206
313
2002
328,802
223,603
105,199
288
2003
335,202
226,169
109,033
299
2004
337,072
226,584
110,488
302
2005
342,176
230,132
112,044
307
2006
354,617
228,079
126,538
347
2007
367,864
235,217
132,647
363
2008
377,886
238,617
139,269
381
2009
380,863
238,418
142,445
390
2010
377,213
240,075
137,138
376
2011
377,636
243,511
134,125
367
2012
381,869
246,596
135,273
370
2013
380,323
252,338
127,985
350
2014
384,100
258,821
125,279
343
2015
382,392
264,333
118,059
323
2016
383,102
267,213
115,889
318
2017
379,450
276,689
102,761
281
2018
375,390
283,706
91,684
251
Canada’s population is “naturally” growing at about 300 people/day, and has been for years. This is births and deaths. Immigration is not taken into account. To be fair, however, the number of illegals giving birth here (creating anchor babies) isn’t taken into account.
Of course, even if you need a bigger population, there is another way. It is the ways nations have always done, prior to the “multiculturalism” mental disorder. They grew their populations.
Side note: it’s also how Muslims plan to become a global majority and impose Sharia law everywhere. It’s not as if they embrace multiculturalism or pluralism. And guess what your tax dollars are being used for in Toronto hotels and public housing. See this video from Rebel Media
Now, it doesn’t have to be that way. Hungary, for example, is taking measures to reverse its declining birth rate. While the specifics vary by nation, this is a prime example of a leader putting his people first.
You also never hear mainstream “Conservatives” talking about the idea of promoting bigger families. It’s always “import more and more” and economic growth.
Conservatives give little to no consideration of the natural inclination of people to want children. Nor do they care that people who are raised in Canada grow up as Canadians. Forget the culture. Forget the society. Besides, nations aren’t the people, but just abstract ideas apparently.
Canada already has people from a large array of backgrounds. Why not stop and work with what we have?
Ask yourself, which is more of a priority: economic growth, or protecting your way of life and culture? If the former, remember that eventually the demographics shift to such a degree that your way of life can be “democratically” rescinded.
7. Conservatives, Fake Nationalists, Are Gatekeepers
The Conservative Party of Canada’s policy declaration openly states it prefers to turn temporary workers into permanent residents. (Page 52, topic 139(ii)). Furthermore, the CPC endorsed CANZUK, which opens Canada’s borders to some other nations.
Maxime Bernier sort of addressed immigration rates into Canada, and was critical. However, he avoided the awkward truth that these “temporary” categories can lead to permanent residence.
The National Citizens Alliance addressed the issue in this video. So far, other parties seem to embrace the “mass migration is good” delusion.
Many self-identified Conservatives claim they are for much less immigration. However, they balk at the claim (and evidence) that it is much higher than they thought.
This seems an exercise in futility, and has led to many arguments. But such a topic must be discussed openly. Certainly, the exact numbers, programs, lengths, conditions for various programs should be open to debate. But it must be an informed debate or discussion.
Once more: If a Conservative or Nationalist isn’t willing to talk about the FULL SCALE of immigration into the country, there’s no reason to trust anything they say on the subject.
8. Why Go On About This Topic?
Because people need to know the truth about it.
They are being lied to daily by the media, and by politicians. It is a much easier sell to Canadians if they aren’t forced to look at the full numbers. It’s also easier to pitch is the lie is perpetuated that the population is declining and needs a boost.
And to restate, true, not everyone who comes to Canada will stay (regardless of entry class). But most will, given the standard of life here. Our laws allow many such pathways.
In a sense, the UN Global Migration Compact was a diversion and a soft target. EVERYONE was against it, and what it stood for.
Serious question to Canadians: Do you want to replace yourselves?
8. Disclaimer
This is not to state that immigration into Canada has been 1 million/year continuously. Rather, it has been consistently trending upwards, and is now at 1M/year.
This article is not mine, but the creation of a YouTuber and writer who goes by the handle “BOLD Like a Leopard”. Feel free to check out the channel, there is some interesting content on it.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for message from Mark Ruffalo and Bill McKibbons. CLICK HERE, for Bill Nye suggests jailing climate deniers. CLICK HERE, for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders wanting to declare “climate emergency”. CLICK HERE, for the climate emergency declaration. CLICK HERE, for manifesto “Lead Public Into Emergency Mode”.
CLICK HERE, for AOC’s June 2018 primary. CLICK HERE, for tweet claiming we can’t afford an economy that is based on use of fossil fuels. CLICK HERE, for Sunrise Philadelphia calling for a demonstration. CLICK HERE, for a live tweet. CLICK HERE, for Malcolm Nance. CLICK HERE, for Louise Mensch. CLICK HERE, for Momentum Core Team. CLICK HERE, for the Momentum trainers. CLICK HERE, for efforts to establish a “climate debate”. CLICK HERE, for Saikar Chakrabarti admitting the Green New Deal was about changing the economy, and the environment was just a pretext.
3. Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal
Once the domain of scientific debates and science fiction disaster movies, the subject of climate change and its influence on natural disasters has now become a major topic of contention among the Hollywood jet set, children’s cartoons, and naturally as a result public officials and policy makers. Much of the discussion over climate change has been shrouded in controversy largely due to acrimonious debate over who has the proper professional standing on how severe the crisis is, whether human activity is the main catalyst of current trends, and if or how government policy must be applied to address it. However, the organizing tactics, funding, and structure of the organizations pushing climate change legislation like the Paris Climate Accord and the Green New Deal suggests a larger goal in mind, one that involves a power grab far beyond environmental and industrial emissions policy. The Sunrise Movement is being cited as a fresh youth-infused answer to the fossil fuels industries, and it is being touted by climate change activism patriarch William McKibben as having “cracked the code of the American political system”. This statement is correct, and Sunrise is hacking into the mainframe of American politics, but if McKibben were truthful he would not be omitting his own role in their germination, as well as the intersection of the group with the Boston-based Ayni Institute and its Momentum Community program. The growing stake that these groups have in the political landscape are not a natural outgrowth of a changing public consciousness, but rather one more chess piece in a grand power grab.
We’ll see what happens. . .
In 2016 TV entertainer Bill Nye, host of the children’s show “Bill Nye the Science Guy” speculated that jailing “climate deniers” may be appropriate. “We’ll see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive, and so on?” Nye responded when asked.
Unfortunately, this high handed attitude toward the discussion shows that much of the climate change action side of the argument has despaired of properly making their case against their opponents, the “climate skeptics”. The activists scoff at accusations that they are “alarmists”, but their public statements show that they are ratcheting up statements consistently in order to create a sense of panic that climate trends are sloping toward an apocalyptic event:
On July 9 Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced a joint resolution that they wanted Congress to declare a national emergency over climate change.
As documented by the Climate Emergency Declaration, there are 740 jurisdictions that have declared a climate emergency including Scotland, Wales, the Republic of Ireland, as well as London and the Australian cities of Sydney and the Australian Capital Territory among others.
There is now a group across Europe dedicated to whipping up the public into a climate emergency frenzy known as “Extinction Rebellion”. The movement is led by clinical psychologist Dr. Margaret Klein Salamon (the “Climate Psychologist”) and she published a manifesto called Leading The Public Into Emergency Mode originally in 2016.
Salamon’s manifesto was endorsed by Bill McKibben on the Climate Mobilization website where he is described as the “Movement Leader”.
According to one of its grant donors, the Guerilla Foundation, Extinction Rebellion (XR) was given between $20 and $40 thousand in order to promote “a fundamental change of the UK’s political and economic system to one which maximises well-being and minimises harm”. In the grant description point number 9 figures prominently in their Theory of Change: “Create a distributed organising model based in ‘momentum’ organising and holocracy (training from the Ayni institute / Carlos Saavedra). This is basically a hybrid of mass protest and structure based organising. Much of this is explained in the book This is an Uprising”. The book in question was written by the brothers Mark and Paul Engler, both of them former Occupy Wall Street activists themselves deeply affiliated with the Ayni Institute.
The Shame Game
While at times climate activists engage in rhetorical threats like Nye or grandstanding like Sanders and the other emergency sponsors, the value that they appeal the most to is shame. This is why the United Nations, European Parliament, Swedish Parliament and numerous other bodies have hosted the 16 year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg to speak about climate justice. Speaking about when she will be 75 years old, she asked whether her children would “ask why you didn’t do anything while there was time to act. You say you love your children above all else, and yet you’re stealing their future in front of their very eyes.” Thunberg went on to tearfully decry the 6th mass extinction of species and the acidification of the oceans.
Another statement that Thunberg makes echoes Salamon verbatim:
“Imagine there is a fire in
your house.
What do you do?
What do you think about?”
The idea of using children to shame adults for their poor policy is an understandably ingenious strategy, but it typically yields nothing in terms of policy. In 1982 a ten year old named Samantha Smith wrote to Soviet leader Yuri Andropov to ask him if he was going to vote for a war. Smith’s letter was personally answered by Andropov, and compared her to Tom Sawyer’s friend Becky and invited her to the USSR, where she spent two months as Andropov’s guest on a tour, and she was a “goodwill ambassador” for peace before dying in a plane crash at age 13 in 1985. By then both Andropov and his successor Konstantin Chernenko had both died of old age. Tragic as her story was, Samantha Smith’s story is a footnote in history as there was no major movement behind her personal initiative.
The shame tactic has been mass-produced by the Sunrise Movement in its push to promote the issue of climate change as being an issue of primary concern in the minds of the next generation of youth voters. Sunrise was formed ostensibly by two activists, Varshini Prakash and Sara Blazevic. Both of them are former activists of the Fossil Fuel Student Divestment Network, a campaign by college students to get their colleges to withdraw investments in energy companies. Both of them were involved in student sit-ins at their colleges, Blazevic at Swarthmore in 2015, and Prakash at UMass-Amherst in 2016 where activists were arrested for civil disobedience.
Now they are trying to take the climate change movement to a broader, and younger, forum. But in comments to Energy & Environment News (E&E News) they make it very apparent that their movement is a response to failures of previous groups that they have been active in. In it, their fellow co-founder Evan Weber openly muses about how Sunrise is attempting to compensate for the same flaws that he encountered while he was an activist with Occupy Wall Street. It should be noted that while Prakash and Blazevic are the face of the movement, Weber is listed on its 2016 IRS Form 990 (when it was named US Climate Plan) as the President and Executive Director, and he was listed by the climate action website Grist.orgGrist.org as a former Occupy activist and founder of the US Climate Plan. Weber had also been an activist along with fellow Wesleyan University activist Michael Lichtash for US Climate Plan who traveled to the COP20 Climate Talks in Lima, Peru in 2014. At the time they were already claiming that delaying the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the US was “a step toward climate justice”. At the time all were in one way or another linked through McKibben’s 350.org organization.
The Guru of Green Activism
During the Obama Administration’s tenure, McKibben and 350.org fought doggedly to force the President and his cabinet not to let the pipeline proceed. In 2015 the Nebraska Supreme Court removed legal hurdles to building of the Keystone XL, meaning that it would need approval from several cabinet-level officials including Secretary of State John Kerry, himself a public advocate for climate change action by governments. Until then much of the process had been tied up as conservation and activism groups battled with TransCanada (the builder) in the courts. McKibben was asked if Kerry could salvage his reputation on climate change if he approved the pipeline. According to POLITICO he answered: “No. Keystone’s obviously a keystone,” he said in an email. “Approve that and the rest is happy talk — you can’t cut carbon without cutting carbon.” For months Kerry waffled over the decision while continuing to condemn fossil fuel producers, but in November 2015 he came through for McKibben and denied the pipeline’s permit application. However when Donald Trump was inaugurated as president he approved the Keystone XL pipeline within his first three days by executive order and continues to fight against challenges to it in court.
The issue at hand is not the activism itself, but the veneer of popular will. McKibben has made a long career out of claiming to be the underdog fighting against the corporate fossil fuel industry, and to be sure they are not exactly a sympathetic opponent. There’s also legitimate concern over carbon consumption and its effects on oceans and wetlands leading to extinction of species. He formed 350.org in 2007 based on the notion that 350ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be the acceptable level in order to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change. However, the standing that McKibben has within the movement is not a result of any professional knowledge or accomplishment, he is in fact a former New Yorker writer who majored in journalism at Harvard. He then wrote The End of Nature in 1989, the book that is considered to have started the climate change movement. However, as Reason observed when reviewing his 2010 follow-up Earth, humans have adapted to the rising sea levels warned about by climate alarmists like McKibben, using the example of Boston which has reclaimed land consistently since 1775 despite rising sea levels. At one point McKibben and others climate alarmists like Jim Hansen used the global warming trends to raise public consciousness about environmental issues. But according to him, that was during a period when they were “naïve”. However, the new tactic of his supporters is to mask the existing climate movement that he began with The End of Nature in 1989 and institutionalized in the 2000s with 350.org through a youth activist group like Sunrise whose events he frequently headlines. As many climate skeptics point out the ability of climate alarmists to excite public attention diminishes when their predictions are not fulfilled, such as when Gore predicted in 2006 that the glaciers of Mt. Kilimanjaro would melt within a decade. Another member of 350.org’s board of directors, Naoimi Klein, has evaded responsibility for advocating for the Green New Deal while also being a long-time apologist for the Chavez regime that made Venezuela’s entire economy dependent on oil exports.
McKibben was also a major activist during the lead-up to COP21, the 2015 climate change conference where the Paris Agreement on Climate Change was drafted. On November 30 he wrote an opinion in Foreign Policy called “The Paris Climate Talks Will Be a Historic Success. And a Historic Disaster. ” Paris He participated in the climate marches occurring during the event, and even headlined with Klein the Pathway to Paris live concert on December 4 along with Radiohead lead vocalist Thom Yorke, Red Hot Chili Peppers bassist Flea and other rock superstars. But by December 13, as the conference had just wrapped up, he claimed that it had fallen short.
“The irony is, an agreement like this adopted at the first climate conference in 1995 might have worked. Even then it wouldn’t have completely stopped global warming, but it would have given us a chance of meeting the 1.5 degree Celsius target that the world notionally agreed on.”
Some on the political left were too jaded to take McKibben seriously, and began to characterize his activism as “greenwashing”. They noted that the agreement did much to boost the profile of the international NGO Avaaz that backed the climate march and other events, but little to accomplish anything. They also made it public that Dow Chemicals, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and even BP had been sponsors the Climate Group that had organized the conferences. What McKibben needed to do was inject some steroids into the movement so as to gain ground on those detractors.
Why “grassroots”?
In the same article claiming Paris had fallen short, McKibben made a statement that demonstrated his intentions going forward: “But what this means is that we need to build the movement even bigger in the coming years, so that the Paris agreement turns into a floor and not a ceiling for action.”
McKibben’s influence is felt deeply largely due to the usefulness of his cause to various statesmen and former politicians. In 2010 he wrote an opinion article for GristGrist claiming that Al Gore was “kicking butt” over climate change. In 2016 he became a backer of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, and wound up on his five member delegation to the Democratic National Party’s platform writing committee for that year’s election. However this was a summit that led to nowhere as the party continued to accept contributions from the fossil fuel industry. Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton received $967,336 from them during that cycle, leading by far any other Democrat in any elected position. The crusade against fossil fuels had to enter a new phase, and the US Climate Plan (founded in 2014) went through a rebranding becoming Sunrise. Since then they have made several inroads in electoral politics including getting eleven state legislators elected throughout the US, including five in Pennsylvania.
Besides Sanders, the Green New Deal advocates can numerous other candidates for 2020 that have endorsed it or proposed their own versions of it:
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio announced in December 2018 a city-wide divestment from fossil fuel companies and a lawsuit against them, a measure cheered by McKibben’s 350.org. In March the Mayor named McKibben to the OneNYC Advisory Board. De Blasio’s new city-wide rules targeting energy usage by sky-scrapers were announced in May at Trump Tower.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has made climate change the centerpiece of his tenure in office and his presidential campaign vowing to commit to a 100% renewable energy system by 2035. This was praised by McKibben on May 3, and on May 30 another McKibben acolyte Elizabeth Kolbert of The New Yorker issued a raving review in Yale 360.
One candidate McKibben may be less bullish about is Tom Steyer, an erstwhile donor. In 2016 in the run-up to the election the two sat down for a joint interview on the need to make climate change a signature issue. Steyer’s TomKat Charitable Trust has given generously to 350.org, and at one point the former hedge fund manager and the environmentalist were joined at the hipjoined at the hip in their efforts to support fossil fuel divestment. Steyer’s public image has diminished since 2016 due to his sensationalist efforts to support the impeachment of Donald Trump including funding The Democracy Integrity Project (TDIP).
Not long after the 2018 midterm election Sunrise activists occupied the office of Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi, the incoming Speaker of the House. They also ambushed Sen Diane Feinstein (D-CA) in February. Within a day McKibben had written a response in the New Yorker saying he imagines that Feinstein “would like a do-over of her colloquy”. In the same opinion article, McKibben mentioned Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg, and claimed that the Green New Deal was hatched by the Sunrise Movement.
But this is untrue, and McKibben knows that. The original Green New Deal was written in 2008 by the New Economics Foundation when many of the Sunrise activists were not even in high school. The authors included Guardian editor Larry Elliott, Andrew Simms of the NEF, Caroline Lucas of the Green Party and others. Another version, the “Global Green New Deal” was adopted by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in 2008. The American version of the Green New Deal is HR 109 which was introduced by Ocasio-Cortez. No one from Sunrise was involved in drafting it, and if everyone was being above board it would be admitted that there was no coherent “Green New Deal” when it was supported during the 2018 election cycle; so the activists and politicians were endorsing a policy proposal prior to its existence.
Messaging the GND
Does anyone really believe that it was Sunrise activists that wrote the legislation? Even in her own office, Ocasio-Cortez has four staff members, none of whom are members of it. Corbin Trent and Saikat Chakrabarti, her press secretary and chief of staff respectively, are former members of Justice Democrats, but not of Sunrise. The nexus that drives them all together is one of the policy’s most effective and most successful activists, Justice Democrats’ communications director Waleed Shahid who is also a senior leader of the Working Families Party. Based in Philadelphia, Shahid was instrumental in campaigning for the legislative election success in Pennsylvania as well as propelling Ocasio-Cortez to power by focusing on her June 2018 primary.
While McKibben is an overall mastermind of the movement, Shahid is often a point man that issues day to day messages that are often picked up by Ocasio-Cortez and other elected officials regarding climate change, while also directing the defense to the inevitable backlash. A case in point was a June 21 tweet where Ocasio-Cortez claimed that an oil refinery explosion and fire was evidence of an “existential crisis” due to climate change. Up until then very few had made that observation about the accident. However, Shahid had issued a tweet earlier that day claiming that “we can’t afford an economy based on fossil fuels”. Sunrise Philadelphia called for a demonstration within five minutes of Shahid’s tweet. During the confrontation with Sen. Feinstein during the middle of the afternoon on a Friday Shahid was live tweet echoing Sunrise Bay Area’s account in order to hype the event. He issued a total of 23 tweets that day (Feb. 22) regarding the incident, including fighting with delusional mainstream anti-Trump activists Malcolm Nance and Louise Mensch who accused Justice Democrats of uploading the video and using Russian disinformation tactics.
Like the Engler brothers, Shahid was one of the earliest core team members of the Ayni Institute and Momentum Community. Blazevic is also an alumnus of the Ayni Institute, and is a Momentum Trainer along with fellow Sunrise co-founders Will Lawrence and Diyanna Jaye. The derivative of the Momentum training is to create nominally decentralized cells (called “hubs” by Sunrise) that organize on the local level to push a progressive agenda.
But the decentralized organizing is irrelevant when the ideology of Sunrise is not dependent on the membership. The leaders of the movement all come from 350.org, the agenda is set by the ideologues like McKibben and Klein, and the day-to-day messaging is directed by the powers behind the throne like Shahid. Ultimately a green economy is a secondary goal of the movement. So far during the Democratic 2020 primary season, the movement has somewhat successfully lobbied for a “climate debate” between candidates. However, in a moment of surprising candour, Chakrabarti let slip the real truth:
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
So that leads to a concluding question: If McKibben, Salamon, and Klein were portraying the climate crisis as a global emergency on the level of World War II, then why are they pushing a piece of legislation that according to its main legislative advocate was not originally about climate change?
CLICK HERE, for #1: CPPIB invests $2B in Mumbai, India. CLICK HERE, for #2: CPP underfunded, money leaving Canada.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for CPPIB Investing $2B In Mumbai, India. CLICK HERE, for earlier piece on Canada Pension Plan. CLICK HERE, for 2000 audit. $443B shortfall (Page 113) CLICK HERE, for 2006 audit. $620B shortfall (Page 73). $67.9B added as of 2009. CLICK HERE, for 2012 audit. $830B shortfall (Page 48) CLICK HERE, for 2015 audit. $884B shortfall (Page 48) CLICK HERE, for the 2019 CPPIB Annual Report.”
CLICK HERE, for getting your statement of earnings. CLICK HERE, for CPP benefits for 2019 year. CLICK HERE, for a generic investment calculator.
CLICK HERE, for a 2017 UN report on leveraging African pension funds for financing infrastructure development. CLICK HERE, for 2019 report on development financing. CLICK HERE, for closing infrastructure funding gap.
3. Obtain Your Statement Of Contributions
Any Service Canada should be able to help you apply for a copy of your statement of contributions. One tip is to do it after a tax assessment to get the most up to date information. You will need your social insurance number.
Also, you can request your statement by mail.
Contributor Client Services
Canada Pension Plan
Service Canada
PO Box 818 Station Main
Winnipeg MB R3C 2N4
Once you have received it, you will get a lot of new information you didn’t have before. Yes, I have mine from 2018, and am ordering a 2019 statement.
4. Information From Statement Of Contributions
A quote from the 2018 statement:
You and your employer each paid 4.95% of your earnings between the minimum of $3,500 and the maximum of $55,900 for 2018. These are called “pensionable earnings. Self employed individuals paid contributions of 9.9% on these amounts.
The maximum retirement pension at age 65 this year is $1,134.17 per month.
A few things to point out here:
You and your employer “both” paid 4.95% of your earnings between the minimum and maximum amounts. So if you made $25,000 then $21,500 of it would be taxable. Both you and your employer would have contributed $1,064.25 towards it. Combined is $2128.50.
Suppose you made over $55,900. Then $52,400 of it would have been taxable, and both you and the employer would have paid $2,593.80 into it. Combined is $5187.60.
Let address the elephant in the room. How much: (a) will CPP actually pay out for you; and (b) what would you make if you invested the CPP contributions yourself?
5. How Much Will CPP Pay Out For You?
Assuming retirement at age 65, and average life expectancy is 82. That gives 17 years, (204 months) of receiving pension contributions.
For the 2019 year, the maximum is listed as $1,154.58, and the average is $679.16. None of this covers Old Age Security (OAS) or Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS). Those are separate and fall outside of CPP.
The average earner:
($679.16/month)X(17 year)X(12 month/year) = $138,540
The top earner:
($1,154.58/month)X(17 year)X(12 month/year) = $235,534
For simplicity, inflation is ignored, as is indexing of contributions.
6. Invest Your Own CPP Contributions
Yes, contributions and interest rates vary, but for simplicity, let’s keep them consistent.
For the top earner, let’s do this scenario:
(a) Worked for 40 years
(b) Contributed full amounts
(c) Invested at 8% annually.
Yes, the interest is absurd, but CPPIB claims that is what it is getting. In fact, CPPIB states that it gets 6.6-18% interest on its fun each year.
Over $1.3 million. That is what you would have after 40 years, making full contributions, assuming those contributions (both yours and the employer’s) were fully invested. A far cry from the $235,000 that you would make from 17 years of CPP payouts. Over a million more in fact.
Even just a 3% return — which is very doable — would net you $390,000 over those 4 years. Almost double what CPP would be paying out.
For an average earner, let’s try different numbers:
(a) Worked for 30 years
(b) Earned ~$30,000 annually contributed $2,970
(c) Invested at 6% annually.
$235,000 the person would have earned. This is about $100,000 more than simply taking the average payouts from Canada Pension Plan.
Why the different numbers? Perhaps the person took several years off for childcare. Perhaps there were years with low earnings. And 6% is a more realistic return, although good luck getting that from a bank. To repeat, CPPIB claims 6-18% returns (after costs) annually.
To be fair, people who go decades without working are unlikely to ever be able to save and invest the equivalent of what CPP is paying out.
For example, my own statement of contributions estimates if I were magically 65 today. With only a decade of work, I would be getting $317/month. Over the next 17 years that would pay out about $65,000, far more than I would have put in.
But long term and steadily employed workers get screwed.
7. Performance CPPIB Claims In Investments
This was addressed in the previous piece. In the CPPIB Annual Reports, the Board claims to have staggering growth year after year. Of the years listed, the interest ranges from 6% to 18%.
Year
Value of Fund
Inv Income
Rate of Return
2010
$127.6B
$22.1B
14.9%
2011
$148.2B
$20.6B
11.9%
2012
$161.6B
$9.9B
6.6%
2013
$183.3B
$16.7B
10.1%
2014
$219.1B
$30.1B
16.5%
2015
$264.6B
$40.6B
18.3%
2016
$278.9B
$9.1
6.8%
2017
$316.7B
$33.5B
11.8%
2018
$356.B
$36.7B
11.6%
2019
$392B
$32B
8.9%
Also, as outlined in the last article, the accounting method used also changes how your pension plan comes across. You can select your data, and paint a rosy picture. Or you can take ALL assets and liabilities into account.
When the Canada Pension Plan was properly audited in 2016, it was found to have $884.2 billion in unfunded liabilities. The 2019 Annual report lists $392 billion as the value of the fund. However, with over a trillion dollars in liabilities, that illusion came crashing down.
$239 billion in growth over the last decade, an 11% annual increase. But in spite of that, CPP is not paying out retirees anywhere near what they have put in.
Why? Where is the money going?
8. CPP Unfunded Liabilities Swept Under Rug
Here are quotes from some of the actuarial reports. Interesting how they go out of their way to gloss over the truth about the CPP. In 2 of the reports, the total unfunded liabilities are reduced to a mere footnote.
Page 113 in 2000 audit. Actuarial liability 486,682M Actuarial value of assets 43,715 or 9%, Unfunded liability 442,967M or 91% of total. That’s right, ten times as many liabilities as assets.
Page 73 in 2006 audit report. $619.9B in unfunded liabilities. Updated in 2009 to reflect another $67.9B on the interest (just the interest) of those unfunded liabilities.
Footnote from 2012 audit. When the “closed-group approach” is used to audit the program, the assets are $175.1 billion, actuarial liability of the Plan is equal to $1,004.9 billion, and the assets shortfall is equal to $829.8 billion
Footnote from 2015 audit. Using “closed-group approach” to audit, the actuarial liability of the Plan is equal to $1,169.5 billion, the assets are $285.4 billion, and the assets shortfall is equal to $884.2 billion
Despite the glowing reviews our politicians give, the Canada Pension Plan is not doing well. In fact, it has close to a trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. This is not sustainable in the slightest.
Younger workers will be paying into a system they have no realistic hope of ever collecting on. Not a good social safety net.
By now you are probably wondering these things:
The CPP, for most people, will never actually pay out anywhere near the amount that the person contributes over their lifetime. This is on top of the nearly 1 trillion shortfall that the plan has. So if the plan won’t pay out fully, and yet is so broke, where is the money going?
Who is running the show?
9. Open-Group v.s. Closed-Group Valuation
The difference is this: Open-group valuation principles mean that a pension is solvent and in good shape as long as it’s current assets and payouts are able to keep up with the demands of retirees at the moment. It doesn’t require that the pension plan be fully funded. The reasoning is there is a “social contract”, and that the Government can raise more money (tax more) to cover the shortfalls.
Closed-group valuation principles require that “all” liabilities be taken into account. The is a far more accurate method, as payments from all workers are considered, if those who won’t retire for decades. The rationale is that private companies could go bankrupt at any time, and need to take the actual amounts into account.
10. CPPIB Board Members Well Connected
Heather Munroe-Blum
Principal and Vice Chancellor (President), McGill University
Current Director of the Royal Bank of Canada
Hydro One (Ontario)
Trilateral Commission
Ashleigh Everett
Former Director of The Bank of Nova Scotia
Premier’s Enterprise Team for the Province of Manitoba
William ‘Mark’ Evans
Former member of the Management Committee at Goldman Sachs
Co-founded TrustBridge Partners in China (2006)
Kindred Capital in Europe (2016)
Mary Phibbs
Standard Chartered Bank plc
ANZ Banking Group
National Australia Bank
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
Allied Irish Banks plc
Morgan Stanley Bank International Ltd
The Charity Bank Ltd
Tahira Hassan
Kathleen Taylor
Chair of the Board of the Royal Bank of Canada
Director of Air Canada since May 2016
Chair since April 2019 of Altas Partners
Karen Sheriff
United Airlines
Director of WestJet Airlines
Jo Mark Zurel
Not proof of any wrongdoing, but the board is certainly connected to other institutions.
11. CPPIB Holdings (Foreign & Domestic)
Here are CPPIB’s Canadian holdings.
Here are CPPIB’s foreign holdings.
$44M in from Power Corporation (Desmarais)
$17M in Hydro One Ltd (Heather Munroe-Blum is former board member)
$555M in RBC (Heather Munroe-Blum is board member)
$292M in Scotia Bank (Sylvia Chrominska is former chair)
In fairness, there are hundreds of companies CPPIB invests in. But always keeping an eye out for potential conflicts of interest.
But having all of these assets (both within Canada and abroad), doesn’t really explain the trillion dollar shortfall. There has to be something else that the CPPIB is wasting Canadian pensioners’ retirement savings on.
12. Pensions Sent For UN Development Projects?
Yes, this sounds absurd, but consider this report from the UN about using pensions to leverage development projects. True, this report refers to African pension funds. But it is entirely possible that Canada could get involved (or already be involved) in some similar scheme.
III. PENSION FUNDS DIRECT INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE
International experience At 36.6 percent of GDP, assets of the pension funds in OECD countries are relatively large. As of end-2013, pension-fund assets were even in excess of 100 percent in countries such as the Netherlands, Iceland, Switzerland, Australia, and the United Kingdom (Figure 1). In absolute terms, pension funds in OECD countries held $10.4 trillion of assets.25 While large pension funds (LPFs) held about $3.9 trillion of assets, assets in public and private sector and public pension reserves (PPRFs) stood at $6.5 trillion.
Individual pension funds can be relatively large in some countries such as the Netherlands (ABP at $445.3 billion and PFZW at $189.0 billion) and the U.S. (CalPERS at $238.5 billion, CalSTRS at $166.3 billion, and the New York City Combined Retirement System at $150.9 billion). Similarly, PPRFs are relatively large in the U.S. (United States Social Security Trust Fund at $2.8 trillion) and Japan (Government Pension Investment Fund at $1.2 trillion). Among emerging markets, South Africa (Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) at $133.4 billion) and Brazil (Previ at $72 billion) have the largest funds in Africa and Latin America, respectively.
Pension funds can dedicate a share of their assets specifically to infrastructure. Such direct investment in infrastructure is implemented through equity investment in unlisted infrastructure projects (through direct investment in the project or through a private equity fund). Such investment can also take the form of debt investment in project and infrastructure bonds or asset-backed security. In contrast, pension funds can allocate a share of their funds indirectly to infrastructure through investment in market-traded equity and bonds. Listed equity investment can take the form of shares issued by corporations and infrastructure project funds while debt investment is often in the form of corporate market-traded bonds.
As is plain from the text, (Page 10), the UN views pensions as a potential investment vehicle for their agendas. And is clear from the pages in the reports, the UN has been sizing up pension funds from all over the world.
This is more than just an academic exercise
IV. OBSTACLES TO PENSION FUNDS INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE
The extent to which pension funds can invest in infrastructure depends on the availability of assets in the pension system. Asset availability, in turn, is driven by a number of factors including the pension system’s environment, design, and performance. Even in a well-performing pension system with ample assets available for investments, the governance, regulation, and supervision of pension funds can restrict those funds’ ability to actually invest in infrastructure. If such constraints are lifted, then pension funds need to consider the risks of infrastructure projects and demand a fair, transparent, clear, and predictable policy framework to invest in infrastructure assets. Once this hurdle is overcome, pension funds will need adequate financial and capital market instruments to implement their investment decisions.
Simple enough (page 13). Lift the regulations, and the pension money will be free to flow to UN development projects. And after all, who knows better about spending other people’s money?
The endless foreign aid gestures that our government engages in: is that really our pension money being sent abroad?
We can see from Table 2 (Page 16) that the UN has been sizing up:
Canada Pension Plan ($173B in assets)
Ontario Municipal Employees ($62B in assets)
Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan ($128B in assets)
Quebec Pension Plan ($39B in assets)
The recent OECD policy guidance for investment in clean energy, which is based on the PFI illustrates how policymakers can identify ways to mobilize private investment in infrastructure (OECD, 2015c). The policy guidance focuses on electricity generation from renewable energy sources and improved energy efficiency in the electricity sector, and provides a list of issues and questions on five areas of the PFI (investment policy, investment promotion and facilitation, competition policy, financial market policy, and public governance).
(Page 31) Clearly the UN is pushing its enviro agenda and suggesting that public pensions be used to finance at least part of it.
13. So Why Is CPP So Underfunded?
A number of factors most likely.
(A) Most pension plans are ponzi-style. In order to stay funded, it requires an ever growing number of contributors in order to pay off older contributors. Rather than having members who can sustain themselves, this is dependent on infinite growth.
(B) Although a person contributing to a pension in their career would “theoretically” be self-sufficient, it is clear the interest and gains are not what CPPIB pretends. If the fund was growing at 10%+ year over year, it would be different. We are not getting the full story.
(C) Public sector pensions are not sustainable either. So, very likely that some CPP money is being diverted to help cover the shortfalls.
(D) Due to political pressure, the powers that be find it more convenient to downplay the serious shortfalls rather than meaningfully address it. No political will to ask the hard questions.
(E) There has to be money going to outside projects, such as the UN plot to use pensions to fund their development agenda. The UN is a money pit, and the waste is probably enormous.
(In 2019 Annual Report, the CPPIB claims that the fund is worth $392 billion as of March 31, 2019)
(2016, Chief Actuary claims CPP is sustainable)
(Ezra Levant of Rebel Media addresses CPP)
(Pension ponzi schemes explained)
1. More On Pension Plans/Funding
CLICK HERE, for #1: CPPIB invests $2B in Mumbai, India
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB). CLICK HERE, for the 2019 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2018 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2017 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2016 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2015 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2014 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2013 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2012 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2011 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2010 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for the 2009 CPPIB Annual Report. CLICK HERE, for CPPIB reports on “SUSTAINABLE” investing.
CLICK HERE, for 2016 Triannual Report from Canada’s Chief Actuary. CLICK HERE, for Chief Actuary’s 2016 Supplemental Report. CLICK HERE, for information on Canada’s “Green Bonds”. CLICK HERE, for a previous article on “green bonds. CLICK HERE, for previous article, $2B in CPP funds sent to India. CLICK HERE, for a Financial Post article suggesting CPP is being used to prop up public sector pensions. CLICK HERE, for a Fraser Institute article on CPP unfunded liabilities.
CLICK HERE, for Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, for sustainability of CPP. Using “closed door approach” there are $884.2B in unfunded liabilities. Turn to pages 46-50.
3. Glowing 2016 Press Release
The press release regarding, the Chief Actuary’s report on the sustainability of the Canadian Pension Plan.
Middle class Canadians are working harder than ever, but many are worried that they won’t have enough put away for their retirement. One in four families approaching retirement—1.1 million families—are at risk of not saving enough. That is why a stronger Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is a key part of the promise that the Government of Canada made to Canadians to help the middle class and those working hard to join it.
Today, Minister of Finance Bill Morneau tabled the Chief Actuary’s 28th Actuarial Report on the CPP in Parliament. The report confirms that the contribution and benefit levels proposed under the CPP enhancement agreed upon by Canada’s governments on June 20, 2016 will be sustainable over the long term, ensuring that Canadian workers can count on an even stronger, secure CPP for years to come.
On October 6, 2016, the Government of Canada delivered on its commitment to a stronger CPP with the introduction of legislation in Parliament to implement the agreement reached by Canada’s governments to enhance the CPP to give Canadians a stronger public pension that will help them retire in dignity.
This can’t really be taken at face value, as it is all self serving. The notice fails to even acknowledge the elephant in the room, which we will get into.
4. Quotes From Actuary’s 2016 Report
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) invests base CPP funds according to its own investment policies which take into account the needs of contributors and beneficiaries, as well as financial market constraints. It is expected that a separate investment policy will be developed by the CPPIB with respect to the additional CPP assets. Since at the time of the preparation of the 28th Report there is no such separate investment policy in existence, the real rate of return assumption was developed to reflect the financing objective of the additional Plan. As the actual CPPIB investment strategy for the additional CPP assets becomes known, it will be reflected in subsequent actuarial reports by revising the real rate of return assumption
This is a bit troublesome. It will become “known” to the public, or it will become “known” to the people doing the investments? (Page 15 of report.)
(Page 30 of report.) The CPPIB estimates that the percentage of base contributions from investment profits will creep up, and that the additional CPP will eventually become mostly funded from investment income by 2075.
The future income and outgo of the additional CPP depend on many demographic and economic factors. Thus, many assumptions in respect of the future demographic and economic outlook are required to project the financial state of the additional Plan. These assumptions impact the contribution rates, cash flows, amount of assets, as well as other indicators of the financial state. This section discusses the sensitivity of the minimum first and second additional contribution rates to the use of different assumptions than the best estimate.
Can’t fault the report for admitting it has to make assumptions. However, the trends of the current government are not great. Admitting large numbers of “refugees” who are and will remain a burden will not contribute to public coffers. Nor will vast amounts of seniors or others who won’t work. Furthermore, making industrial projects more difficult (Bills C-48 and C-69), means additional Canadians not working.
The actuarial projections of the financial state of the Canada Pension Plan presented in this report reveal that if the CPP is amended as per Part 1 of Bill C-26, the constant minimum first and second additional contribution rates that result in projected contributions and investment income that are sufficient to fully pay the projected expenditures of the additional Canada Pension Plan would be, respectively, 1.93% for the year 2023 and thereafter and 7.72% for the year 2024 and thereafter.
This report confirms that if the Canada Pension Plan is amended as per Part 1 of Bill C-26, a legislated first additional contribution rate of 2.0% for the year 2023 and thereafter, and a legislated second additional contribution rate of 8.0% for the year 2024 and thereafter, result in projected contributions and investment income that are sufficient to fully pay the projected expenditures of the additional Plan over the long term. Under these rates, assets of the additional Plan would accumulate to $70 billion by 2025, and to $1,330 billion by 2050.
No real surprise. The report concludes that the changes that the Government wants to bring in are exactly what are needed to make the plan sustainable.
5. CPPIB Claims Plan Sustainable Past 2090
Within this strategic framework, fiscal 2017 was a good year for CPPIB. Our diversified portfolio achieved a net return of 11.8% after all costs. Assets increased by $37.8 billion, of which $33.5 billion came from the net income generated by CPPIB from investment activities, after all costs, and $4.3 billion from net contributions to the CPP. Our 10-year real rate of return of 5.1%, after all CPPIB costs, remains above the 3.9% average rate of return that the Chief Actuary of Canada assumes in assessing the sustainability of the CPP. In his latest triennial review issued in September 2016, the Chief Actuary reported that the Base CPP is sustainable until at least 2090.
CPPIB toots its own horn, stating that the plan is sustainable at least until 2090. Page 5 is a quote from the 2017 annual report.
6. Quotes From 2019 CPPIB Annual Report
This is a graph included at the beginning of the report (page 3). It projects that by the year 2040, the Canada Pension Plan will have over $1.5 trillion in assets. This is in comparison to the $393 billion that there currently is.
It shows that actual assets have been higher than projected assets for the last 3 years.
The most recent triennial report by the Chief Actuary of Canada indicated that the CPP is sustainable over a 75-year projection period. Projections of the CPP Fund, being the combined assets of the base and additional CPP accounts, are based on the nominal projections from the 29th Actuarial Report supplementing the 27th and 28th Actuarial Reports on the Canada Pension Plan as at December 31, 2015.
The report shows a graph with projected assets. However, it doesn’t seem to address liabilities. Specifically, the pension contributions of much younger people who are paying into the system and are entitled to get it out when they retire.
This is impressive. Over the last decade, $239 billion has been added to the fund, an equivalent of 11% annual growth. Of course, one may be forgiven for asking why premiums are so high if it’s all just going into a government fund.
7. CPPIB Claims Fund Is Worth Billions
Note: The sources for this data is in all of the annual reports, going back a decade, which are linked up in SECTION 1.
Inv. Income refers to investment income. This is money CPPIB claims that the funds make annually. Notice the rate of return varies from 6-18%. That is money that CPPIB makes, not money that YOU will be making from the pension plan.
Year
Value of Fund
Inv Income
Rate of Return
2010
$127.6B
$22.1B
14.9%
2011
$148.2B
$20.6B
11.9%
2012
$161.6B
$9.9B
6.6%
2013
$183.3B
$16.7B
10.1%
2014
$219.1B
$30.1B
16.5%
2015
$264.6B
$40.6B
18.3%
2016
$278.9B
$9.1
6.8%
2017
$316.7B
$33.5B
11.8%
2018
$356.B
$36.7B
11.6%
2019
$392B
$32B
8.9%
The value of the pension fund is skyrocketing? Isn’t it? Looking at the values from the annual reports, it has tripled in value in just a decade. This is incredible growth.
What then is the problem?
8. CPPIB Has Billions In Unfunded Liabilities
Not just billions, but hundreds of billions in liabilities.
The Plan is intended to be long-term and enduring in nature, a fact that is reinforced by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments’ joint stewardship through the established strong governance and accountability framework of the Plan. Therefore, if the Plan’s financial sustainability is to be measured based on its asset excess or shortfall, it should be done so on an open group basis that reflects the partially funded nature of the Plan, that is, its reliance on both future contributions and invested assets as means of financing its future expenditures. The inclusion of future contributions and benefits with respect to both current and future participants in the assessment of the Plan’s financial state confirms that the Plan is able to meet its financial obligations over the long term1 2
What is the difference between open group basis and closed group basis?
The open group approach addresses assets and liabilities with respect to their expectations v.s. reality. The closed group approach, however, measures total assets and liabilities. And to see how much of a difference it makes, see the following two screenshots.
If you use the open group approach, everything looks fine. Reality comes very close to what you are expecting. However, the “closed group approach” takes everything into account, not just expectations.
Remember, when younger workers are paying into CPP, the organization has the money, but it isn’t theirs. It belongs to the workers, even if they won’t retire for 20, 30, or 40 years. The only way “open group approach” works is if the CPPIB had no intention of paying younger workers back.
All things considered, Canada Pension Plan is short $884.2 billion (as of 2016). This is if you don’t use selective accounting.
Paying off current obligations, by taking money from new people. Isn’t that how a ponzi scheme works? To be fair though, there is “some” investing done by CPPIB. It’s just that the bulk of the new money comes from the younger suckersworkers.
Guess this partially explains why all parties are so pro-mass-migration. Workers are needed to be shipped in to contribute deductions to fund the shortfall.
9. Is CPP Used To Prop Up Public Pensions?
As the federal and provincial governments continue discussing changes to the Canada Pension Plan, it is worth recalling that there are no public discussions of the most important pension issue in Canada: The unsustainable gap between the pensions of public servants and most everyone else. In fact, some critics maintain that the push to expand the CPP is driven by an unspoken need to prop up public-sector pension plans a little longer. However, doing so will only delay the inevitable overhaul of both the benefits and the funding of public-sector pensions.
The key issues surrounding public-service pension-plan benefits are mostly unspoken, both to their members and to taxpayers. Public-sector unions allow their members to believe the fiction that members contribute a fair share of their own retirement benefits, when really, the vast majority is funded by taxpayers. Few people appreciate how the CPP is folded into public-sector pension benefits: since benefits are “defined” in advance, an increase in CPP benefits reduces the amount that a public-sector pension needs to pay out to retired workers (leaving unchanged the total benefit payout to public-sector retirees). Meanwhile, taxpayers are kept in the dark about the full measure of unfunded future benefits they will have to pay, even as they shoulder more of the burden for their own retirement.
That is a theory floated over the years. Unfortunately, it gets difficult to prove given how CPPIB will not be honest about their $884.2 billion in unfunded liabilities. Their annual reports seem designed to conceal the truth.
An interesting argument though. If public sector union workers are retiring (or are retired), then they have likely been promised a good pension. However, if those union funds can’t cover it, would CPP be dipped into to make up the difference?
10. CPPIB “Invests” 85% Outside Of Canada
(From page 11 of the 2019 report)
Our 2025 strategy With two decades under our belt, CPPIB has hit its stride and truly knows its potential as a global active manager of capital. Last year, I wrote about the Board-approved strategic direction for CPPIB in 2025. Over this past year, we’ve continued to refine this 2025 strategy, and chart the course for the coming years.
Pillars of our 2025 plan include investing up to one-third of the Fund in emerging markets such as China, India and Latin America, increasing our opportunity set and pursuing the most attractive risk-adjusted returns. We have reoriented our investment departments to deliver on this growth plan, to manage a larger Fund and to achieve our desired geographic and asset diversification.
To ask the obvious question: why is the CPPIB so eager to plow its money into FOREIGN ventures? Wouldn’t putting the bulk of it into Canadian projects make more sense?
This is not just a return-on-investment issue. Plowing that money into Canadian industries would help Canadians, and help drive Canadian employment, would it not? This is supposed to be a “Canadian” pension fund.
(From page 13 of the 2019 report). The CPPIB expects that by 2050, nearly 1/2 of all income to the pension plan will be from interest and dividends on its portfolio
For reference, the fund value is calculated using this rough formula
Employee & Employer CPP Contributions + Fund Investment Returns – CPP payouts = Value
So how much of CPPIB investments are in Canada?
That’s right, just 15.5% in Canada. The other 84.5% is invested abroad. Where specifically is this money going?
(1) Midstream joint venture United States US$1.34 billion Formed a joint venture with Williams to establish midstream exposure in the U.S., with initial ownership stakes in two of Williams’ midstream systems.
(2) Grand Paris development Paris, France Formed a joint venture with CMNE, La Française’s majority shareholder, to develop real estate projects linked to the Grand Paris project, a significant infrastructure initiative in Paris.
(3) Ultimate Software United States Total value: US$11 billion Acquired a leading global provider of cloud-based human capital management solutions, alongside consortium partners Hellman & Friedman, Blackstone and GIC. (4) CPPIB Green Bond Issuance Canada and Europe C$1.5 billion/€$1.0 billion First pension fund to issue green bonds in 10-year fixed-rate notes. Our inaugural Green Bond was a Canadian dollar-denominated bond, followed by a eurodenominated bond.
(5) ChargePoint United States Total value: US$240 million Invested as part of a funding round in preferred shares of ChargePoint, the world’s leading electric vehicle charging network.
(6) European logistics facilities Europe €450 million Formed a partnership with GLP and Quadreal to develop modern logistics facilities in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium.
(7) Companhia Energética de São Paulo (CESP) São Paulo, Brazil R$1.9 billion Together with Votorantim Energia, acquired a controlling stake in CESP, a Brazilian hydro-generation company.
(8) Pacifico Sur Mexico C$314 million (initial) Signed an agreement alongside Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan to acquire a 49% stake in a 309-kilometre toll road in Mexico from IDEAL.
(9) WestConnex Sydney, Australia Total value: A$9.26 billion Invested in WestConnex, a 33-kilometre toll road project in Sydney, alongside consortium partners Transurban, AustralianSuper and ADIA.
(10) Logistics facilities Korea Up to US$500 million Partnered with ESR to invest in modern logistics facilities in Korea.
(11) Challenger fund Australia and New Zealand A$500 million Partnered with Challenger Investment Partners to invest in middle-market real estate loans in Australia and New Zealand.
(12) Ant Financial China US$600 million Invested in Ant Financial, a company with an integrated technology platform and an ecosystem of partners to bring more secure and transparent financial services to individuals and small businesses.
(13) Renewable power assets Canada, U.S., Germany C$2.25 billion Acquired 49% of Enbridge’s interests in a portfolio of North American onshore wind and solar assets and two German offshore wind projects, and agreed to form a joint venture to pursue future European offshore wind investment opportunities.
(14) Berlin Packaging United States US$500 million Invested US$500 million in the recapitalization of Berlin Packaging L.L.C. alongside Oak Hill Capital Partners. Berlin Packaging is a leading supplier of packaging products and services to companies in multiple industries.
That’s right. Our Canadian pension fund is being used to prop up projects in: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain and the United States.
We won’t invest in Canadian industries, but we will bail them out. Great idea.
What about item #4, those green bonds?
11. CPPIB Endorses Climate Change Scam
So called green bonds are now available for sale. So state the obvious, if climate change were really a threat to humanity, then this is blatantly taking advantage of it.
Support for environmental companies or projects and clean technology is a strategic priority for EDC as demand rises for goods and services that allow for a more efficient use of the planet’s resources. Opportunities to create trade are abundant in this sector and Canada possesses a large pool of both established and emerging expertise in clean technology subsectors such as water and wastewater, biofuel, and waste to energy, to name a few.
Eligible transactions will include loans that help mitigate climate change with clean technology or improved energy efficiency. They also include transactions that specifically focus on soil, or help mitigate climate change. Our rigorous due diligence requirements ensure that all projects and transactions we support are financially, environmentally and socially responsible.
What happens when it becomes politically untenable for these globalist politicians to keep wasting taxpayer money on this hoax? Will it collapse? Will we have to perpetuate the lie in order to ensure that our “investments” don’t disappear?
Another factor that is reshaping the global investment environment is climate change. As a long-term investor, understanding environmental impacts on our investments is a key consideration and we continue to chart both the risks and opportunities stemming from climate change. This year, we launched our inaugural Green Bond, becoming the first pension fund to do so. We followed that with a euro-denominated offering. These issuances provide additional funding for CPPIB as it increases its holdings in renewables and energy-efficient buildings as world demand gradually transitions in favour of such investible assets.
(From Page 10 of the 2019 report.) Perhaps no one informed them that the climate change agenda is a scam, and has become a money pit.
This is hardly the first time that green bonds have come up. It will not be the last either.
When they say “risks and opportunities”, what are the opportunities? Will it be investing in a bubble that is sure to burst? Will it be taking advantage of desperate people?
Euro-denominated offerings? Why, is it a bigger market there?
12. What You Aren’t Being Told
The CPPIB admits that the bulk of its fund (around 85%) is actually invested outside of the country. That’s right, Canadians’ pension contributions being used to finance foreign investments. People assume that their money will be recirculated locally, but that is not the case.
CPPIB admits that it embraces the climate change scam. It goes as far as to endorse so-called “green bonds”. Again, this isn’t something the average person would know.
There is a credible case to be made that CPP funds are being used to top of public sector accounts, which are underfunded.
The CPP Investment Board intentionally distorts the truth about the unfunded liabilities. Using the OPEN GROUP approach, they show that actual assets are very close to expected assets, and they can cover their liabilities.
However, the more honest CLOSED GROUP approach will address “all” assets and liabilities, not just current ones. As it turns out, in 2016, the Canada Pension Plan had $285.4B in assets, and $1169.5B ($1.169.5 trillion) in liabilities. This works out to a $884.2B shortfall.
CPP is grossly underfunded.
CPP is being used to top up public pensions.
CPP is being invested in “green” schemes.
CPP is mainly being “invested” out of Canada.
CPP requires ever growing populations.
In short, we are screwed.
(Propaganda, Canada should be 100 million, Global Brief)
(Don’t worry, the UN can help)
(Graphs from 2018 Report to Parliament)
(See here, for the actual report)
Author’s note: the basis for this article is that Canadian politicians outright lie about the true size and scale of immigration into Canada.
While they “claim” it is approximately 300,000 to 320,000 people annually, it is not. Truthfully, when other categories are factored in, it is closer to 1M per year. That doesn’t even cover illegal migrants. Yes, some will leave, but many won’t.
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for a previous review of CBC article on “Century Initiative”. CLICK HERE, for a previous article searching the true size of immigration rates in Canada. CLICK HERE, for research on forced diversity. CLICK HERE, for the UN & replacement migration. CLICK HERE, for review of CBC pushing an agenda to replace the Canadian population. Less births + more mass migration. CLICK HERE, for the Hungarian model, larger families.
CLICK HERE, for some StatsCan projections. CLICK HERE, for StatsCan estimates of non-permanent residents. CLICK HERE, for StatsCan’s conclusions in 2015.
2. Century Initiative
If Canada sticks with current practices, our population will grow to between 51 to 53 million by the end of the century.
.
A non-profit group called The Century Initiative advocates doubling that, to 100 million. That’s about triple our current population.
.
“We recognize that it may be counterintuitive,” Shari Austin, CEO of the Century Initiative, told The Sunday Edition’s guest host Peter Armstrong.
.
It’s the only way, she argued, that Canada can face the economic challenges ahead and strengthen its international influence.
.
Currently, Canada accepts 310,000 immigrants per year. The Century Initiative suggests that number should be closer to 450,000.
.
“It’s a big, audacious goal,” she conceded. But it has been done before. Since 1945 to the present day, Canada’s population has tripled.
.
Long term view and short term pain
.
According to Austin, if this goal isn’t met, Canada will struggle financially and governments won’t have enough to pay for the services we have come to expect in this country.
“We need to be prepared to put more money into certain things that will make sure our growth is successful,” she warned.
.
She also sees this as a way to create “a more diverse, more interesting, dynamic population.”
CBC published the article, and did an interview, seemingly with no real depth or critical questions. Little more than a puff piece.
There are so many questions I want to ask that group. Here is what I sent them. Unsurprisingly, they never responded.
(1) Who funds you exactly, and what is their political ideology?
(2) Does CBC endorse the article you did?
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-october-14-2018-1.4858401/canada-s-population-needs-to-be-100-million-by-2100-1.4860172
(3) Why should Canada be concerned with tripling its population?
(4) What would you say to critics who would argue that this is unnecessary, and just globalist propaganda?
(5) With this focus on mass immigration, why don’t you mention the many challenges that it has had, such as: (a) incompatible cultures; (b) language barriers; (c) difficulties doing proper screening — ISIS; (d) high unemployment, (e) stresses on the host nation; (f) medical and health issues and so on?
(6) Why focus on immigration when their are so many Canadian youth struggling to get meaningful work?
(7) Why focus on immigration to boost population when there are so many Canadians who would like to have more kids?
(8) Is your goal to change the nature and culture of Canada through mass immigration?
(9) Is your goal to dismantle or take away any of Canada’s sovereignty?
(10) Is your goal economic migration or “humanitarian” migration? And considering how many “refugees” become public charges, would that not be a drain on the public funds?
(11) Do you believe in open borders or globalism?
Amazing the garbage that our tax dollars air in public. It would have been nice for CBC to either push back a little, or show some skepticism.
3. Current Immigration Rates
This is reposted from the earlier article on estimating the true size of Canada’s immigration rates. How the estimates came by is outlined in that article.
A few assumptions:
(1) Although International Mobility is “meant” to be temporary, visa holders absolutely can find ways to obtain other visas, or apply for PR in certain cases, so count the entire amount.
(2) The data on international students appears to lump “current” visa holders in, it doesn’t specify the length of the visas (nor how long each would be good for). But 2017 listed 317K student visas.
(3) Given the cost and uselessness of much of higher education in Canada, it is reasonable to suspect the main motivation is a pathway to PR.
(4) Although temporary foreign workers are sold to the public as “temporary”, there are direct pathways to permanent residence that most will take advantage of.
Category
Number
Permanent Imm/Refugees
350,000
Temp Foreign Worker
80,000
International Mobility
224,000
International Student
317,000
Totals (approx.)
970,000
Note: this is based on 2017 numbers from the 2018 report to parliament. Although 350K is the “targeted” amount for regular/refugee, the actual totals were a bit less than that.
Of course, not everyone will stay. That’s true. But most will. Assuming, say, 800K will stay, that would still mean explosive growth.
So 800,000 people annually, assuming all categories are counted, and assuming these numbers are accurate. For the sake of simplicity, let’s say yes they are. True, not everyone will stay in Canada. But the vast majority will, if given the chance.
And also, for the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that the globalist “leaders” won’t raise the rates, or come up with new programs, as unlikely as that is.
4. Estimate 2100 Population
Note: using an annuity calculator is not the same thing as proper modelling for population estimates. However, as a crude estimate, it will work.
The CBC article listed two assumptions:
310,000 people/year leads to 51-53M population by 2100
450,000 people/year leads to 100M population by 2100
It is unclear what formula was used, so let’s take a wild shot. Could be completely off, but just for interest’s sake.
With the “desired” annual intake of 450,000 people/annually, this would add about 63 million to Canada’s population by the year 2100. This would be very close to the 100 million that Century Canada is advocating for. It is also what the current Federal Government is calling for.
Again, while this is extremely rough, the average growth rate (from birth rates) would be about 1.32%. This doesn’t take host population into account, as birth rates are pretty flat, if not outright declining.
However, as shown previously, the annual intake of Canada is approximately 800,000 people annually. Possibly even higher.
Now we use the same calculator, again, assuming 1.32% growth, and zero growth for host population
Using this intake, it will add about 112 million more people, and the Canadian population will approach 150 million.
Yes, this is greatly simplified. However, the point was to illustrate that “current” mass migration rates far exceed those globalist agendas.
It’s like they don’t want us to know about what goes on.
5. Where Will The Real Growth Be?
This man, talking to Rebel Media, was stunningly blunt and honest. We have families, we are making babies, you are not. By 2060, according to Pew Research (Western research), Muslims will be the biggest group anywhere. What are Westerners going to do then?
Where is the lie here? Guess who is breeding? Muslims know that demographics is destiny.
6. It Doesn’t Have To Be Like This
Canada, wake up. Your politicians are lying to you about immigration into Canada. Moreover, this “civic nationalism” they promote is glorified multiculturalism.
Canada is not admitting ~300K people annually. It is close to triple that. By 2100, there could very well be close to 150 million people in Canada. Instead of promoting the Hungarian model of larger families, the solution is to import more people.
Culture, language, religion, customs…. none of that matters. What is important is getting the numbers up, and being tolerant. After all, having nothing in common makes us stronger.
It is not all rainbows and unicorns. Our “leaders” gloss over the issues with mixing incompatible cultures. They tell groups to “preserve their identities” and that diversity is our strength.
7. Disclaimer Must Be Added
This is not scientific by any means, but a very crude estimate based on a few factors:
Canada’s actual immigration nowhere near 300-350K/year
At 310K, population estimated to be 51-53M
At 450K, population estimated to be 100M
Okay, assuming those numbers are remotely accurate, let’s try this: We take in close to 1M/year, and of those, 800K or so stay. That will end up being a heck of a lot more than 100M.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: series intro and other listings. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: suing for the right to illegally enter U.S. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: the U.N.’s hypocrisy on sexual abuse.
At least one organization, Advocates Abroad, is openly committing fraud in trying to get bogus “refugees” into Europe. This is done by concocting convincing stories with specific details in hopes of duping refugee agencies.
Ariel Ricker, the executive director of Advocates Abroad, a major non-profit NGO which provides legal aid to migrants, has been caught on tape openly discussing how she teaches refugees to lie to border agents. The video was released by Canadian right-wing activist, author and internet personality, Lauren Southern, and will be a part of her new documentary film project ‘Borderless,’ which takes on the European migration crisis.
One method she teaches migrants is to exploit the presumed Christian sympathies of the predominantly Eastern Orthodox Greece by pretending to have been persecuted for being Christian. She even describes telling them how to pray during interviews, ironically because doing so reflects “honesty.”
Advocates Abroad claim the video was selectively edited and manipulated to serve a particular agenda.
4. Other NGO Activities
CLICK HERE, for Advocates Abroad. CLICK HERE, for smuggling 40 migrants into Italy. CLICK HERE, for people smuggling into Europe. CLICK HERE, for NGOs smuggling Muslims into Italy. CLICK HERE, for “humanitarian” smuggling into Greece. CLICK HERE, for Soros funded NGOs smuggling ISIS into Europe.
Of course the above links are just a tiny sample.
Interesting that Canada signed the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto.
The Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, adopted by General Assembly resolution 55/25, entered into force on 28 January 2004. It deals with the growing problem of organized criminal groups who smuggle migrants, often at high risk to the migrants and at great profit for the offenders. A major achievement of the Protocol was that, for the first time in a global international instrument, a definition of smuggling of migrants was developed and agreed upon. The Protocol aims at preventing and combating the smuggling of migrants, as well as promoting cooperation among States parties, while protecting the rights of smuggled migrants and preventing the worst forms of their exploitation which often characterize the smuggling process.
Canada claims to be against human smuggling. Yet we sign treaties (like the New York Declaration and Global Migration Compact), which facilitate human smuggling.
5. Interpol’s Take On Human Smuggling
For centuries, people have left their homes in search of better lives. In the last decade, the process of globalization has caused an unprecedented amount of migration from the least developed countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe to Western Europe, Australia and North America.
With this, we have seen an increase in the activities of organized criminal networks who facilitate irregular migration. By providing fake identification documents, organizing transport, and bypassing official border controls, criminals are making huge profits.
People smuggling syndicates are run like businesses, drawn by the high profit margins and low risks. They benefit from weak legislation and a relatively low risk of detection, prosecution and arrest compared to other activities of transnational organized crime.
Smuggling networks can be extensive and complex, and can include people who carry out a number of different roles:
A report published jointly by Europol and INTERPOL in May 2016 estimates that more than 90% of the migrants coming to the European Union are facilitated, mostly by members of a criminal network.
Worth pointing out: that while Interpol cites the UN’s policies against human smuggling, it neglects to mention that the UN’s policies around “rights” for illegals go a long way towards incentivizing mass illegal immigration.
It also neglects to point out the underhanded means which host countries have these forced on their populations by politicians.
6. Media Pussyfoots Around Illegal Immigration
(From a CBC article)
“Desperate migrants are choosing ever more dangerous sea routes to Europe and using smaller and less seaworthy boats, causing a sharp increase in drowning deaths, warns the International Organization for Migration.”
“Meanwhile in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is ratcheting up his attacks on the European Union, calling it a “transport agency” for migrants that hands out funds and “anonymous bank cards” to “terrorists and criminals.”
.
“This is the kind of slippery slope which could again lead to a broken Europe,” Orbán declared today in an interview on Hungarian public radio.
The author of this trash deliberately and repeatedly skirted the main issue here: these hoards of “migrants” trying to get into Europe were doing so ILLEGALLY. Hence places like Hungary have every right to secure their borders.
(From one CBC interview)
“AMT: We all remember the Berlin Wall coming down. In fact it was 30 years ago this year. I’ve got a clip here that I’d like you to hear. These are two Germans talking about what it felt like to stand on top of the Berlin Wall after the crowds started streaming across the border.
.
AMT: Elisabeth Vallet, how did the fall of that iconic wall affect our ideas around the usefulness or function of walls?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Well actually if you remember in 1989 it opened a almost a hippie era of international relations, where we believed that it was the end of borders me. Maybe even the end of state sovereignty or even the fading sovereignty of the state. We believed that peace would be dominating and that conflicts would be solved by the international community. It actually showed the good the positive aspects of globalization. And we overlooked the negative aspects of globalization. And when 9/11 arrived, it’s as if that negative aspect of globalization showed its face. And that’s when the only solution to that, governments came up with the one only solution which was building border fences, because there is no way to retain globalization, to contain globalization.”
In this garbage, the “expert” compares the Berlin Wall to border walls in general. The Berlin wall was built in the 1960s to keep Germans from fleeing, and in fact kept them prisoner. This is conflated with building walls to stop illegal immigration.
The above are just 2 examples of how media outlets (like the CBC) try to shade and distort the truth by downplaying how serious and criminal these actions actually are. They play to emotion and selectively avoid hard truths.
7. UN Openly Aids And Abets Refugee Fraud
(UN supports ongoing efforts to undermine US/Mexico border)
It involves some serious mental gymnastics to explain how the UN can both:
Support mass, uncontrolled entry into other countries
Oppose circumventing laws to get migrants into other countries
San Jose – The UN Migration Agency, IOM, continues to provide support and assistance to migrants who have joined the migrant caravans crossing Central America and opted to seek asylum in Mexico or return to their countries of origin.
In the Siglo XXI Migratory Station of Tapachula, managed by the National Institute for Migration (INM) of Mexico, IOM and the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs (SRE) have been supplying food and basic hygiene kits to over 1,500 migrants from the caravans seeking asylum in Mexico.
“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” says Christopher Gascon, IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico. “In coordination with UNHCR we will continue to monitor the situation of the caravan counting on field staff, the Mexican Office of Assistance for Migrants and Refugees (DAPMyR), and partner NGOs, providing information regarding alternatives for regular and safe migration, as well as options for voluntary returns.”
“The caravan phenomenon in Central America is another expression of a migration process that the region has been facing for quite some time,” explains Marcelo Pisani, IOM Regional Director for Central America, North America, and the Caribbean. “It is a mixed migration flow, driven by economic factors, family reunification, violence and the search for international protection, among others.
That’s right. The UN admits that many of these cases are not refugees.
The United Nations willingly aids and abets efforts to overwhelm the US/Mexico border. Even knowing that the bulk of the asylum claims are bogus, the UN sees nothing immoral about perpetrating a fraud. Nor is there anything immoral about the burden dumped on the American public.
What is eerie is how coordinated these “refreshment aid packages” are delivered. Almost as if the UN planned this invasion from the beginning.
8. UN Erasing Borders With New York Declaration (2016) and Global Migration Compact (2018)
The New York Declaration (2016) was covered here previously.
5. We reaffirm the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. We reaffirm also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recall the core international human rights treaties. We reaffirm and will fully protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status; all are rights holders. Our response will demonstrate full respect for international law and international human rights law and, where applicable, international refugee law and international humanitarian law.
49. We commit to strengthening global governance of migration. We therefore warmly support and welcome the agreement to bring the International Organization for Migration, an organization regarded by its Member States as the global lead agency on migration, into a closer legal and working relationship with the United Nations as a related organization. We look forward to the implementation of this agreement, which will assist and protect migrants more comprehensively, help States to address migration issues and promote better coherence between migration and related policy domains.
56. We affirm that children should not be criminalized or subject to punitive measures because of their migration status or that of their parents.
77. We intend to expand the number and range of legal pathways available for refugees to be admitted to or resettled in third countries. In addition to easing the plight of refugees, this has benefits for countries that host large refugee populations and for third countries that receive refugees.
The UN Global Migration Compact (2018) was covered here, and again here. Sorry, but I don’t believe Michelle Rempel’s half-assed “rejection” of the Compact.
OBJECTIVE 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
21. We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility and decent work reflecting demographic and labour market realities, optimizes education opportunities, upholds the right to family life, and responds to the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration
OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner 27. We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.
OBJECTIVE 13: Use immigration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
29. We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.
OBJECTIVE 15: Provide access to basic services for migrants
31. We commit to ensure that all migrants, regardless of their migration status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services. We further commit to strengthen migrant inclusive service delivery systems, notwithstanding that nationals and regular migrants may be entitled to more comprehensive service provision, while ensuring that any differential treatment must be based on law, proportionate, pursue a legitimate aim, in accordance with international human rights law.
OBJECTIVE 17(c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internetbased information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media
The United Nations is fully on board with erasing borders with their mass migration policies. The 2016 and 2018 agreements leave no doubt of that.
Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), or Civil Societies, are involved in bringing large numbers of people from the third world over to the first. Some do it out of guilt or conscience, while others do it for money.
Obvious question: Do these NGOs and the UN work together?
9. Many NGOs (Civil Societies) Work With UN
(NGO Branch Department of Economic and Social Affairs of UN)
(The UN “directly” collaborates with NGOs/Civil Societies)
Faced with many complex challenges in recent years, UNHCR has redoubled its efforts to strengthen its partnerships with UN organizations and NGOs, both international and national, seeking to maximise complementarity and sustainability in its work for refugees and others of concern.
Today, UNHCR works with more than 900 funded, operational and advocacy partners to ensure that the rights and needs of populations of concern are met. UNHCR continues to give high priority to its relations with partners, and strives to strengthen strategic and operational collaboration at global, regional and country levels.
The main goal of the organization’s vast network of partnerships is to ensure better outcomes for persons of concern by combining and leveraging complementary resources and working together in a transparent, respectful and mutually beneficial way. These partnerships also underpin UNHCR’s engagement in inter-agency fora and processes, where mutual understanding and strong alliances help ensure that refugees, IDPs and stateless persons are adequately prioritised.
So, how exactly would switching Canada’s reliance on refugee selection be helped here? If NGOs (Civil Societies) directly work with the UN, then is there any real difference?
The UN cites over 900 fully funded partners. Other than possibly decentralizing the process, what is the point here? Is it a policy distinction without a difference?
(Page 8) Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both legitimate and illegitimate sides. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.
The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.
Aranowitz puts forward a similar view and claims that smuggling could not have grown to such proportions if it were not supported by powerful market forces. Furthermore, Aranowitz argues that smugglers exhibit entrepreneur-like behaviour and circumvent legal requirements through corruption, deceit and threats. They specialize either in smuggling or in trafficking services, and the profit generated varies accordingly.
Interesting. The UN absolutely does recognize the “business” element of human trafficking, and likens it to any other type of business. It is driven by high demand.
However, the elephant in the room must be pointed out. The UN itself helps to drive such demand with its “one world” policies. By arranging accords (like New York or Global Migration Compact), the UN helps create these conditions. If it becomes mandatory that a host country MUST provide basic services, regardless of legal status, then people will flock to those countries. The UN also tries to facilitate housing and other social services at the expense of taxpayers.
To add insult to injury, these accords limit the ability of host Governments to jail illegals, and attempt to shut down legitimate criticism.
11. Canada’s Aud-G Uncovers Citizenship Fraud
(Rebel Media: Auditor General Michael Ferguson reports)
Citizenship being granted to people:
With prior, serious criminal records
Who commit crimes after arriving
Who are using fake addresses
About the fake addresses, the video talks about 50 people using the same address (as one example) to claim residency.
The Rebel video makes a great point: If this Ministry can’t be bothered to properly follow up on obvious cases of citizenship fraud, how can Canadians expect them to properly screen and select “refugees” for entry into Canada?
The report shows that several people and possibly dozens managed to be accepted as Canadian citizens through fraud that went undetected, or through lax controls.
The report noted cases of people with serious criminal records who were accepted as citizens. It also found that between 2008 and 2015, 50 different applicants used the same single address on their citizenship applications during overlapping time periods during which time seven of the applicants became Canadian citizens. It took seven years before the scheme was found during an investigation.
The report also noted that in some 49 similar cases where an address anomaly had been detected, citizenship officials failed to follow-up on 18 of the cases to see if the applicants actually met residency requirements.
The report indicated that citizenship officers did not consistently apply their own standards to identify and deal with suspicious immigration documents including checking travel documents against the department’s database of lost, stolen and fraudulent documents.
12. What About Canada’s “Conservative” Parties?
CLICK HERE, for Conservative Party of Canada policies. CLICK HERE, for People’s Party on refugees.
Disclaimer: political parties lie all the time, so take this with a grain of salt.
The CPC claims it will focus on “UN selected” refugee claimants, while the PPC claims that “Civil Society Groups” should be making the selections instead. However, this omits several important facts:
First, neither party will address the corruption and fraud that goes on both within the UN and with Civil Societies. Finding corruption within the process is a very quick and easy thing to do.
Neither will acknowledge that the vast majority of these “refugees” will likely be Islamic, an ideology which is completely incompatible with Western society. There is this MINOR problem of Muslims trying to take over the world.
This United Nations v.s. Civil Societies is a false distinction, as many Civil Societies work with the UN.
Canadians don’t want, nor were ever asked if they would support hordes of refugees being shipped into Canada.
Trudeau and the Liberals are an easy target for criticism for lack of proper screening. However, PPC and CPC fail to indicate how they would properly screen to protect Canadians.
Another question they won’t address: will these “refugees” be expected to work and contribute at some point, or will they be permanent welfare cases?
However, it would be fair to point out that Stephen Harper, in 2015, suggested focusing on Christians and Yazidis refugees. This would have been a considerable improvement over importing more Islam (and hence more Islamic violence), into Canada.
13. Little Difference In NGO v.s. UN Selection
Just an opinion, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference between the 2 ideas.
Considering how many Civil Societies (NGOs) work with the UN, it seems an exercise in futility to try to separate them.
And given the rampant corruption, and total lack of respect for national sovereignty, BOTH seem like very bad options.
