There is plenty of information on the open borders movement, as well as local and UN efforts to replace Old-Stock Canadians. Check out those series for much more detail.
Canadian Immigration Summit 2019 will convene immigration leaders and practitioners from across Canada as they discuss and share insights on how to ensure a strong immigration system for Canada’s future.
Through both plenary and concurrent sessions, delegates from the public and private sectors will explore the most pressing immigration issues facing Canada today. Major stakeholders from government, business, immigration law and consulting, education, and immigrant-serving organizations will feature prominently in the Summit program and will share their expert views in support of a stronger immigration system.
The Summit will provide delegates with ample opportunities to network, find partners, access expert advice, and share their views.
Join us in Ottawa, May 8-9, 2019, to:
network with potential partners and collaborators
learn from leading international and Canadian experts about domestic and global immigration issues, best practices, and innovative solutions
gain unique insights from the latest immigration research and programs
access new tools and techniques that will allow you to help empower immigrants and better leverage their skills, talents and connections
shape recommendations to help guide the future of the immigration system
Just a hunch, but probably none of these speakers will advocate or call for “less immigration”. Indeed, the tone seems to be that migration is good, and we need more of it. There doesn’t seem to be aby balance in the issue at all.
4. Summit Overview
Summit Overview
How can we plan for tomorrow, today?
The purpose of the 2019 Summit is to explore how Canada can respond proactively to emerging immigration issues in a rapidly changing world.
.
We tend to dwell on the past to tackle today’s challenges and anticipate the ones we will experience tomorrow. Moreover, we are often focused on the short-term, with too little of our time and energy devoted to thinking about how we can plan for the future. However, the world is not standing still, and Canada is no exception. Changes at home and abroad will disrupt Canada’s future immigration system in ways we cannot currently fathom. For example, how many of us five years ago imagined that a wave of populism would take the world by storm?.
Populism is bad, apparently.
People “don’t” want to be replaced in their homelands? Racists.
“Now” they need to make long term plans?
April 29, 2019 Update
As per the Minister of Public Safety’s statement on the 2018 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada, a review of the language used to describe extremism has been undertaken and is ongoing. The Government’s communication of threats must be clear, concise, and cannot be perceived as maligning any groups. As we continue this review, it is apparent that in outlining a threat, it must be clearly linked to an ideology rather than a community. The Government will carefully select terminology that focuses on the intent or ideology. As a first step, the Government has updated terminology used in the 2018 report to eliminate terminology that unintentionally impugns an entire religion. Going forward, the Government of Canada is committed to applying a bias-free approach to the terminology used to describe any threats inspired by ideology or groups.
You can’t make this up. The Feds have purged references to “Sunni” or “Shia” or Islam in general to avoid offending anyone. And let’s be clear, when Goodale talks about “impugning and entire religion”, he is talking about Islam. It’s not Buddhists or Pastafarians committing terrorism everywhere.
3. Table Of Contents
Ministerial Foreword
Executive Summary
Part 1: The Current Terrorist Threat Environment
The Current Terrorist Threat to Canada
Canadian Extremist Travellers
The International Threat Environment
Europe
The Middle East and South/South-East Asia
Africa
Part 2: Threat Methods and Capabilities Observed Globally in 2018
Low-Sophistication Tactics, High Impacts
Threats to Transportation Infrastructure
Chemical and Biological Weapons
Terrorist Financing
Terrorist Use of the Internet and Cyber Capabilities
Part 3: Canada’s Approach to Countering Terrorism
Managing Canadian Extremist Travellers
Arrests and Prosecutions in Canada for Committing Terrorism Offences
Bill C-59 – An Act Respecting National Security matters & Bill C-21 – An Act to Amend the Customs Act
Enhanced Passenger Protection Program
Immigration Security Screening
The Listing of Terrorist Entities
Countering Radicalization to Violence
Addressing Online Threats
Canada’s International Partnerships and Cooperation
Conclusion
4. Ministerial Foreword
Ministerial Foreword
I am pleased to provide the annual update on the threat to Canada from terrorism and violent extremism – part of our commitment to being open and transparent through a balanced and frank assessment of the current threat environment.
In many ways, this year’s threat update is similar to those of the recent past. The threat posed by those espousing violent interpretations of religious, ideological or political views persists, but has remained stable. The National Terrorism Threat Level – a broad indicator of the terrorist threat to Canada – remains at Medium, unchanged since 2014.
.
Canada is known internationally as a welcoming and peaceful nation. But we are also resolute in our determination to reject and combat violent extremism in all forms. Put simply, violence and threats of violence have no place in Canadian society. Stopping and eradicating this is a top priority of the Government.
.
Conflicts and the evolving global security environment continue to shape the nature of the terrorist threat to Canada. Those in Canada who are inspired by conflicts abroad may seek to carry out an attack here. Despite the ongoing erosion of Daesh, we have not seen an increase in the number of Canadian Extremist Travellers (CETs) attempting to return. Our top priority in managing CETs also remains the same – to bring them to justice using all resources at our disposal. Canadians expect their Government to keep them safe and to keep pace with evolving threats, tactics and global trends. Our security, intelligence, law enforcement, border and armed forces – to name a few – work around the clock in this regard. They consistently monitor all threats and review their approaches for how best to deal with them. This includes working closely with our friends and allies.
.
The global nature of terrorist and extremist threats necessitates close cooperation with international partners. Our partnerships are stronger than ever, including with NATO, the Five Eyes community, G7, the European Union, INTERPOL and others. We remain committed to being a collaborative force of good in the world and recognize that this can only be achieved by working together and leveraging our strengths.
.
Domestically, we also continue to build on our multi-layered approach to security. Bill C-59 (An Act Respecting National Security Matters) shaped by public views and concerns on how we as a country approach national security issues, is now closer to final Parliamentary approval and implementation. It brings with it an unprecedented era of transparency and openness and a clear signal of the importance that our departments and agencies have the most up to date mandates, tools and resources at their disposal.
.
Despite everyone’s best efforts, there will be times when our collective security is challenged. There will be competing public views on what we as a nation should do. We will continue to take a measured but firm approach – a collaborative approach that unites our strengths – both as a government and as a nation.
A few points in this introduction:
(1) Goodale refers to “violent interpretation” of ideology or religion, while avoiding the elephant in the room: that religions — like Islam — are violent by nature.
(2) Goodale seems content to “bring to justice” terrorists who commit crimes abroad, but doesn’t seem too focused on preventing their re-entry in the first place.
(3) Goodale talks about a “force for good”, as if preventing terrorism were some sort of moralistic issue.
5. Quotes From Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Canada’s terrorist threat environment remains stable. The principal terrorist threat to Canada continues to stem from individuals or groups who are inspired by violent ideologies and terrorist groups, such as Daesh or al-Qaida (AQ). Canada also remains concerned about threats posed by those who harbour right-wing extremist views. The April 2018 van attack in Toronto is a reminder that violent acts driven by extremists’ views are not exclusively-linked to any particular religious, political or cultural ideology. Furthermore, groups, such as Hizballah, and extremists who support violent means to establish an independent state within India also remain of concern because while their attacks in Canada have been extremely limited, some Canadians continue to support these extremist groups, including through financing. At the time of publication, Canada’s National Terrorism Threat Level remains at medium, as set in early October 2014 – meaning a violent act of terrorism could occur.
.
Though Daesh territorial holdings in the Syria-Iraq conflict zone continue to decline, Canada has not seen a related influx in the number of Canadian Extremist Travellers (CETs) who have returned to Canada, nor does it expect to. Owing to several factors (such as a lack of valid travel documents, denying boarding to aircraft destined for Canada, potential fear of arrest upon return, their continued commitment to Daesh or other groups, having been captured while in Syria and Iraq, or because they have died), CET numbers abroad remain stable at approximately 190 individuals with a nexus to Canada, and close to 60 who have returned.
.
In an effort to project strength and influence to counter its decreasing support and size, Daesh is resorting more frequently to false claims of responsibility for acts of violence, including in Canada. In June 2018, after Faisal Hussain fired on the busy Toronto neighbourhood of Danforth, Daesh quickly claimed responsibility, despite the total absence of any link between the attack and that group or any other terrorist group.
.
While globally, terrorist attacks have seen a decline, particularly in the West, ungoverned and permissive environments continue to allow terrorist groups to regroup or develop capabilities. Al-Qaida, Daesh and their affiliates continue to conduct attacks in the Middle East, South-East Asia, South Asia (Afghanistan) and North and West Africa. The Taliban continues to challenge the authority of the Afghanistan government through terrorist acts, while other groups, such as Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen (JNIM), Ansurul Islam, and al-Shabaab remain active in Africa.
6. Other Points To Address
Mentioning the April 2018 van attack seems like going out of the way to say that it’s not only Islam, that anyone can be a terrorist.
And denying the link between Faisal Hussain and Daesh seems an opportunity to make the claim that Islam is (wrongly) getting blamed for everything. But beyond that
All other mentions are Islamic
Hizballah is Islamic.
Daesh is Islamic.
Faisal Hussain is Islamic.
“Canadian Extremist Travellers” are Islamic.
Al Qaida is Islamic.
The Taliban is Islamic.
Jamaat Nurat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen is Islamic.
Ansurul Islam is Islamic.
al-Shabaab is Islamic.
These are all Muslims (except for 1 guy in a van in Toronto).
7. Exerps From Report
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to protest, as well as the rights of freedom of conscience and religion, expression, association and peaceful assembly. It is the evolution from hate to serious acts of politically-motivated violence with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, in regard to its sense of security, that could be considered a terrorism offence
This should be common sense. However, in context it seems designed to deliberately not draw any link between Islam and terrorism.
Although the majority of recent global terrorist attacks can be attributed to individuals inspired by terrorist groups such as Daesh and AQ, other recent events around the world are bringing attention to the threat of violence from individuals who harbour right-wing extremist views.
.
Right-wing extremism (RWE) is traditionally driven by hatred and fear, and includes a range of individuals, groups, often in online communities, that back a wide range of issues and grievances, including, but not limited to: anti-government and anti-law enforcement sentiment, advocacy of white nationalism and racial separation, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, anti-immigration, male supremacy (misogyny) and homophobia. The threat of violence from any individuals, including those holding extreme right-wing views, may manifest in terrorist activity or other forms of criminal violence. However, while racism, bigotry, and misogyny may undermine the fabric of Canadian society, ultimately they do not usually result in criminal behavior or threats to national security.
.
In Canada, individuals who hold extreme right-wing views are active online, leveraging chat forums and online networks to exchange ideas, as opposed to openly promoting violence. These individuals leverage online chats and forums in attempt to create an online culture of fear, hatred and mistrust by exploiting real or imagined concerns.
.
Traditionally, in Canada, violence linked to the far-right has been sporadic and opportunistic. However, attacks perpetrated by individuals who hold extreme right-wing views and other lesser-known forms of ideological extremism can occur. A recent example is the April 2018 van attack in Toronto, Ontario, which resulted in the deaths of 10 people and alerted Canada to the dangers of the online Incel movement. It may be difficult to assess, in the short term, to what extent a specific act was ideologically-driven, or comment while investigations are ongoing or cases are before the court.
Interesting. The report (correctly) states the vast majority of terrorism is related to ideologies such as Daesh and Al-Qaida. It then goes on to blame “right wing extremists”. However, the only example cited here (or in the executive summary was the van attack in April 2018.
That one event seems to be as bad as all the Islamic terrorism elsewhere.
Right-wing extremism is not unique to Canada. In fact, some European RWE groups have established chapters in Canada. Likewise, some Canadian RWE groups have far-right connections in Europe.
This disingenuously conflates unrelated groups. This lumps in: those sick of mass migration and illegal immigration; those sick of globalism; and those sick of forced multiculturalism, with actual terrorist organizations.
Furthermore, some individuals in Canada continue to support violent means to establish an independent state within India. These violent activities have fallen since their height during the 1982-1993 period when individuals and groups conducted numerous terrorist attacks. The 1985 Air India bombing, which killed 331 people, remains the deadliest terrorist plot ever launched in Canada. While attacks around the world in support of this movement have declined, support for the extreme ideologies of such groups remains. For example, in Canada, two organizations, Babbar Khalsa International and the International Sikh Youth Federation, have been identified as being associated with terrorism and remain listed terrorist entities under the Criminal Code
.
Credit where credit is due. At least Sikh terrorism is being called out as well.
8. Canadian Extremist Travellers
The first objective in dealing with returning extremist travellers is to investigate and mitigate the threat they may pose to Canada and to Canadians and to ensure public safety. If there is sufficient evidence, the Government of Canada will pursue charges, and prosecute them to the full extent of the law. Criminal prosecution is the top priority and the preferred course of action. If there is insufficient evidence for a charge, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and its law enforcement, security and intelligence partners will continue their investigation, while other tools are leveraged to manage and contain the threat. These tools include: using a terrorism peace bond to seek to have the court place conditions on the individual (including electronic monitoring); active physical surveillance; using the Secure Air Travel Act to prevent further travel; additional border screening; and/or cancelling, refusing or revoking passports. In certain circumstances, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) may also employ threat reduction measures to reduce the threat posed by a returnee.
.
Canada’s law enforcement, security and intelligence, and defence departments and agencies continue to monitor and respond to the threat of Canadian extremist travellers through a coordinated, whole-of-government approach. When the Government learns that a CET may be seeking to return, federal departments and agencies come together to tailor an approach to address the threat he/she may pose. Key departments and agencies, including Public Safety Canada, Global Affairs Canada (GAC), the RCMP, CSIS, the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre (ITAC), the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces (DND/CAF), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), Transport Canada (TC) and the Privy Council Office (PCO) work together to assess risks, develop options and manage the return of CETs. The whole-of-government approach enables the collective identification of measures needed to deal with the threat.
Some thoughts:
(1) The safety of the Canadian public seems to be taking a backseat.
(2) Safety measures? How about not letting them back into the country in the first place?
(3) Among those measures: why is “INCARCERATION” not listed?
(4) Prosecution is the preferred method? No, we don’t want them back here, period.
9. Bill C-59 And Young Offenders
A particularly troubling section of Bill C-59, new protections for “Young Offenders”. Is the Government expecting youth to commit or be involved in terrorism? What about adults “identifying” as youth?
Youth Criminal Justice Act
159 Subsection 14(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is replaced by the following:
Orders
(2) A youth justice court has exclusive jurisdiction to make orders against a young person under sections 83.3 (recognizance — terrorist activity), 810 (recognizance —fear of injury or damage), 810.01 (recognizance — fear of certain offences), 810.011 (recognizance — fear of terrorism offence), 810.02 (recognizance — fear of forced marriage or marriage under age of 16 years) and 810.2 (recognizance — fear of serious personal injury offence) of the Criminal Code and the provisions of this Act apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require. If the young person fails or refuses to enter into a recognizance referred to in any of those sections, the court may impose any one of the sanctions set out in subsection 42(2) (youth sentences) except that, in the case of an order under paragraph 42(2)(n) (custody and supervision order), it shall not exceed 30 days.
160 Subsection 20(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Orders under section 810 of Criminal Code
(2) Despite subsection 14(2), a justice has jurisdiction to make an order under section 810 (recognizance — fear of injury or damage) of the Criminal Code in respect of a young person. If the young person fails or refuses to enter into a recognizance referred to in that section, the justice shall refer the matter to a youth justice court.
161 (1) Paragraph 25(3)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) at a hearing at which it will be determined whether to release the young person or detain the young person in custody,
(a.1) at a hearing held in relation to an order referred to in subsection 14(2) or 20(2),
(2) The portion of subsection 25(6) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Release hearing before justice
(6) When a young person, at a hearing referred to in paragraph (3)(a) or (a.1) that is held before a justice who is not a youth justice court judge, wishes to obtain counsel but is unable to do so, the justice shall
162 The heading before section 28 of the Act is replaced by the following:
Detention and Release
163 Subsection 29(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Detention as social measure prohibited
29 (1) A youth justice court judge or a justice shall not detain a young person in custody as a substitute for appropriate child protection, mental health or other social measures.
164 Subsection 30(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Designated place of temporary detention
30 (1) Subject to subsection (7), a young person who is detained in custody in relation to any proceedings against the young person shall be detained in a safe, fair and humane manner in any place of temporary detention that may be designated by the lieutenant governor in council of the province or his or her delegate or in a place within a class of places so designated.
165 The heading before section 33 of the Act is replaced by the following:
Application for Release from or Detention in Custody
166 (1) Paragraph 67(1)(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(c) the young person is charged with first or second degree murder within the meaning of section 231 of the Criminal Code; or
(2) Paragraph 67(3)(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(c) the young person is charged with first or second degree murder within the meaning of section 231 of the Criminal Code; or
167 (1) Subsection 119(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (p):
(p.1) an employee of a department or agency of the Government of Canada, for the purpose of administering the Canadian Passport Order;
(2) Subsection 119(2) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (d):
(d.1) if an order referred to in subsection 14(2) or 20(2) is made against a young person, the period ending six months after the expiry of the order;
10. last Comments
Despite the overwhelming majority of terrorism being committed by Muslims, in the name of Islam, the Canadian Government tries to downplay that. Actual group names like “Sunni” and “Shia” are stripped from the report, so to not offend anyone.
This gesture of political correctness supposedly is to “not vilify” entire groups. However, it overlooks the elephant in the room, that Islam is directly responsible for most of the terrorism in today’s world. This does no one any good, trying to shade the truth in order to hide the root cause of the majority of terrorism.
It is also clear the Government puts more of a focus on protecting the rights and freedoms of terrorists returning from abroad that it does in protecting Canadians. This must stop.
Disclaimer: When this piece was originally written, the number of 150,000 student visas was used. This was based on an error in reading the 2018 report. Canada actually admitted some 317,000 students in 2017. While not all will stay, most will want to and try to after graduating.
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.
Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) — 78,788 in year 2017
International Mobility Program — 224,033 in year 2017
International Students — 317,328 in 2017
“Refugees” — 44,747 in year 2017
3. More Information
Facts and Figures More than 192,000 temporary foreign workers entered Canada in 2011. The overall total includes about 70,000 foreign workers whose employer required an LMO from HRSDC and close to 120,000 who did not require an LMO.
In 2011, more than 29,000 temporary foreign workers made the transition to permanent status.
For employers who have been unable to recruit Canadian citizens or permanent residents for job openings, the TFWP makes it possible to hire workers from abroad. Employers might also find a qualified foreign worker already in Canada, such as a foreign worker who is about to complete a job contract with another employer or a foreign national holding an open work permit that allows the employee to work for any employer in Canada.
While most temporary foreign workers will be hired to address a specific, short-term labour need, some temporary foreign workers who initially came to fill a temporary vacancy can transition to permanent residence if they meet certain requirements. For example, the Canadian Experience Class is open to foreign nationals who have been working full-time in Canada as trades people or in managerial or professional occupations and meet certain other requirements. Other foreign workers may qualify through the Provincial Nominee Program for permanent residence in Canada. These routes exist to ensure that workers who have shown that their skills are in continuing demand and that they have already adapted well to life in Canada can build a future here.
As the TFWP is designed to help employers fill short-term gaps in Canada’s labour market, most temporary foreign workers are limited to working in Canada for four years before having to return to their home country. Most TFWs have the opportunity to apply for permanent residence if that is their desire, and limiting the amount of time they may work in Canada with a temporary status encourages them to do so.
“A. Temporary Workers
In 2017, a total of 78,788 work permits were issued under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), which includes caregivers, agricultural workers and other workers who require a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA).”
Well, if nothing else the TFW category is down from the Harper years. Though, to be fair, I think this is “per year” admittants, not the total in the country at a time.
4. Provincial Nominee Programme
How the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) works
This program is for workers who:
have the skills, education and work experience to contribute to the economy of a specific province or territory
want to live in that province, and
want to become permanent residents of Canada
Each province and territory
Footnote
* has its own “streams” (immigration programs that target certain groups) and requirements. For example, in a program stream, provinces and territories may target:
students
business people
skilled workers
semi-skilled workers
If “temporary” foreign workers cannot get PR status Federally, then there is a good chance they can Provincially.
Now this is encouraging:
As part of the process, you will have to pass a medical exam and get a police check (certificate). Everyone must have these checks, no matter where they plan to live in Canada.
However, being healthy and of good conduct does “not” apply to refugee applicants.
Note: In 2017, the number of PN admissions was 49,724.
(Source is here)
5. International Students Fast Tracked To PNP
Although this article was meant to address the Temporary Foreign Worker’s Program (TFWP), it should also be noted that international students completing a college diploma or university degree are often accepted into the PNP as well. So it is worth looking at how many people that involves.
Number of international students increasing at a higher rate than that of Canadian students
The number of international students enrolled in Canadian postsecondary institutions has been on the rise for two decades, with their numbers increasing at a higher rate than that of Canadian students. International students totaled 245,895 in 2016/2017, representing 12.0% of overall enrolments.
Increases in international student enrolments in Canada are observed due to a variety of factors, including programs and policies put in place to increase their numbers, the quality of postsecondary education, and the appeal of Canada as a study destination. While China remained the top country of citizenship for international students in 2016/2017, most of the gains in enrolments of international students from 2015/2016 to 2016/2017 were a result of the growing number of students from India, up 34.4% (+9,060).
245,895 international students in the 2016/2017 year, and we can expect that number to grow. Of course, Permanent Resident status is often straightforward after that. From there, citizenship is really just a formality.
Now, we are told that Canada currently has an immigration intake of 310,000 per year (although scheduled to increase). This does not take the 317K (listed in 2017) of international students.
2018 REPORT TO PARLIAMENT ON IMM
In 2017, a total of 44,747 people were admitted to Canada as resettled refugees, as permanent residents in the Protected Persons in Canada category or as people admitted for humanitarian and compassionate considerations and under public policies.
Some other facts:
-In 2017, Canada admitted 159,262 permanent residents in Economic Class programs, representing 55.6% of all 2017 admissions.
-In 2017, Canada admitted 65,417 new permanent residents in the Economic Class through the Express Entry application management system, an increase of 32,003 from the previous year.
Of the 49,724 admissions under the Provincial Nominee Program, 13,531 were through Express Entry, an increase of 73% over 2016.
-In 2017, IRCC admitted 22,253 caregivers as permanent residents. This was above the high end of the planned admissions and reflected measures to reduce the inventory of applicants that applied under the former Live-in Caregiver Program.
-In 2017, a total of 587 admissions were processed through Federal Economic – Business Immigration programs.
6. You Can’t Make This Up!
Of the 286,479 permanent residents admitted in 2017, a total of 76% self-identified as having knowledge of English, French or both official languages, which is an increase of three percentage points compared to 2016.
Okay, apparently you speak English of French if you “identify” as doing so.
7. How Many People Total?
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) Data for 2017 lists some 317K student visas. While it is certainly true that not all will stay afterwards, the vast majority will want to.
Category
Number
Permanent Immigration
310,000
Temp Foreign Worker
80,000
International Mobility
225,000
International Student
315,000
“Refugees”
45,000
Totals (approx.)
975,000
Of course, these are estimates from older data. They do not include other categories, or the hordes of illegals coming into Canada. It also doesn’t include any other program that may not be listed.
975,000 in a year. More than 1/2 million more than our “leaders” are telling us.
8. Bernier V.S. Trudeau
What we are “told” the numbers are
Who
Current
Proposed
Diff
Percent
Trudeau
310K
350K
+40K
+13%
Bernier
310K
250K
-60K
-20%
What the numbers “actually” are:
Who
Current
Proposed
Diff
Percent
Trudeau
975K
1,015K
+40K
+4%
Bernier
975K
915K
-60K
-6%
And of course, this is presupposed on the idea that there are only 810,000 legal immigrants into Canada this year.
4% increase with “open borders” Trudeau.
6% decrease with “populist” Bernier.
What a complete scam.
(Added June 17, 2019). This is Maxime Bernier calling out the “globalist” Trudeau and Scheer for supporting mass migration.
Statistics Canada estimates that from 2019 to 2019
Q1 in 2018 = 36,786,021
Q2 in 2018 = 36,890,169
Q3 in 2018 = 37,058,856
Q4 in 2019 = 37,242,571
Q1 in 2019 = 37,314,442
This would be an increase of 525,000, which is 215,000 or 70% higher than what we have been told. But there’s more.
The number of non-permanent residents increased by 165,729 in 2017/2018. This increase surpassed the previous peak in 1988/1989, the year when the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada was created and the new refugee determination system was introduced. Although also fed by a strong increase of asylum seekers, the increase of the number of non-permanent residents in the country in 2017/2018 was still mainly explained by the rise in the number of work and study permit holders.
So, another 525,000 new citizens, and another 165,000 new residents
That would be 690,000 people.
Let’s see some census data.
In 2011, there were 33,476,688 Canadians.
In 2016, there were 35,151,728 Canadians.
This is a difference of 1.68M, or 335,000/annually.
But this only takes into account “citizens”, not permanent residents, or other temporary residents.
Even using StatsCan data, the 800K+ estimate seems pretty reasonable, when other groups are factored in.
And to reiterate: not everyone who comes into Canada on a “temporary” path will stay. But the majority will want to and try to.
Disclaimer: When this piece was originally written, the number of 150,000 student visas was used. This was based on an error in reading the 2018 report to Parliament. Canada actually admitted some 317,000 students in 2017. While not all will stay, most will want to and try to after graduating.
CLICK HERE, for UN Population Conferences (1974 Romania, 1984 Mexico, 1994 Egypt) CLICK HERE, for the Barcelona Declaration (of 1995). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1995). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1998). CLICK HERE, for the Expert Group of Population Decline (of 2000). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2002). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2005). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2008). CLICK HERE, for the Declaration on High Level Dialogue on Migration (of2013). CLICK HERE, for the New York Declaration (of 2016) CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact (of 2018) CLICK HERE, for the Charlemagne Prize, for unifying Europe. CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Multiculturalism Act.
2. Let’s Get A Timeline
1918 – End of WW1, Austria Hungary broken apart
1918 onwards – tensions between nations and groups within
1922 – Kalergi’s Writings of a “Unified Europe”
1933 – Hitler becomes Chancellor of Germany
1945 – End of WW2, start of cold war
1973 – Free trade bloc between 6 European nations
1974 – Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania
1984 – Population Conference in Mexico City, Mexico
1994 – Population Conference in Cairo, Egypt
1995 – Barcelona Declaration in Barcelona, Spain
1995 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
1998 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
2000 – Expert Report on Population Decline
2002 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
2005 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
2008 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
2013 – High Level Talks in Migration, UN
2016 – New York Declaration, NY, USA
2018 – UN Global Migration Compact, Morocco
3. Who Was At Barcelona?
Barcelona declaration
adopted at the Euro-Mediterranean Conference – 27-28/11/95
• The Council of the European Union, represented by its President, Mr Javier SOLANA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain,
• The European Commission, represented by Mr Manuel MARIN, VicePresident,
• Germany, represented by Mr Klaus KINKEL, ViceChancellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Algeria, represented by Mr Mohamed Salah DEMBRI, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Austria, represented by Mrs Benita FERREROWALDNER, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
• Belgium, represented by Mr Erik DERYCKE, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Cyprus, represented by Mr Alecos MICHAELIDES, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Denmark, represented by Mr Ole Loensmann POULSEN, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
• Egypt, represented by Mr Amr MOUSSA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Spain, represented by Mr Carlos WESTENDORP, State Secretary for Relations with the European Community,
• Finland, represented by Mrs Tarja HALONEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• France, represented by Mr Hervé de CHARETTE, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Greece, represented by Mr Károlos PAPOULIAS, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Ireland, represented by Mr Dick SPRING, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Israel, represented by Mr Ehud BARAK, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Italy, represented by Mrs Susanna AGNELLI, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Jordan, represented by Mr AbdelKarim KABARITI, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Lebanon, represented by Mr Fares BOUEZ, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Luxembourg, represented by Mr Jacques F. POOS, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Cooperation,
• Malta, represented by Prof. Guido DE MARCO, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Morocco, represented by Mr Abdellatif FILALI, Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• the Netherlands, represented by Mr Hans van MIERLO, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Portugal, represented by Mr Jaime GAMA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• the United Kingdom, represented by Mr Malcolm RIFKIND QC MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,
• Syria, represented by Mr Farouk AL-SHARAA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Sweden, represented by Mrs Lena HJELM-WALLEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Tunisia, represented by Mr Habib Ben YAHIA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Turkey, represented by Mr Deniz BAYKAL, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• the Palestinian Authority, represented by Mr Yassir ARAFAT, President of the Palestinian Authority, taking part in the Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Barcelona:
The first sections have to do with free trade and economic cooperation. However, the partnership in social, cultural and human affairs is far more interesting.
Partnership in social, cultural and Human affairs:
Developing human resources, promoting understanding between cultures & exchanges between civil societies
The participants recognize that the traditions of culture and civilization throughout the Mediterranean region, dialogue between these cultures and exchanges at human, scientific and technological level are an essential factor in bringing their peoples closer, promoting understanding between them and improving their perception of each other.
In this spirit, the participants agree to establish a partnership in social, cultural and human affairs. To this end:
they reaffirm that dialogue and respect between cultures and religions are a necessary precondition for bringing the peoples closer. In this connection they stress the importance of the role the mass media can play in the reciprocal recognition and understanding of cultures as a source of mutual enrichment;
they stress the essential nature of the development of human resources, both as regards the education and training of young people in particular and in the area of culture. They express their intent to promote cultural exchanges and knowledge of other languages, respecting the cultural identity of each partner, and to implement a lasting policy of educational and cultural programmes; in this context, the partners undertake to adopt measures to facilitate human exchanges, in particular by improving administrative procedures;
they underline the importance of the health sector for sustainable development and express their intention of promoting the effective participation of the community in operations to improve health and well-being;
they recognize the importance of social development which, in their view, must go hand in hand with any economic development. They attach particular importance to respect for fundamental social rights, including the right to development;
-they recognize the essential contribution civil society can make in the process of development of the EuroMediterranean partnership and as an essential factor for greater understanding and closeness between peoples;
-they accordingly agree to strengthen and/or introduce the necessary instruments of decentralized cooperation to encourage exchanges between those active in development
-within the framework of national laws: leaders of political and civil society, the cultural and religious world, universities, the research community, the media, organizations, the trade unions and public and private enterprises;
-on this basis, they recognize the importance of encouraging contacts and exchanges between young people in the context of programmes for decentralized cooperation;
-they will encourage actions of support for democratic institutions and for the strengthening of the rule of law and civil society;
they recognize that current population trends represent a priority challenge which must be counterbalanced by appropriate policies to accelerate economic takeoff;
-they acknowledge the importance of the role played by migration in their relationships. They agree to strengthen their cooperation to reduce migratory pressures, among other things through vocational training programmes and programmes of assistance for job creation. They undertake to guarantee protection of all the rights recognized under existing legislation of migrants legally resident in their respective territories;
-in the area of illegal immigration they decide to establish closer cooperation. In this context, the partners, aware of their responsibility for readmission, agree to adopt the relevant provisions and measures, by means of bilateral agreements or arrangements, in order to readmit their nationals who are in an illegal situation. To that end, the Member States of the European Union take citizens to mean nationals of the Member States, as defined for Community purposes;
they agree to strengthen cooperation by means of various measures to prevent terrorism and fight it more effectively together;
by the same token they consider it necessary to fight jointly and effectively against drug trafficking, international crime and corruption;
they underline the importance of waging a determined campaign against racism, xenophobia and intolerance and agree to cooperate to that end.
4. Summary
Okay, let’s gather some information here:
Improving perception of them? Sounds like propaganda
Mass media to “play a role”. Okay
Closeness of cultures to be valued
Exchanges to be promoted
Migration to be valued
Must repatriate illegals
campaign against racism, xenophobia and intolerance (no Islamophobia). Could this be to silence critics of this mass migration pact?
In case anyone was wondering, this is to promote multiculturalism, with no expectation of assimilation. While this is promoted as a post-cultural era, the idea is to encourage mass migration (mainly to Europe). Various cultures could then expect accommodation, since tolerance was the norm.
Of course, all of this presupposed that nations were totally fine giving up their national heritage and culture, something that has never proven true.
5. Exerps of Kalergi Plan
This war of annihilation, prepared by European politics, will leave the world war just as far behind in horror as it did the German-French one. His element will be the air – his weapon the poison – his aim is the extermination of the hostile nation. The main fight will be directed against the cities of the hinterland, against women and children. The vanquished nations are destroyed – the victorious mortally wounded emerge from this mass murder. This imminent war means the complete downfall of Europe, its culture and economy. Other continents will take its place. The second danger that escapes a fragmented Europe is the conquest by Russia.
Then the fragmented and divided small states of Europe will face the one Russian world power whose territory is five times larger than the whole of Europe. Neither the small states of Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the Balkans nor disarmed Germany would then be able to ward off the Russian onslaught. Rhine, Alps, Adriatic would become the border of Europe: until this border also falls and Europe becomes Russia’s western province. There is only one salvation from this danger: the European union. For a united Europe there is no Russian danger. Because it has twice as many people as Russia and a much more developed industry. So the decision about the Russian danger is not with Russia – but with Europe.
Getting originals of Kalergi’s work has been difficult. But here is the basic idea. Individual nation states within Europe lead to violence and war. People’s attachment to ethnicity, culture and heritage leads to violence between groups. However, if there was only one people, then these issues would not exist.
Yes, the Kalergi plan is ethnic cleansing, although the intent was to make for a more peaceful Europe. (Watch BPS’s video above as he explains it very well).
Further, individual nations weaken Europe against Russia. Russia of course is vastly stronger than any individual nation, but could be fended off if the European nations united.
The Kalergi plan was a way to solve both problems: (1) prevent violence between European nations; and (2) unite to be able to stand up to Russia.
As for the Charlemagne Prize, this is an award given to a person who has made extraordinary efforts in uniting Europe. There are some notable winners:
-Jean Claude Juncker won in 2006
-Angela Merkel won in 2008
-Emmanuel Macron won in 2018
The goal of Barcelona Declaration and Kalergi Plan is to destroy the individual European nation and to give rise to a European super state. Of course, the people’s themselves do not wish to give up their culture, language, traditions or ethnicity. Therefore, a high level of duplicity is necessary.
Of course, the aim of the December 10, 2018 UN Global Migration Compact is to erase nations throughout the West, not just Europe.
On a final note: doesn’t the Barcelona Declaration sound a lot like Canada’s Multiculturalism Act? Any unique national identity is to be removed in order to be “diverse and tolerant”
Multiculturalism policy
3 (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to
(a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;
(b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;
(c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;
(d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;
(e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;
(f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;
(g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;
(h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;
(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and
(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.
The Multiculturalism Act is Canada’s version of the Barcelona Declaration. Nothing to unite us as a people, no unique culture, customs, traditions or heritage. Canada is to be “multicultural”, which plainly means it is to have “no” culture.
Also worth noting, Quebec has laws to protect its language and culture, while the rest of Canada does not. Hypocritical.
Instead of preventing conflicts BETWEEN societies, forced multiculturalism ensures there will be conflicts WITHIN societies.
(Bernier mocking Kellie Lietch on immigration. Less than 2 years later, he will pretend to start caring about it)
(Maxime Bernier defends “dysfunctional” UN, won’t leave)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=224&v=lztDWPNfsjo
(March 8 Rebel Media video on Brooks, AB)
(Rebel Media on Islamic Relief Funding Terrorism)
(Islamic Party Wanting To Impose Sharia In Belgium)
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for the PPC Platform CLICK HERE, for the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. CLICK HERE, for TFWP data, 1990 to 2009. CLICK HERE, for more TWFP data. CLICK HERE, for 2018 Angus Reid poll on immigration. CLICK HERE, for UN Secretary General’s High-level Panel on Global Sustainability (co-authored by Jordan Peterson). CLICK HERE, for Abacus Poll, Bernier at 13%. CLICK HERE, for Globe & Mail, Bernier at 17%. CLICK HERE, for articles written on the binding nature of UN resolutions. CLICK HERE, for wasted foreign aid in Afghanistan. CLICK HERE, for Quebec opposing pipelines.
After much though, I cannot support the People’s Party of Canada anymore. As a Canadian nationalist with social conservative views, the PPC is not substantially different than the Conservative party of Canada.
There are many reasons, which will be addressed below.
There are far more important issues than the dairy cartel.
2. No Structure To This “Party”
(a) No leadership race — Bernier is self appointed
(b) No policy votes — agenda is handed down
(c) No party constitution
(d) No membership regulation
(e) No by-laws
(f) No governing documents of any kind
(g) No governing council or board
Seriously, if you are running to govern Canada, what kind of a shit-show is this? Beyond the fact that this “party” really exists only on paper, let’s see what else it wrong with it
3. Purging EDAs In BC
Well, it wouldn’t be a “People’s Party” without a massive purge at some point (pun intended).
While the party was originally touted as a right wing alternative, it seems that less and less viewpoints are now tolerated.
Nationalists, and others who reject the mass migration and rapid replacement of Canadians are dismissed as racists and bigots. Apparently, the non-PC party decided that it had to reject people to appear more tolerant.
Although the party calls itself “conservative”, attempts to bring socially conservative issues into the platform have failed, and their supporters not well received.
There have also been entire EDAs that were set up, but then members were removed ad-hoc, with no reason given. Guess they didn’t quite fit the mold. In fact, over half of the EDAs (Electoral District Associations) in BC had their people — their locally chosen people — removed and replaced by others.
Admittedly, it was an exciting project to get behind. But looking back, I knew nothing of who were the people running the show, or how it operated. 6 months later that is still the case.
4. Ideas And Platform
(I) PPC Won’t Leave the UN
As Canada’s former Foreign Affairs Minister, I witnessed first-hand how the international relations establishment has a set of priorities that are very different from those of ordinary Canadians.
They care about attending global conferences in trendy cities and getting photographed in the company of important foreign leaders. They worry about prestige and glamour, about Canada’s presence on the international scene even if that simply means having a tiny influence on events in parts of the world where we have almost no interest.
Whether it’s a bunch of bureaucrats discussing how to spend billions of dollars to kick-starting Canada’s economy; or a bunch of bureaucrats discussing how to spend billions of dollars on international organizations and development aid in other countries; it’s all the same. They are mostly furthering their own interests and wasting a lot of taxpayers’ money.
We are not going to try and please the foreign affairs establishment and the United Nations, a dysfunctional organisation which for years has disproportionately focused its activities on condemning Israel as if it were the source of most conflicts in the world. Last year for example, the UN General Assembly adopted 20 resolutions targeting Israel, while passing one each about the human rights situation in North Korea, Syria, and Iran.
Bernier’s now famous line: “The UN is a useless joke”. Is in the platform, and in many of his public comments and appearances, he criticizes the UN as wasteful. Sounds great, but one thing: why not leave the UN altogether? If Bernier truly views it money pit, against Canadians’ interests, and serves little value, why not leave? That detail is interestingly omitted.
While Bernier claims to cut spending on the UN (although not leave). Yet UN agreements result in pressure being applied to nations even for “non-binding” resolutions. Worse still, “non-binding” resolutions can still be used as a legal reference in future court challenges.
Further, if a Provincial or State level virtue signaller wants, a “non-binding” UN resolution can be legislated at that level (such as the case with BC wanting to pass the UN DRIP).
If a nation wanted to support humanitarian causes: great, but why would they need to be officially in the UN at all? Couldn’t personnel and/or supplies be sent directly to a cause? Seems unlikely that it would be refused simply because the donor was not a member. If anything, not being in the UN would prevent (or at least make it harder), for our interests to be run over.
(II) PPC Will “Only Review” Foreign Aid
Third, my government will review the $5 billion that Canada spends every year on international assistance programs.
Our refocused international assistance will centre on core humanitarian efforts to fight global health crises and respond to emergencies such as major conflicts and natural disasters. Canada has to show solidarity and do its part to help when populations are dying and suffering in countries that don’t have the means to save them.
However, every year, we spend billions of dollars funding job training, farming technology, infrastructure building and various other programs to help develop other countries’ economies. We will phase out this development aid, for which there is no moral or economic efficiency argument.
Serious question, given the waste and mismanagement in international agencies, how will PPC ensure that money given for “humanitarian purposes” is actually used as such? Also worth noting, how much of that $5 billion is development aid? And will this be cut completely, or redirected into “humanitarian aid?
Also, if the only money being spent is on emergency actions, why would it be necessary to be part of the UN at all?
In fairness to Bernier, it is nice to have the topic addressed. However, it would be naïve to assume that Canada will actually save anywhere near $5 billion annually.
Finally, given the widespread corruption and mismanagement in the UN and other global organizations, how can we be sure that aid is reaching the people it’s supposed to? How can we be sure that some or even all of it simply does not disappear? How can we be sure foreign aid is not used to finance nefarious causes? See above video. This is not to say all organizations are bad, but that there has to be real accountability as to how and where it goes.
(III) PPC Will “Only Review” Equalization Formula
Rather than continuing the welfare trap that our system of equalization has become, Bernier proposes to create an environment that encourages provinces to succeed and thrive, rather than relying on aid from other parts of the country.
Bernier’s plan has two key components:
-Immediately freeze the envelope of taxpayer dollars dedicated to equalization to stop the ever-increasing spending.
-Form a Parliamentary Committee dedicated to reviewing the equalization formula, proposing common sense solutions that will give provinces the right incentives to grow their economies.
In fairness, it is nice to see this issue addressed. It hasn’t at the Federal level in any meaningful way since its inception. However, it is inter-provincial welfare, plain and simple. Perhaps the real reason there’s no proposal to scrap it entirely is it would be political suicide in Quebec and the Maritimes, which depend on these handouts.
If a province still gets payments after 60 years, it should be obvious they have no intention of stopping. Phasing out completely would be a better option.
(IV) PPC Supports Mass Migration
Of course, Canadian society is also transformed by immigration, as it has for centuries. But this has to be done organically and gradually. When it happens too fast, it creates social tensions and conflicts, and provokes a political backlash, as we can see today in several countries.
This is why I am opposed to increasing the annual intake of immigrants from 250,000 to 300,000, as the Liberal government has announced.
This is laughable. At 250,000/year, it is stable. At 300,000 (or 310,000) it is mass migration.
Also worth mentioning is the petition Bernier sponsored, E-1906, cited here, to oppose the UN Global Migration Compact. In the height of the furor, thousands of Canadians protested against it. However, the PPC condemns “white nationalists” who are against mass migration, open borders, the UN in general, and in favour of protecting Canadian sovereignty and identity.
It would take some mental gymnastics for the PPC to call Stephen Harper out as a globalist, but then cite “his” number of 250,000/year. Also, how would they explain why a 20% reduction in immigration is “good and stable”, but that a 50-75% cut would be xenophobic and anti-immigrant.
Of course, this isn’t anywhere near a 20% reduction. Bernier omits the TFWP, which allows well over 100,000 people into Canada every year, many of whom becomes permanent residents. For example, in 2011, 192,000 TFW were admitted into Canada, and 29,000 TFW obtained permanent resident status. (See source). Also left out is the large number of student visas issued to college and university students annually. And of course, graduation is a quick path to permanent residence.
Of course this doesn’t include illegals getting a pathway to citizenship, nor refugees, nor anchor babies (birth tourism).
A far more accurate estimate would be that PPC wants an immigration reduction of about 10%.
Bernier frequently cites the Angus Reid poll (shown here), saying 49% of Canadians want less immigration. It would be nice if Angus Reid had followed up and asked how deep the cuts should be. 10% isn’t a major reduction, it’s just a tweaking.
Canada already has people from all corners of the globe. And most would love to have families, or at least bigger ones. See this initiative, recently announced by Hungary.
(V) Import Labour While Canadians Unemployed
Preventing our businesses from hiring the immigrant manpower they need with red tape is a big government policy. At the other extreme, mass immigration that would create social tensions and is not in the interest of Canadians is also a big government policy. A government under my leadership would find an appropriate middle ground so as to unleash Canada’s economic potential.
In particular, it should answer the needs of sectors where there is a scarcity of manpower with specialized skills; and in more general terms contribute to increasing the number of younger workers in a society that is fast aging.
Too little immigration means we will not get as much of these economic benefits as we could. But too much immigration also has its dangers.
See the above video from Rebel Media on Jason Kenney flooding Brooks, AB with Somali Muslims in order to obtain cheap labour. While an extreme case, there is nothing in the PPC website that states ensuring cultural compatibility with immigrants is necessary. It’s all about money.
And an obvious piece of information: businesses will ALWAYS say they need workers. From a supply side, there’s no downside, as it allows a greater choice for them.
With the high unemployment in Canada, particularly in Alberta, is there need for economic immigration or at least much smaller amounts? As with H1B visa in the US, it has the effect of driving down wages and forcing locals to face even stiffer competition.
The Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFW) allows companies to import cheaper labour which gets subsidized by taxpayers. And again, this is done while Canadians are unemployed. This is even more true with young graduates who often struggle to find work in glutted professions.
When people can’t find work, it hurts them and hurts their families. There are larger impacts to consider than simply job growth or GDP. And in the larger picture, instead of relying on migration to grow a country, why not focus more on getting Canadian children to have more children? The overwhelming majority of Canadian families would want more.
(VI) Civic Nationalism is Glorified Multiculturalism
Though not explicitly in the PPC platform, many PPC members have stated that the PPC is a “civic nationalist party”. So what’s the problem?
CIVIC NATIONALISM REJECTS ANY NATIONAL IDENTITY
The main features of civic nationalism is that people are joined by “values” as opposed to identity. Free speech, a constitution, equality under the law are all common tenants of the ideology. While those “are” important to have, they are not enough to unify a society.
Civ-Nat rejects common bonds such as: culture, spoken or written language, faith or religion, heritage, traditions, customs and yes (ancestry or ethnicity). These identity unifiers are stronger within groups than the “values”. It is not bigoted to want there to be something in common with all the people. A common culture and language are the bare minimum. Without it, people break off into groups who share similar traits.
Worse is the 1988 Multiculturalism Act (passed by “Conservative” Brian Mulroney). This Act actually encourages people to keep their old cultures, traditions and languages. In fact, it discourages assimilation.
And how do people maintain their culture? They band together, form a group — or balkanize — and keep practicing it.
Another bit of mental gymnastics for the PPC: “Why” do you object to Trudeau’s comments about Canada being a post-national country if you “don’t” support having a distinct and dominant identity?
It is not “extreme multi-culturalism” to have balkanization and ghettos. It is in fact the point of multiculturalism. And this leads to the next point….
(VII) Quebec Hypocrisy in Protecting Identity
Quebec has laws to protect its language and culture.
There is nothing wrong with that. However, multiculturalism and bilingualism are forced down the throats of the rest of Canada. The bulk of Canada was built as a British colony, with and English tradition.
Distinct identity for Quebec.
Melting pot for everyone else.
Every nation should have its own identity. But to allow a region to province to have one, but not elsewhere is hypocrisy.
(VIII) Bernier Compares Himself to Macron
In an interview, Bernier compared himself to Emmanuel Macron, who became President of France less than a year after launching his party in France.
While that sounds harmless enough, consider this: Macron is a Rothschild banker. While running as a “populist”, he proved to be anything but. He is now an EU globalist calling for the further break down of European nations. See this earlier review.
Interesting role model.
(IX) PPC’s new hero: Jordan Peterson
While it is normally wrong to judge someone by the company they keep, this article covers why getting involved with Peterson would be a serious mistake for any serious “populist” party.
(X) Complete Dismissal of Social Conservatives
PPC has made it clear from the beginning that they will not have any sort of social conservative policies being advanced by the party. They seem to believe that killing unborn children using tax dollars, sex changes for children, and the like are not issues the Feds need to be concerned with.
Indeed much of it is pushed off as “Provincial Issues”. Who cares if the culture declines as long as you are tolerant?
For a party that claims to offer a voice to Canadians who otherwise would feel excluded, this is a little rich.
Interesting that in recent by-elections, Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson did by far the best at 11%. She is a social conservative whose values would never actually be promoted by the PPC (except “possibly” as a private member’s bill).
Do we value lives of unborn children?
Are children best off with a mother and father?
Do we want young children corrupted by SOGI?
In September 2018, Bernier, even without a party had 13-17% support.
Now PPC has 2% nationally. (more than 80% drop)
Also consider the drop in support for 2 petitions Bernier sponsored:
PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE
(I) 68,500 for the anti-global migration compact petition.
(II) 4,100 for the anti-UN Parliament. (90% drop)
(XI) Political Islam
First, my government will continue to work closely with our allies to ensure peace and security, especially against radical Islamic terrorism. We will only get involved in foreign conflicts when we have a clear strategic interest in doing so and when the security of Canadians is directly impacted.
What could possibly be wrong with this statement? Nothing, except it omits the elephant in the room: POLITICAL ISLAM.
Lebanon was a Christian country.
Turkey was a Christian country.
Afghanistan was a Buddhist country.
Iran (Persia) was a secular country.
Pakistan was part of India and a Sikh country.
And so on….
Islam has entered dozens of countries across the globe and infiltrated their politics. The OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries) makes up 57 of the 193 countries in the UN, and is in fact the largest voting bloc. Yet another reason to leave the UN.
Islamic operatives are in the Canadian Government, and they have made serious inroads in American and European politics. The goal is the same: world domination and to spread Islam across the globe.
Condemning terrorism is an easy thing to do. When people are slaughtered for their beliefs, and their religious institutions vandalized or burned, it is a straightforward matter. But the PPC doesn’t call out the political branches of Islam trying to weaponize corrupt democratic governments.
Recently, the newly formed Islamic Party of Ontario made headlines. The founder, Jawed Anwer, stated that liberalism is killing off Islam. To be fair, Bernier did take a shot at this “ideological diversity making us stronger”.
Although terrorism and direct violence are more overt and obvious, the creeping Sharia into Western countries is the bigger threat growing.
(XII) Hypocrisy in “Call-Out Culture”
Probably Bernier’s strongest asset is his ability (and willingness) to call out pandering and political correctness. However, he seems uninterested in addressing criticism of the above topics.
(XIII) Free Trade With China
This is addressed in another article. But given how China does not play by the same rules, why would we undercut the job prospects of our own citizens? In fact, the “free trade” agenda as a whole seems to be just an excuse to outsource jobs, industries, and manufacturing to the 3rd world. There, people will do the same jobs, but for less.
(XIV) Support Private Bank Loans/Repeal of 1934 Bank of Canada Act
This topic was covered in a few other topics, but worth repeating. It is not the debt itself, but rather “who” the money is borrowed from. When we borrow from private banks, “foreign bodies” actually own the national debt.
(a) The 1934 Bank of Canada Act
(b) COMER case, to challenge private bank loans
(c) US Federal Reserve
Bernier goes on and on about the DAIRY cartel, but never once mentions the BANKING cartel. Strange, isn’t it?
5. Final Thoughts
While there are a few nice points, it misses bigger issues. As such, I can no longer be a part of this. Far from a full solution, in many ways it is a half measure.
PPC offers nothing to Nationalists concerned with mass migration.
PPC offers nothing to social conservatives.
PPC is not substantially different than CPC on issues of Canadian sovereignty and independence.
PPC supports globalized trade, which decimates industries.
PPC won’t discuss the real cause of the debt, the banking cartel.
The CPC isn’t a solution either — for anyone who might make the “shill” accusation. They have signed plenty of bad deals such as Agenda 2030 (Harper) and Agenda 21 (Mulroney), and support for Paris Accord (Scheer).
CLICK HERE, for the main page. CLICK HERE, for the FAQ section. CLICK HERE, for the “Participants” section. CLICK HERE, for then Immigration Minister Jason Kenney attending in 2014.
2. 2018 Bilderberg Meetings
Turin, Italy 7-10 June 2018
CHAIRMAN STEERING COMMITTEE
Castries, Henri de (FRA), Chairman, Institut Montaigne
PARTICIPANTS
Achleitner, Paul M. (DEU), Chairman Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG; Treasurer, Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
Agius, Marcus (GBR), Chairman, PA Consulting Group
Alesina, Alberto (ITA), Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Economics, Harvard University Altman, Roger C. (USA), Founder and Senior Chairman, Evercore
Amorim, Paula (PRT), Chairman, Américo Amorim Group
Anglade, Dominique (CAN), Deputy Premier of Quebec; Minister of Economy, Science and Innovation
Applebaum, Anne (POL), Columnist, Washington Post; Professor of Practice, London School of Economics
Azoulay, Audrey (INT), Director-General, UNESCO
Baker, James H. (USA), Director, Office of Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defense Barbizet, Patricia (FRA), President, Temaris & Associés Barroso, José M. Durão (PRT), Chairman, Goldman Sachs International; Former President, European Commission
Beerli, Christine (CHE), Former Vice-President, International Committee of the Red Cross
Berx, Cathy (BEL), Governor, Province of Antwerp
Beurden, Ben van (NLD), CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc
Blanquer, Jean-Michel (FRA), Minister of National Education, Youth and Community Life Botín, Ana P. (ESP), Group Executive Chairman, Banco Santander Bouverot, Anne (FRA), Board Member; Former CEO, Morpho
Brandtzæg, Svein Richard (NOR), President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
Brende, Børge (INT), President, World Economic Forum
Brennan, Eamonn (IRL), Director General, Eurocontrol
Brnabic, Ana (SRB), Prime Minister
Burns, William J. (USA), President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Burwell, Sylvia M. (USA), President, American University
Caracciolo, Lucio (ITA), Editor-in-Chief, Limes Carney, Mark J. (GBR), Governor, Bank of England
Castries, Henri de (FRA), Chairman, Institut Montaigne; Chairman, Steering Committee Bilderberg Meetings
Cattaneo, Elena (ITA), Director, Laboratory of Stem Cell Biology, University of Milan
Cazeneuve, Bernard (FRA), Partner, August Debouzy; Former Prime Minister
Cebrián, Juan Luis (ESP), Executive Chairman, El País
Champagne, François-Philippe (CAN), Minister of International Trade
Cohen, Jared (USA), Founder and CEO, Jigsaw at Alphabet Inc. Colao, Vittorio (ITA), CEO, Vodafone Group
Cook, Charles (USA), Political Analyst, The Cook Political Report
Dagdeviren, Canan (TUR), Assistant Professor, MIT Media Lab
Donohoe, Paschal (IRL), Minister for Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform
Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer SE
Ecker, Andrea (AUT), Secretary General, Office Federal President of Austria
Elkann, John (ITA), Chairman, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Émié, Bernard (FRA), Director General, Ministry of the Armed Forces
Enders, Thomas (DEU), CEO, Airbus SE
Fallows, James (USA), Writer and Journalist
Ferguson, Jr., Roger W. (USA), President and CEO, TIAA
Ferguson, Niall (USA), Milbank Family Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University Fischer, Stanley (USA), Former Vice-Chairman, Federal Reserve; Former Governor, Bank of Israel
Gilvary, Brian (GBR), Group CFO, BP plc
Goldstein, Rebecca (USA), Visiting Professor, New York University
Gruber, Lilli (ITA), Editor-in-Chief and Anchor “Otto e mezzo”, La7 TV
Hajdarowicz, Greg (POL), Founder and President, Gremi International Sarl
Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Chairman Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
Hassabis, Demis (GBR), Co-Founder and CEO, DeepMind
Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation; Former European Commissioner
Helgesen, Vidar (NOR), Ambassador for the Ocean
Herlin, Antti (FIN), Chairman, KONE Corporation
Hickenlooper, John (USA), Governor of Colorado Hobson, Mellody (USA), President, Ariel Investments LLC
Hodgson, Christine (GBR), Chairman, Capgemini UK plc
Hoffman, Reid (USA), Co-Founder, LinkedIn; Partner, Greylock Partners
Horowitz, Michael C. (USA), Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania
Hwang, Tim (USA), Director, Harvard-MIT Ethics and Governance of AI Initiative
Ischinger, Wolfgang (INT), Chairman, Munich Security Conference
Jacobs, Kenneth M. (USA), Chairman and CEO, Lazard
Kaag, Sigrid (NLD), Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation
Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies
Kissinger, Henry A. (USA), Chairman, Kissinger Associates Inc. Knot, Klaas H.W. (NLD), President, De Nederlandsche Bank
Koç, Ömer M. (TUR), Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
Köcher, Renate (DEU), Managing Director, Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research
Kotkin, Stephen (USA), Professor in History and International Affairs, Princeton University
Kragic, Danica (SWE), Professor, School of Computer Science and Communication, KTH Kravis, Henry R. (USA), Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, KKR
Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; President, American Friends of Bilderberg
Kudelski, André (CHE), Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group
Lepomäki, Elina (FIN), MP, National Coalition Party
Leyen, Ursula von der (DEU), Federal Minster of Defence Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chairman, KBC Group Makan, Divesh (USA), CEO, ICONIQ Capital
Massolo, Giampiero (ITA), Chairman, Fincantieri Spa.; President, ISPI
Mazzucato, Mariana (ITA), Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value, University College London
Mead, Walter Russell (USA), Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute
Michel, Charles (BEL), Prime Minister Micklethwait, John (USA), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP
Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
Mitsotakis, Kyriakos (GRC), President, New Democracy Party
Mota, Isabel (PRT), President, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation
Moyo, Dambisa F. (USA), Global Economist and Author
Mundie, Craig J. (USA), President, Mundie & Associates
Neven, Hartmut (USA), Director of Engineering, Google Inc.
Noonan, Peggy (USA), Author and Columnist, The Wall Street Journal
Oettinger, Günther H. (INT), Commissioner for Budget & Human Resources, European Commission
O’Leary, Michael (IRL), CEO, Ryanair D.A.C.
O’Neill, Onora (GBR), Emeritus Honorary Professor in Philosophy, University of Cambridge
Osborne, George (GBR), Editor, London Evening Standard
Özkan, Behlül (TUR), Associate Professor in International Relations, Marmara University
Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), CEO, Titan Cement Company S.A.
Parolin, H.E. Pietro (VAT), Cardinal and Secretary of State
Patino, Bruno (FRA), Chief Content Officer, Arte France TV Petraeus, David H. (USA), Chairman, KKR Global Institute Pichette, Patrick (CAN), General Partner, iNovia Capital
Pouyanné, Patrick (FRA), Chairman and CEO, Total S.A.
Pring, Benjamin (USA), Co-Founder and Managing Director, Center for the Future of Work Rankka, Maria (SWE), CEO, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce
Ratas, Jüri (EST), Prime Minister
Rendi-Wagner, Pamela (AUT), MP (SPÖ); Former Minister of Health
Rivera Díaz, Albert (ESP), President, Ciudadanos Party Rossi, Salvatore (ITA), Senior Deputy Governor, Bank of Italy
Rubesa, Baiba A. (LVA), CEO, RB Rail AS
Rubin, Robert E. (USA), Co-Chairman Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Treasury Secretary
Rudd, Amber (GBR), MP; Former Secretary of State, Home Department
Rutte, Mark (NLD), Prime Minister Sabia, Michael (CAN), President and CEO, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec
Sadjadpour, Karim (USA), Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Sáenz de Santamaría, Soraya (ESP), Deputy Prime Minister Sawers, John (GBR), Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners
Schadlow, Nadia (USA), Former Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy
Schneider-Ammann, Johann N. (CHE), Federal Councillor
Scholten, Rudolf (AUT), President, Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue
Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), Senior Fellow, Harvard University; Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Poland
Simsek, Mehmet (TUR), Deputy Prime Minister
Skartveit, Hanne (NOR), Political Editor, Verdens Gang
Stoltenberg, Jens (INT), Secretary General, NATO
Summers, Lawrence H. (USA), Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital Topsøe, Jakob Haldor (DNK), Chairman, Haldor Topsøe Holding A/S
Turpin, Matthew (USA), Director for China, National Security Council Wahlroos, Björn (FIN), Chairman, Sampo Group, Nordea Bank, UPM-Kymmene Corporation Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chairman, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB
Woods, Ngaire (GBR), Dean, Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University
Yetkin, Murat (TUR), Editor-in-chief, Hürriyet Daily News
Zeiler, Gerhard (AUT), President, Turner International
As should be obvious from the list, a lot of banks and investment holding companies are represented. Why would that be? Are there some big profits to be made in all this?
3. Brief History
The Bilderberg meeting is an annual three-day forum for informal discussions designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. The pioneering meeting grew out of the concern, expressed by leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic, that Western Europe and North America were not working together as closely as they should on issues of common interest.
The first meeting took place in Hotel De Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Netherlands, from 29 to 31 May 1954. Representatives from economic, social, political and cultural fields were invited to hold informal discussions to help create a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations in the difficult post-war period.
Throughout the years, the annual meetings have become a forum for discussion on a wide range of topics – from trade to jobs, from monetary policy to investment and from ecological challenges to the task of promoting international security. In the context of a globalised world, it is hard to think of any issue in either Europe or North America that could be tackled unilaterally.
4. Steering Committee
CHAIRMAN
Castries, Henri de (FRA), Chairman, Institut Montaigne
Achleitner, Paul M. (DEU), Chairman Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG; Treasurer, Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
Altman, Roger C. (USA), Founder and Senior Chairman, Evercore
Barbizet, Patricia (FRA), President, Temaris & Associés
Barroso, José M. Durão (PRT), Chairman, Goldman Sachs International; Former President, European Commission
Botín, Ana P. (ESP), Group Executive Chairman, Banco Santander
Brandtzæg, Svein Richard (NOR), President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer SE
Elkann, John (ITA), Chairman, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Gruber, Lilli (ITA), Editor-in-Chief and Anchor “Otto e mezzo”, La7 TV
Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Chairman Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation; Former European Commissioner
Hobson, Mellody (USA), President, Ariel Investments LLC
Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies
Koç, Ömer M. (TUR), Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; President, American Friends of Bilderberg Inc.
Kudelski, André (CHE), Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group
Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chairman, KBC Group
Micklethwait, John (USA), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP
Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
Mundie, Craig J. (USA), President, Mundie & Associates
O’Leary, Michael (IRL), CEO, Ryanair D.A.C.
Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), CEO, Titan Cement Company S.A.
Sabia, Michael (CAN), President and CEO, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec
Sawers, John (GBR), Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners
Schadlow, Nadia (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Schmidt, Eric E. (USA), Technical Advisor, Alphabet Inc.
Scholten, Rudolf (AUT), President, Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue
Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), Senior Fellow, Harvard University; Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Poland
Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital
Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chairman, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB
5. Bilderberg Goals
What are the Bilderberg Meetings and what are its goals?
The Bilderberg Meeting is an annual meeting designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Bilderberg was established in 1954 as a forum for informal discussions, bringing together individuals who share an active interest in affairs relevant to the relationship between Europe and Northern America. The meeting has one main goal: to foster discussion and dialogue. There is no desired outcome, there is no closing statement, there are no resolutions proposed or votes taken.
Sounds so harmless and innocuous.
But then, it always does.
