Globalism Archives - Page 100 of 115

July 31, 2019March 27, 2024

CANZUK — Erasing Canada’s Borders and Sovereignty

(CPC party convention in Halifax, 97%-3% vote in favour of partially erasing Canadian borders)

(Canzuk video on its website)

1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

(A) https://canucklaw.ca/free-trade-1-thoughts-on-potential-canada-china-free-trade-deal
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/free-trade-2-nafta-lawsuits-sovereignty-massive-job-losses-conflict-of-interest/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/free-trade-3-nafta-and-the-costs-its-supporters-ignore/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/free-trade-4-the-trans-pacific-partnership-bill-c-79/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/free-trade-5-why-trump-left-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

2. Important Links

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/imm-1-temporary-foreign-worker-program-other-migration
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/imm-2-close-to-1m-people-entering-canada-annually-excluding-tourists/
(3) https://www.canzukinternational.com
(4) http://archive.is/dsHPA
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/cpc-endorses-globalism-canzuk-birth-tourism-citizenship-for-refugees-islam/
(6) https://www.canzukinternational.com/2018/07/which-countries.html
(7) http://archive.is/vH7wu
(8) https://www.quora.com/How-many-countries-is-the-Queen-of-the-United-Kingdom-head-of
(9) http://archive.is/YXXxw
(10) https://www.canzuk.org/canzuk_defence_alliance_start_small_think_big.php
(11) http://archive.is/5fTxF

3. CANZUK’s Political Advisors

A lot of members of the “Conservative” Party of Canada. Have to wonder exactly what they’re “conserving” here. Also worth mentioning that Andrew Scheer, a “Conservative” also appears on the site with enthusiastic support for the agenda.

It was bad enough to see Scheer chugging a milk at his acceptance speech, (as his win was provided by Dairy Cartel rigging). This is arguably much worse. The erasure of Canada and Canadian borders marketed as opportunity.

4. CANZUK’s Official Mission

CANZUK International (CI) is the leading group advocating closer ties between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, known amongst diplomats at the United Nations as the ‘CANZUK Group’.

Free Trade
CANZUK International seeks to establish a comprehensive multi-lateral free trade agreement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Customs duties and other barriers to commerce would be removed. Such a union would give its constituent members more collective bargaining power in dealing with large trading partners such as the USA, China, India and the European Union.
.
Freedom of movement within the CANZUK Group for citizens of the four realms would be an essential ingredient for a successfully open market. As these nations have compatible economic profiles, this form of immigration would be unlikely to lead to distortions in labour markets. Not only would an arrangement of this kind make good economic sense, it would reinforce a feeling of solidarity amongst the four kindred peoples. The Trans-Tasman Travel Agreement between Australia and New Zealand is a working model upon which to build. Although freedom of movement exists for citizens of both countries, there is an exclusion provision for those deemed to be a threat to the national interest. In this way mobility can foster trade and economic growth without jeopardising security.

Foreign Policy
CANZUK International endeavours to promote greater cooperation amongst the CANZUK Group with respect to foreign policy, defence and intelligence gathering. The ‘Five Eyes’ (FVEY) agreement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America has been highly effective in gathering signals, military and human intelligence. It provides a useful starting point for a more comprehensive diplomatic alliance for the nations of the CANZUK Group, which would compliment the work of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). An association comprising Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom would enjoy a more balanced relationship with the United States. Collectively, these countries could be global rather than merely regional players in the geopolitical arena.

Constitutional Affairs
The shared Sovereign would be an essential aspect of any CANZUK Group association. The monarch, who represents a global institution, has played an important role as a symbol of a common heritage and parliamentary tradition. Furthermore, the Crown has been the cornerstone of democratic government and the rule of law over a long history of peaceful constitutional development. It is instructive to note that the English speaking countries which have retained the monarchy have been far more successful in avoiding civil unrest than their republican counterparts.
.
In concrete terms, the existing dialogue between viceregal representatives and the judiciary of the CANZUK Group should be encouraged. This initiative could build upon meetings that already occur between the Governors-General of the various Commonwealth realms every two years. The joint decision to revise the royal succession laws through the Perth Agreement of 2011 is a good example of effective collaboration in regard to matters of constitutional law.

One interesting thing is that this only talks about such closer cooperation between the “CANZUK” nations: Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK. A lot of this seems very reasonable.

However, in a different part of the website, CANZUK International talks about extending memberships far beyond the original 4 members. And it is quite a long list.

Remember: it is pitched to the general populations as increased cooperation between 4 nations of fairly similar language, culture and customs. That is how to sell it. Once it is sold and operational, the goal becomes to expand its size and influence.

Nice bait-and-switch.

5. CANZUK Could Expand To Other Countries

Using political, social and economic analysis, CANZUK International’s Research Associate, Luke Fortmann, explores the future possibilities of other countries joining a free movement and trade alliance with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

It should be said that a new Commonwealth union would be welcoming of any potential members – with each being considered on a case-by-case basis – and that the CANZUK project is very much a work in progress; always receptive of fresh ideas and potential avenues to explore.

A useful way to begin is by taking a look at the CANZUK countries’ dependent territories, such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands and Anguilla, for example, which are dependencies of Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, respectively, as well as the UK’s Crown dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man).

Each area would naturally become full members of the new group along with the nations to which they are related. Some advocates claim that these small islands, and their generally sparse populations, are currently under-utilised, and that a CANZUK alliance would offer a tremendous opportunity for their communities to acquire a far more extensive set of rights by becoming equal partners in a union, while shaking off their somewhat colonial tint.

Widening our scope, we arrive at the Commonwealth realms. These realms are sovereign states who are members of the Commonwealth and who currently share Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch, of which, there are 16 including the CANZUK countries.

But, whether founded or not, the notion that free immigration was causing problems for the UK was undoubtedly a primary motivation for its departure from the European Union. A CANZUK union would seek to avoid such issues by moving slowly and steadily with the original four members, providing economic assistance to the realms before allowing their eventual membership.

Additionally, it’s been noted that, particularly concerning the more populous realms such as Jamaica and Papua New Guinea, immediate free movement would generate a rush of emigrants who may be poorly equipped for employment in the CANZUK countries; while at the same time enticing the more skilled minority away from their homeland in search of better-paying positions in the richer nations, ridding schools and hospitals of vital staff.

Instinctively, the next place to turn is to the Commonwealth as a whole. Broadening our vision in this way does present some of the same issues, as well as some new ones. A complete Commonwealth union would of course be dominated by India, with a population of over 1.3 billion, along with Pakistan (193 million), Nigeria (186 million), and Bangladesh (163 million) who would dwarf the CANZUK countries in terms of inhabitants, rendering them merely minor players.

When weighing up the potential barriers to entry that many of these Commonwealth countries have, we’re often confronted with the challenge that this new alliance is concerned only with nations that are populated by white folk. Such criticism is fairly lazy and can be easily dealt with. Firstly, as we’ve just seen, there’s absolutely no reason why these countries couldn’t join in the future, so long as efforts were directed at bringing them up to par in the ways just discussed.

At first, the project will be challenging enough, and caution will be required. Having said that, and as previously mentioned, CANZUK’s immense potential truly knows no bounds, and, down the line, further options can always be explored.

Theoretically, who could become part of CANZUK at some point in the future? Here is the list, based on the above criteria and comments:

Anguilla
Antigua
Australia
Bahamas
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Christmas Island
Cook Islands
Grenada
Guernsey
India
Isle of Mann
Jamaica
Jersey
New Zealand
Nigeria
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Solomon Island
Tuvalu
United Kingdom

Really? We were told this was an agreement between 4 first world, developed nations. Now we are bringing in half of the third world.

Let’s be clear: marketing with the 4 nations (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK) is just a sales pitch. The agreement could very well expand once this is in motion. And it likely will.

6. Possible CANZUK Joint Defense Force

The first objective of any government is to protect its own citizens from external danger. How can CANZUK help achieve that goal?

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have a common military heritage, and this shows in things as diverse as ranks, camouflage patterns and banners. They have a high degree of inter-operability – and in some cases, citizens of one nation can join the armed forces of another.

The nations have strategic similarities as well. Three out of four are island nations, whilst the fourth, Canada has the longest coastline of any nation. This places a premium on naval power – all the nations have considerable dependence on trade, vulnerability to blockades and an interest of open sea-lanes.

No joke. They are open about joint military and naval ventures. Interesting to note: aren’t this countries all part of NATO? How exactly would that square with those obligations, especially as Canada can’t afford to pay for its NATO commitments anyway?

To be fair, this soldier-swap already exists to a degree. The UK accepts Commonwealth citizens in its military. To a limited degree, Canada, Australia and New Zealand allow foreigners in as well. This seems a way to do it on a much bigger scale.

7. Where Is CANZUK Going?

CANZUK International was founded in January 2015 as The Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation, and is the world’s leading non-profit organisation advocating freedom of movement, free trade and foreign policy coordination between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (the “CANZUK” countries).

Our campaign advocates closer cooperation between these four nations so they may build upon existing economic, diplomatic and institutional ties to forge a cohesive alliance of nation-states with a truly global outlook.

This seems harmless enough, but this will not be the end of it. The group will want to expand its sphere of influence and start controlling more issues and policies.

Remember, before the EU, there was a 6 nation bloc (France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Belgium). They started a trade agreement amongst themselves. Today, it is 28 nations — though the UK is leaving — and controls everything from budgets to agriculture to immigration. It swelled far beyond its original purpose.

It is very easy to see the “CANZUK 4” become 6, 8, 12, or 15. And those innocuous issues discussed on the website may morph into foreign bodies actually controlling national agendas.

As is obvious, the Conservative Party of Canada is an enthusiastic supporter of the CANZUK agenda. This is apparently regardless of the long-term erosion of national sovereignty. Globalists.

July 30, 2019July 21, 2024

IMM #2(B): Close To 1M People Entering Canada Annually (Excluding Tourists)

(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.

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/annual-report-parliament-immigration-2018/report.html
(2) http://archive.is/Nov56
(3) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901
(4) http://archive.is/0yxKJ
(5) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/180927/dq180927c-eng.htm
(6) http://archive.is/JgvqV
(7) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310042801
(8) http://archive.is/WWmVd
(9) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310071001
(10) http://archive.is/n3zdf
(11) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/181129/dq181129g-eng.htm
(12) http://archive.is/wip/MwYgD

3. Words Of Wisdom Here

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.

330,000 (Perm + Refugee)
+78,788 (Temp Foreign Workers)
+224,033 (International Mobility)
+317,328 (Student Visas)
950,149 (total)

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.

July 23, 2019October 7, 2023

Guest Post: Sunrise Movement and the Green New Deal

1. Guest Posting Here

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?

4. Information About The Author

YouTube: BOLD like a Leopard:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqafJgJiTZik1KreMJgy4Eg
Gab.com: https://gab.com/StarScream85
Minds.com: https://www.minds.com/ChefLeopard
BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/bFrSR277N5TG/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChefLeopard
For donations: https://www.subscribestar.com/chefleopard

July 22, 2019December 25, 2023

Pensions #1(C): Canada Pension Plan, Where Is The Money Going?

1. More On Pension Plans/Funding

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.

To repeat from the last post:
We are screwed.

July 21, 2019December 25, 2023

Pensions #1(B): Unsustainable, Underfunded, Takes Money Out Of Canada

(Canada Pension Plan Investment Board website)

(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.

While the CPPIB staff crow about how sustainable the system is, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions had a very different conclusion.

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 term^{1 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 ~~suckers~~workers.

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.

July 19, 2019August 26, 2019

Canada’s Population To Reach 150M By Year 2100? (Just A Prediction)

(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.

Take it for what it’s worth.

1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

2. Important Links

3. CANZUK’s Political Advisors

4. CANZUK’s Official Mission

5. CANZUK Could Expand To Other Countries

6. Possible CANZUK Joint Defense Force

7. Where Is CANZUK Going?

Share this:

Like this:

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

2. Important Links

3. Words Of Wisdom Here

4. Rants Derek Drops The Red Pill

5. From the 2018 Report To Parliament

6. Canada’s Population Isn’t Decreasing Naturally

7. Conservatives, Fake Nationalists, Are Gatekeepers

8. Why Go On About This Topic?

8. Disclaimer

Share this:

Like this:

1. Guest Posting Here

2. Important Links

3. Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal

We’ll see what happens. . .

The Shame Game

The Guru of Green Activism

Why “grassroots”?

Messaging the GND

4. Information About The Author

Share this:

Like this:

1. More On Pension Plans/Funding

2. Important Links

3. Obtain Your Statement Of Contributions

4. Information From Statement Of Contributions

5. How Much Will CPP Pay Out For You?

6. Invest Your Own CPP Contributions

7. Performance CPPIB Claims In Investments

8. CPP Unfunded Liabilities Swept Under Rug

9. Open-Group v.s. Closed-Group Valuation

10. CPPIB Board Members Well Connected

11. CPPIB Holdings (Foreign & Domestic)

12. Pensions Sent For UN Development Projects?

13. So Why Is CPP So Underfunded?

Share this:

Like this:

1. More On Pension Plans/Funding

2. Important Links

3. Glowing 2016 Press Release

4. Quotes From Actuary’s 2016 Report

5. CPPIB Claims Plan Sustainable Past 2090

6. Quotes From 2019 CPPIB Annual Report

7. CPPIB Claims Fund Is Worth Billions

8. CPPIB Has Billions In Unfunded Liabilities

9. Is CPP Used To Prop Up Public Pensions?

10. CPPIB “Invests” 85% Outside Of Canada

11. CPPIB Endorses Climate Change Scam

12. What You Aren’t Being Told

Share this:

Like this:

1. Important Links

2. Century Initiative

3. Current Immigration Rates

4. Estimate 2100 Population

5. Where Will The Real Growth Be?

6. It Doesn’t Have To Be Like This

7. Disclaimer Must Be Added

Share this:

Like this: