World Circular Economy Forum, Related Groups

Have you heard about the World Circular Economy Forum? If not, let’s take a look at what’s going on over here. This is a collection of people who devise ways to make the economy function in a waste free world.

At first, this organization seems to present as a large scale recycling scheme, devoted to reducing garbage and pollution. While there is truth in that, it appears the goals are much larger.

The first forum took place in 2017, and the most recent one was hosted in 2021. That said, 2017 is an interesting year, since that’s when the Canadian budget started pumping money into alternative protein sources.

It’s a bit amusing that this group goes out of its way to have a name as close as possible to the World Economic Forum. Did they thing no one would notice? Or that no one would care? Anyhow, let’s see who’s supposedly running this thing.

Partners include:

  • African Circular Economy Alliance
  • Circular Economy Leadership Canada
  • City of Toronto
  • Ellen MacArthur Foundation
  • European Circular Economy Stakeholders Platform
  • European Union
  • Finnish Government
  • International Chamber of Commerce
  • Government of Canada
  • Government of the Netherlands
  • United Nations Environmental Program

Strangely, I don’t recall any public figures campaigning on becoming part of such an organization. Nor does there seem to have been anything in the way of media coverage. But at least we aren’t forced to help finance this “circular economy” fad, are we?

It turns out, that we will be. At least that’s what this 2021 report makes pretty clear. Like other eco initiatives, this will require lots of start-up money.

[Page 3]
The current state of circular finance
.
Despite the lack of harmonized frameworks, taxonomies, and metrics, financial institutions are beginning to move forward with initiatives to advance circular finance solutions in various ways. Globally, some financial institutions have set multi-billion dollar targets for investing in circular deals. Large multilateral development banks are supporting financial institutions in developing structured frameworks to accommodate innovative financial solutions and advisory services. A report authored by Patrick Schröder and Jan Raes and published by Chatham House titled, “Financing an inclusive circular economy: De-risking investments for circular business models and the SDGs,” highlights the importance of public investment and stimulus packages to de-risk and incentivize financial investments in circular models.

In order to get this going, billions of dollars will need to be pumped into it. Note: this doesn’t refer to any accounting, just an idea in broad strokes. The report continues:

[Page 8]
Circular economy opportunities and priorities are increasingly intersecting with broader ESG considerations such as biodiversity, equity, diversity and inclusion, and climate action goals, although the intersections are not yet well understood. Investment in circular business strategies and operations can result in significant positive social, environmental, and economic benefits. Circular businesses are creating more resilient green jobs and skills that will be needed in a low-carbon future. For instance, the Share, Reuse, Repair Initiative’s Just Circular Recovery and Transition project brings together circular innovators and community organizations to advance employment opportunities within marginalized communities. Additionally, circular businesses are prompting consumers to have conversations around lighter living and to make more sustainable choices.

[Page 8]
A study by the Ellen McArthur Foundation shows that 45% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are associated with products and food. Achieving net-zero commitments will require reducing embodied carbon through circular strategies, such as designing for reuse and remanufacturing, product-as-a-service models, and advanced recycling. For instance, the Ellen McArthur foundation estimates that remanufacturing and reusing an engine reduces carbon intensity by 85%

This also ties in with the idea of “alternative” protein sources and eating bugs. After all, if traditional food sources are considered to not be environmentally friendly, they need to be phased out.

It turns out that taxpayer dollars are being used for the “circular economy” initiative, even if they aren’t being directly given to this organization. Here are some of those grants:

And in a turn of events, Canadian taxpayers is also giving large amounts of money directly to the World Economic Forum. In fact, there is a lot they are forced to finance.

RECIPIENT DATE DATE
Accelerating Sustainability Events Management Inc Jul 28, 2021 $175,000.00
Carboncure Technologies Inc Jan 8, 2021 $2,026,500.00
City Of Guelph Mar 13, 2020 $10,000,000.00
Collège D’Enseignement Général Et Professionnel Feb 6, 2020 $2,000,000.00
Conference Board Of Canada Mar 31, 2021 $390,000.00
Council Of The Great Lakes Region Mar 18, 2020 $553,000.00
Distillerie Maison Alfred Inc. Dec 5, 2021 $30,476.00
Gabriola Island Recycling Organization Mar 24, 2022 $98,000.00
Global Centre For Indigenomics Oct 27, 2021 $49,900.00
Keddie, Leanne Mar 15, 2022 $234,045.00
Leading Change For Young Professionals Jul 28, 2021 $299,875.00
Natural Step (Canada) Inc. Feb 21, 2019 $299,875.00
Ontario Genomics Institute Oct 1, 2021 $1,262,661.00
Leadership Coalition, Natural Step Canada Inc Mar 18, 2020 $175,000.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc. Feb 1, 2019 $170,900.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc. Sep 16, 2021 $460,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc. May 31, 2021 $30,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc. May 31, 2021 $50,000.00
Tgm Tours Inc. Jan 25, 2021 $143,000.00
University Of British Columbia Mar 18, 2022 $1,040,000.00
World Economic Forum Dec 23, 2014 $1,000,000.00
World Economic Forum Sep 29, 2015 $6,000,000.00
World Economic Forum Dec 14, 2015 $10,000,000.00
World Economic Forum Dec 3, 2018 $52,925.00
World Economic Forum Apr 25, 2019 $999,580.00
World Economic Forum Jan 17, 2020 $500,000.00
World Economic Forum Mar 16, 2020 $5,933,063.00

The University of British Columbia is a registered charity, so it already receives a favourable tax rate on its income.

This is eye-catching, this grant to the World Economic Forum, Center for 4th Industrial Revolution. Isn’t that the name of one of Klaus Schwab’s books? Isn’t this all supposed to be just a conspiracy theory?

It’s also worth mentioning that both Carboncure Technologies Inc. and the Conference Board Of Canada were receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, over the last few years. This is run by the C.R.A. and is used to help pay employees’ wages.

There is a corresponding group here called Circular Economy Leadership Canada. Its partners include many well known chains. It states on its main page that:

“We’re collectively committing to support the U.N. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 on responsible consumption and production, and to substantially reduce waste, in all of its forms, by 2030.”

In other words, it’s helping to implement parts of Agenda 2030. The organization just needs large amounts of financial assistance (continuously) to make this happen.

Goal #2 in the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda is ending hunger in all its forms. One of the methods pushed is phasing out traditional agriculture with alternative protein sources, such as bugs.

Goal #13 in the UNSDA is preventing climate change. There is actually considerable overlap with #2. By stating that certain agricultural practices cause these changes, it provides a further excuse to further shut down farms.

Goal #12 ties in to both #2 and #13. This calls for creating “sustainable food and consumption patterns”. By saying that current models do not suffice in feeding everyone, while asserting they cause climate change, this goal is able to solve the other two. It’s another instance of causing the problem, getting a reaction, then proposing a solution.

A cynic may wonder just how literally the term “circular economy” is meant to be taken. After all, there are efforts to get people in the West eating bugs. After humans are dead and buried, presumably they’ll be eaten by bugs themselves.

(1) https://www.wcef2021.com/
(2) https://www.wcef2021.com/about/
(3) https://circulareconomyleaders.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WCEF-Financing-the-Circular-Economy-What-We-Heard-Report-20211015-EN1.pdf
(4) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/
(5) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/ic,230-2018-2019-04-0189,current
(6) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(7) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

FOOD SERIES:
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/cricket-production-subsidies-aspire-food-group/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/budget-2017-subsidizing-the-phase-out-of-meat-in-canada/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/holomodor-2-0-coming-or-all-just-a-coincidence/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/nacia-and-insect-consumption-alternative-protein-market/

Canadian Parliament To Resume Study On Facial Recognition Use After Summer Break

The Canadian Parliament is taking a break for the summer on studying the issue of facial recognition in society. Considering the vast privacy implications, this isn’t a topic to be decided lightly.

There have been 8 briefs submitted for public viewing, and some 33 witnesses have been scheduled to appear before the House of Commons. There has been overlap in the concerns, particularly around what sort of safeguards would be in place to prevent misuse and abuse of this technology.

Questions have also been asked about how reliable this type of equipment is, and can its use inadvertently lead to large numbers of false positives. This seems particularly true given how many people are still wearing masks. Beyond that, how broadly could this be used? Would the scope be narrow and focused, or turned onto society more broadly?

Given the increasing use of AI, or artificial intelligence, it seems that much of this would be done automatically, with little to no personal oversight. That again raises the potential for more errors.

And really, many just don’t want such systems around.

Hearings went from March through June 2022. However, with Parliament recessed for the summer, the issue is on hold for the time being.

The timing is also bad for another reason. Earlier this year, it was revealed that the Public Health Agency of Canada had been tracking cell phone data from users without their knowledge or consent. See their recommendations. This doesn’t exactly contribute to gaining the public’s trust.

Clearly, we will have to see where things go this these issues. However, there is a significant portion of the population which is unhappy with ever encroaching measures.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/ETHI/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11566271
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/ETHI/Brief/BR11882158/br-external/MaslejNestor-e.pdf
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/ETHI/Brief/BR11713948/br-external/CanadianHumanRightsCommission-e.pdf
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/ETHI/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11471238
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/privacy-phac-snooping-on-cell-phone-records/
(6) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/ETHI/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11471238
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/ETHI/report-4/
(8) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/ETHI/Reports/RP11736929/ethirp04/ethirp04-e.pdf

What Danielle Smith Isn’t Telling Her Supporters

Today’s topic concerns Danielle Smith, running to become Premier of Alberta. She used to be the head of the Wildrose Party in that Province.

Why go after someone who claims to be fighting for freedom, at least in Alberta? Because there are critical topics that are going unsaid.

In fairness, ideas like setting up a Provincial police force (like the O.P.P.), and doing local tax collection are interesting.

While Smith’s campaign seems to be starting well, there are plenty of red flags. Specifically, there are concerns that she doesn’t appear to be addressing. Her rise also seems controlled and inorganic, much like that of Poilievre.

Of course, if these things were properly addressed, than an apology is warranted. But they don’t seem to have been.

For starters, Smith (and all Western “conservatives”) claim to want to rebuild the oil & gas sector. However, they ignore the fact that Agendas 21 and 2030 make it clear these industries are to be killed off. These were signed by Mulroney and Harper respectively.

Smith is running for the leadership of the United Conservative Party, which Jason Kenney is leaving. In launching her campaign, she goes on about how Alberta needs to be protected from Trudeau. Of course, this applies to Ottawa more generally.

What makes this ring hollow is that the UCP received the wage subsidy, CEWS, for at least a portion of the last 2 years. It’s pretty hard to be against the Trudeau regime when his programs are paying your organization’s bills.

While Jason Kenney claimed to be resisting tyranny in Ottawa, his party was sucking at the teet of Federal bailout programs.

It’s a great talking point to be challenging Trudeau on “vaccinations” for certain things, but it completely glosses over the fact that Kenney brought in a Provincial system in late 2021, despite repeatedly promising not to. Smith is also running to head the party that was too spineless to stop Kenney, Hinshaw and Shandro.

Of course, the UCP is hardly alone in being bought off. The Alberta Liberals also got the subsidies, as did the Federal Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP. Watch the original video, or the remake for a look at the rot in our system.

There’s also no mention about the rampant pharma lobbying trying to influence policies in Alberta. Yes, it happens everywhere, but it’s not exactly a secret.

If Smith was serious about freedom and sovereignty for Alberta, she could always have thrown Kenney under the bus for his World Economic Forum connection. Either she doesn’t know about it, or just chose not to do so.

For obvious reasons, anyone tied to that organization can never be trusted to put their constituents first.

YEAR END TOTAL REVENUE NON-GOV’T PERCENTAGE
March 2017 $14,325,881,000 $922,364,000 6.54%
March 2018 $13,780,984,000 0 0%
March 2019 $15,134,433,000 $948,317,000 6.27%
March 2020 $15,335,736,000 $971,471,000 6.33%
March 2021 $16,489,501,000 $767,768,000 4.66%

Alberta Health Services is a registered charity, according to the Canada Revenue Agency. Although 2017/2018 seems to be an anomaly, A.H.S. takes close to $1 billion/year from non-Governmental sources. It would be nice to know who these are.

Not only are private organizations allowed to donate, and potentially influence policy, taxpayers are forced to subsidize those donations. Tax credits amount to approximately 40% – 50% of the contributions.

Worth mentioning: this site has asked the C.R.A. several times for donor information. However, those requests were refused, citing privacy protections.

Pretty hard to do a proper job of criticizing A.H.S. while leaving this out.

In order for Alberta to have control over its affairs, it’s important to know what international agreements various Federal Governments have signed over the years. Smith doesn’t appear to have addressed any of this. As such, she’s in no position to offer such things, even if she were Premier.

Over a century ago, an International Public Health Office was created, which we became a part of. This was done without any democratic mandate of course.

1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.

In order to be part of the World Health Organization, it means adopting their Constitution, and ceding a large amount of sovereignty to an international body. No prominent politicians in Canada of any stripe have addressed this point. Are they all controlled?

Article 4
Members of the United Nations may become Members of the Organization by signing or otherwise accepting this Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIX and in accordance with their constitutional processes.

Article 19
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Article 20
Each Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance. In case of acceptance, each Member agrees to make an annual report to the Director-General in accordance with Chapter XIV

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

Being part of the World Health Organization means submitting to their rules and control. It’s laid out in their own constitution. To be clear, sovereignty will never be possible as long as Canada is part of this entity.

As has been outlined here before, the 2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations.

We’ve also gone heavily into the creation of PHAC, which is essentially just a branch of the World Health Organization. It was created at WHO’s instigation. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.

Isolation, Quarantine and Special Measures
.
Isolation and quarantine
.
29(1) A medical officer of health who knows of or has reason to suspect the existence of a communicable disease or a public health emergency within the boundaries of the health region in which the medical officer of health has jurisdiction may initiate an investigation to determine whether any action is necessary to protect the public health.
(2) Where the investigation confirms the presence of a communicable disease, the medical officer of health
(a) shall carry out the measures that the medical officer of health is required by this Act and the regulations to carry out, and
(b) may do any or all of the following:
(i) take whatever steps the medical officer of health considers necessary
(A) to suppress the disease in those who may already have been infected with it,
(B) to protect those who have not already been exposed to the disease,
(C) to break the chain of transmission and prevent spread of the disease, and
(D) to remove the source of infection;
(ii) by order
(A) prohibit a person from attending a school,
(B) prohibit a person from engaging in the person’s occupation, or
(C) prohibit a person from having contact with other persons or any class of persons for any period and subject to any conditions that the medical officer of health considers appropriate, where the medical officer of health determines that the person’s engaging in that activity could transmit an infectious agent;
.
(iii) issue written orders for the decontamination or destruction of any bedding, clothing or other articles that
have been contaminated or that the medical officer of health reasonably suspects have been contaminated.
(2.1) Where the investigation confirms the existence of a public health emergency, the medical officer of health
(a) has all the same powers and duties in respect of the public health emergency as he or she has under subsection (2) in the case of a communicable disease, and
(b) may take whatever other steps are, in the medical officer of health’s opinion, necessary in order to lessen the impact of the public health emergency.

A serious candidate would vow to scrap the Alberta Public Health Act, or at least gut it. This legislation (and all Provinces have a similar version) are derived from the 2005 Quarantine Act, which itself came from WHO’s International Health Regulations.

It makes no sense to propose an Alberta Sovereignty Act, while leaving intact the legislation which signs away the Province’s control in the first place.

On November 30, 2020, Smith interviewed Kenney for the show she had at the time. The clip starts at about 28:30 in the full recording. Smith made it pretty clear she’s quite able to do research.

She also brought up the issue of 90% false positives for PCR testing (notwithstanding the fact that no virus exists). Even 18 months ago, she clearly knew that this “pandemic” was a scam. But that person seems to have vanished.

Much like Ron DeSantis of Florida, Smith will scream about bodily autonomy, all while ignoring or downplaying the obvious psy-op over the last few years. This was planned and deliberate, not just some collective incompetence.

A cynic would view all of this as a candidate dropped in to placate the masses. A more charitable interpretation would be a total lack of understanding of what’s going on.

Now, could Smith be a decent Premier? Maybe. However, she leaves out so much that it’s hard to see her as anything but another fake freedom fighter.

(1) https://twitter.com/ABDanielleSmith
(2) https://twitter.com/ABDanielleSmith/status/1544454483388014593/
(3) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(4) https://www.bitchute.com/video/WooZ4LCmdDs5/
(5) https://www.weforum.org/people/jason-t-kenney
(6) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch?request_locale=en
(7) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=alberta+health+services&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=124072513RR0010&dsrdPg=1
(8) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/index.aspx
(9) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103984&t=637793587893732877
(10) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103986&t=637862410289812632
(11) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103990&t=637793587893576566
(12) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103994&t=637862410289656362
(13) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103997&t=637793622744842730
(14) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=105025&t=637793622744842730
(15) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/WHO-Constitution-Full-Document.pdf
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62g-public-health-agency-of-canada-created-as-branch-of-who-bill-c-12-phac-act/
(17) https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/P37.pdf
(18) https://www.facebook.com/kenneyjasont/videos/1065515287297927

Replacement Migration In Canada: 1966 To 1979 Data

Here’s some data going back to the 1960s. These years feature quite differently than more recent reports. The United States and United Kingdom were consistently at the top of the source countries list. That has since been replaced by China, India and the Philippines. White genocide (a.k.a “replacement”) is a very real thing.

According to the United Nations, enacting policies designed to bring about the destruction of an ethnic, racial, or religious group (in all or in part), is considered genocide. Consequently, forced multiculturalism and population replacement should be viewed through that lens.

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. Source Countries From 1966 To 1979

Let’s look at the “official” numbers from 1966 to 1979. The U.S. and U.K. are still featured prominently, something that will change in the coming years.

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1966
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 63,291 32.5 1
Italy 31,625 16.2 2
United States 17,514 9.0 3
Germany 9,263 4.8 4
Portugal 7,930 4.0 5
France 7,872 4.0 6
Greece 7,174 3.7 7
China 4,094 2.1 8
West Indies 3,935 2.0 9
Netherlands 3,794 1.9 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 156,492 80.4
TOTAL — OTHERS 38,251 19.6
GRAND TOTAL 194,743 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1967
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 62,420 28.0 1
Italy 30,055 13.4 2
United States 19,038 8.6 3
Germany 11,779 5.3 4
Greece 10,650 4.6 5
France 10,122 4.5 6
Portugal 9,500 4.2 7
West Indies 8,403 3.8 8
China 6,409 2.9 9
Australia 4,967 2.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 173,343 77.8
TOTAL — OTHERS 49,533 22.2
GRAND TOTAL 222,876 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1968
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 37,889 20.6 1
United States 20,422 11.1 2
Italy 19,774 10.8 3
Germany 8,966 4.8 4
China 8,382 4.6 5
France 8,184 4.4 6
Austria 8,125 4.4 7
Greece 7,739 4.2 8
Portugal 7,738 4.2 9
West Indies 7,563 4.1 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 104,782 57.0
TOTAL — OTHERS 79,192 43.0
GRAND TOTAL 183,974 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1969
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 31,977 19.8 1
United States 22,785 14.1 2
West Indies 13,093 8.1 3
Italy 10,383 6.4 4
China 8,272 5.1 5
Portugal 7,182 4.4 6
Greece 6,937 4.3 7
Germany 5,880 3.6 8
France 5,549 3.4 9
India 5,395 3.3 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 117,453 72.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 44,078 27.3
GRAND TOTAL 161,531 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1970
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 26,497 18.7 1
United States 24,424 16.5 2
West Indies 12,456 8.4 3
Italy 8,533 5.8 4
Portugal 7,902 5.4 5
Greece 6,327 4.3 6
Yugoslavia 5,672 3.8 7
India 5,670 3.8 8
China 5,377 3.6 9
France 4,410 2.9 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 101,596 68.8
TOTAL — OTHERS 46,118 31.2
GRAND TOTAL 147,714 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1971
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 24,366 20.0 1
United Kingdom 15,451 12.8 2
Portugal 9,157 7.5 3
Italy 5,790 4.8 4
India 5,313 4.4 5
China 5,009 4.1 6
Greece 4,769 3.9 7
Philippines 4,180 3.4 8
Yugoslavia 2,997 2.4 9
France 2,966 2.4 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 79,998 66.6
TOTAL — OTHERS 41,902 34.4
GRAND TOTAL 121,900 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1972
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 22,618 18.5 1
United Kingdom 18,197 14.9 2
Portugal 8,737 7.2 3
Hong Kong 6,297 5.2 4
India 5,049 4.1 5
Uganda 5,021 4.1 6
Italy 4,608 3.8 7
Greece 4,016 3.3 8
Philippines 3,946 3.2 9
France 2,742 2.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 81,231 66.6
TOTAL — OTHERS 40,775 33.4
GRAND TOTAL 122,006 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1973
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 26,973 14.6 1
United States 25,242 13.7 2
Hong Kong 14,662 8.0 3
Portugal 13,483 7.3 4
Jamaica 9,363 5.1 5
India 9,203 5.0 6
Philippines 6,757 3.7 7
Greece 5,833 3.2 8
Italy 5,468 3.0 9
Trinidad-Tobago 5,138 2.8 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 122,122 66.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 62,078 33.7
GRAND TOTAL 184,200 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1974
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 38,456 17.6 1
United States 26,541 12.1 2
Portugal 16,333 7.5 3
India 12,868 5.9 4
Hong Kong 12,704 5.8 5
Jamaica 11,286 5.2 6
Philippines 9,564 4.4 7
Greece 5,632 2.6 8
Italy 5,226 2.4 9
Haiti 4,857 2.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 143,467 65.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 74,998 34.3
GRAND TOTAL 218,465 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1975
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 34,978 18.6 1
United States 20,155 10.7 2
Hong Kong 11,132 5.9 3
India 10,144 5.4 4
Portugal 8,390 4.5 5
Jamaica 8,211 4.4 6
Philippines 7,364 3.9 7
Italy 5,078 2.7 8
Guyana 4,394 2.3 9
South Korea 4,314 2.3 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 114,163 60.8
TOTAL — OTHERS 73,718 39.2
GRAND TOTAL 187,881 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1976
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 21,548 14.4 1
United States 17,315 11.6 2
Hong Kong 10,725 7.2 3
Jamaica 7,282 4.9 4
Lebanon 7,161 4.8 5
India 6,733 4.5 6
Philippines 5,939 4.0 7
Portugal 5,344 3.6 8
Italy 4,530 3.0 9
Guyana 3,430 2.3 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 90,007 60.2
TOTAL — OTHERS 59,422 39.8
GRAND TOTAL 149,429 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1977
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 17,977 15.6 1
United States 12,888 11.2 3
Hong Kong 6,371 5.5 3
Philippines 6,232 5.4 4
India 5,555 4.8 5
Lebanon 3,847 3.3 6
Portugal 3,579 3.1 7
Italy 3,411 3.0 8
France 2,757 2.4 9
Guyana 2,472 2.4 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 65,089 56.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 49,825 43.3
GRAND TOTAL 114,914 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1978
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 11,801 13.7 1
United States 9,945 11.5 2
India 5,110 5.9 3
Hong Kong 4,740 5.5 4
Philippines 4,370 5.1 5
Portugal 3,086 3.6 6
Italy 2,976 .43 7
France 1,754 2.9 8
South Africa 1,653 1.9 9
Lebanon 1,454 1.7 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 46,880 54.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 39,424 45.7
GRAND TOTAL 86,313 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1979
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Vietnam 19,859 17.7 1
United Kingdom 12,853 11.5 2
United States 9,617 8.6 3
Hong Kong 5,966 5.3 4
India 4,517 4.0 5
Laos 3,903 3.5 6
Philippines 3,873 3.5 7
Jamaica 3,213 2.9 8
Guyana 2,473 2.2 9
China 2,058 2.1 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 68,332 61.0
TOTAL — OTHERS 43,764 39.0
GRAND TOTAL 112,096 100

Permanent Residents: U.S., Europe and Australia as a percentage of overall migration globally. The vast majority of people getting PR in recent years aren’t from those areas.

YEAR # U.S. % U.S. # Eur. % Eur. # Aust % Austr # Other % Other
1973 25,242 13.7 71,883 39.0 2,096 1.1 84,979 46.1
1974 26,541 12.1 88,694 40.6 2,022 0.1 102,208 46.3
1975 20,155 10.7 72,898 38.8 1,654 0.1 87,174 46.4
1976 17,315 11.5 49,908 33.3 1,387 0.1 80,819 54.1
1977 12,888 11.2 40,747 35.5 1,063 0.1 60,216 52.4
1978 9,945 11.5 30,075 34.8 1,233 1.4 45,060 52.2
1979 9,617 8.6 32,858 29.3 808 0.1 68,813 61.4

3. More Recent Statistics On Immigration Source Countries

The above may not seem too bad, but keep in mind that the trends are about to get a whole lot worse. Here are numbers from within the last decade. Of course, this doesn’t include the hordes of students and “temporary” workers who come and don’t leave.

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

Notice any major changes? The U.K. and U.S. are nowhere near as prominent as they once were, and the demographic replacement is accelerating.

Of course, this doesn’t address the levels of student visas and “temporary” workers, which would increase drastically in the coming years.

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

(A.0) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/index.html
(A.1) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1966.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1966
(A.2) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1967.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1967
(A.3) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1968.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1968
(A.4) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1969.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1969
(A.5) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1970.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1970
(A.6) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1971.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1971
(A.7) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1972.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1972
(A.8) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1973.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1973
(A.9) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1974.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1974
(A.10) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1975.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1975
(A.11) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1976.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1976
(A.12) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1977.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1977
(A.13) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1978.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1978
(A.14) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1979.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1979
(A.15) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1980.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1980
(A.16) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1981.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1981
(A.17) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1982.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1982
(A.18) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1983.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1983
(A.19) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1984.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1984
(A.20) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1985.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1985
(A.21) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1986.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1986
(A.22) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1987.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1987
(A.23) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1988.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1988
(A.24) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1989.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1989
(A.25) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1990.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1990
(A.26) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1991.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1991
(A.27) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1992.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1992
(A.28) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1993.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1993
(A.29) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1994.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1994
(A.30) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1995.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1995
(A.31) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1996.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1996

2004.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2005.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2006.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2007.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2008.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2009.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2010.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2011.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2012.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2013.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2014.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2015.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2016.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2017.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2018.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2019.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2020.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament

Gov’t Recommends More Pathways For Hong Kong Residents To Come

The Canadian Government has posted its take on the report by the Immigration Committee in Parliament. This concerns the topic: “Safe Haven in Canada: Special Immigration and Refugee Measures are Urgently Needed for the People of Hong Kong”.

The responses are not encouraging. Overall, Ottawa seems to favour more people coming to Canada, and less accountability overall. While most of the recommendations are specific to Hong Kong, there’s little interest in legitimate security concerns related to China.

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. Recommendations From June 2022 Report

Recommendation 1
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada issue study permits to Hong Kong applicants who have been accepted in a study program at an institution with a COVID-19 readiness plan, regardless of their age.

Recommendation 2
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada undertake to extend the young professionals Working Holiday work permit for Hong Kong residents to two years and to include persons up to 35 years of age.

Recommendation 3
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada extend the criteria for eligibility for the three-year open work permit to include all persons with a minimum of 60 credits or its equivalent of post-secondary education regardless of when this education was completed.

Disagreed with, if only because there are already of pathways available. This is a response that will come up over and over again.

Recommendations 4 and 5
#4 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada adopt an inclusive approach and develop a pathway to permanent residence for former Hong Kong residents based on a broad range of work experience, and requiring minimal language and education levels.
#5 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada quickly develop and implement a pathway to permanent residence for Hong Kong residents who complete their post-secondary studies in Canada, ensuring that this pathway remains available to all Hong Kong residents studying at designated learning institutions.

Recommendations 6 and 7
#6 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada create a temporary public policy to grant refugee status to pro-democracy activists within Hong Kong and within third countries, which will enable their resettlement to Canada.
#7 That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada implement a temporary public policy to bring Hong Kong residents at risk to Canada on temporary resident visas regardless of their age.

Recommendation 8
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada partner with designated non-governmental organizations to identify Hong Kong pro-democracy activists in need of safe haven in Canada on a temporary resident visa, to certify Hong Kong refugees, and to facilitate both classes of Hong Kong residents at risk to travel from Hong Kong to third countries and to Canada, and redevelop a refugee stream similar to the former source country program.

Recommendation 9
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada acknowledge the urgency of the situation and that, given the exit ban will take effect on 1 August 2021, the Minister immediately respond with an expansion of humanitarian measures to the current immigration and refugee measures to support the people of Hong Kong.

Recommendation 10
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada issue travel documents to residents of Hong Kong at risk of persecution and exempt them from non-essential pandemic travel restrictions, following all public health guidelines.

Recommendation 11
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada implement a temporary public policy to create an expedited pathway to permanent residence for Hong Kong residents in Canada or abroad before the exit ban comes into effect on 1 August 2021.

Recommendation 12
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada promote its family reunification stream to family members of Hong Kong residents looking to come to Canada and create a temporary public policy to also include extended family members of Canadian citizens and of pro-democracy activists living in Canada.

Recommendation 13
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada develop a temporary public policy to allow former Canadian citizens to return to Canada as permanent residents.

Recommendation 14
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, in partnership with Public Services and Procurement Canada, and, as needed, other departments and agencies, investigate Canada’s Visa Application Centres in China, especially in regard to personal data leaks due to employee coercion, and that it tables its findings with the Committee.

Recommendation 15
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada terminate its contract with VFS Global in China and bring the services back in-house at Canadian diplomatic missions in China.

The Government disagrees with recommendations #14 and #15, which is interesting. There seems to be little urgency to investigate, or replace a private agency (despite concerns) that is processing the visas for Chinese nationals.

Doesn’t seem like there is much interest in protecting Canadian borders or sovereignty.

3. Important Links

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/CIMM/report-1/
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/CIMM/report-1/response-8512-441-10
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/441/CIMM/GovResponse/RP11842881/441_CIMM_Rpt01_GR/DepartmentOfCitizenshipAndImmigration-e.pdf
(4) Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Hong Kong

NACIA, And Insect Consumption, Alternative Protein Market

“Eat the bugs” is a global effort to change the consumption habits of people and animals across the world. It’s also part of a larger movement towards “alternative” sources of protein. And a significant piece of this is being financed with public money. Let’s get into some of the details.

For clarity: the $152.8 million to Protein Industries Canada is to fund the “Supercluster” as outlined in the 2017 Federal Budget. The money is then redistributed to various grantees.

There are also significant grants being handed out for various plant-based meats and alternatives. So, it’s not all about just the bugs. Merit is a new food processor on the north end of Winnipeg and works with plant proteins. Seems that Government really is trying to kill traditional farming.

Isn’t it strange that so much money is spent on pesticides and other things to wipe out insects, but now, they are to be breed on a massive scale?

Note: some of these entries were included in a previous piece on the subject of subsidies for cricket farming. However, the issue is far bigger than just that.

COMPANY DATE SUBJECT AMOUNT
2066879 Alberta Ltd. May 17, 2018 Baked Products W/Insect Proteins $10,000.00
2589002 Ontario Inc. Jun 1, 2020 Raw Insect-Based Protein For Pets $43,812.00
Aspire Food Group Ltd. Jul 10, 2020 Build Comm. Demonstration Facility $8,500,000.00
Aspire Food Group Ltd. Nov 1, 2021 Cricket Production, Processing Facility $50,000.00
Casa Bonita Foods, Inc. Aug 9, 2021 Protein Snacks With Cricket Flour $39,000.00
Dalhousie University Mar 30, 2021 Hemp/Cannabis Waste $25,000.00
Enterra Feed Corp. May 1, 2020 Alternative Proteins For Animals $24,000.00
Entologik Inc Jun 18, 2020 Continuity Of Operations $58,979.00
Entologik Inc Aug 3, 2020 Automate The Rearing Process $30,000.00
Ferme Bogemans Inc. Dec 3, 2018 Animal Nutrition From Insects, Fertilizer $40,430.00
Gaia Protein Ltd. Apr 1, 2021 Cricket Production Technology $42,000.00
Grévio Inc. May 11, 2020 Egg Laying, Hatching, Rearing Crickets $48,800.00
Griffith Foods Limited May 1, 2019 Alternative Protein Products $61,000.00
McGill University Nov 5, 2021 Cricket Rearing, Collection, Transformation $30,000.00
Merit Functional Foods Feb 24, 2020 Plant-Based Proteins From Peas/Canola $10,000,000.00
Näak Inc. Oct 29, 2018 Products Cooked W/Cricket Powder $48,517.00
Näak Inc. Sep 23, 2020 Low-Powder Cricket Energy Bars $123,178.00
OECD Mar 20, 2020 Market Research, Alt Proteins $97,460.00
PEI Bioalliance Nov 18, 2020 Sustainable Protein Production Program $601,817.00
Pholoho Biotechnology Jan 24, 2022 Equipment For Insect-Based Proteins $115,000.00
Protein Industries Canada Mar 15, 2018 Protein Industries Supercluster $152,843,759.00
Queen’s University Mar 30, 2020 Insect/Plant-Based Proteins $132,158.00
Sustento Inc. Dec 1, 2021 Dog Food With Novel Ingredients $50,000.00
Veterinarians W/O Borders Dec 16, 2021 Innovation, Cricket Farming $1,999,999.00

Of course, all of the listings here can be verified by checking the Federal Government’s own database on grant money issued.

The alternative protein section is just 1 out of 5 initiatives undertaken in this program. Pretty convenient that we had shutdowns over the last 2 years decimating undesirable industries.

Aspire Food Group, did recently announce that its cricket production plant in London, Ontario was finally finished. A large part of this was financed by Canadian taxpayers. Additionally, Aspire is part of NACIA, the North American Coalition for Insect Agriculture. This is big business.

Insects are an untapped natural resource with the potential to change our agricultural systems to be safer and more sustainable.

Anchored by Founding Member companies, Aspire Food Group, Beta Hatch, EnviroFlight, InnovaFeed, and Ynsect, NACIA members are currently 200 strong, based in 12 countries, 50 companies, and 23 universities.

NACIA members include insect producers, product makers in food, animal feed, pet food and soil health, as well as technology and service providers for agriculture and food. Researcher and university student members are examining how to improve the insect agriculture industry through scientific inquiry.

NACIA is currently working to improve the regulatory environment in North America, connect our members with industry stakeholders, and the knowledge they need to grow. We also work to inform key stakeholders about the potential for insects to provide environmentally sustainable, highly nutritious ingredients that can be produced as part of circular and regenerative agriculture.

It’s interesting that their “mission statement” talks about creating more sustainable agriculture systems. This suggests that the goal isn’t just to supplement more traditional farming, but to replace it altogether. Hard to disregard the food processing plants being destroyed, in light of this.

NACIA partners with similar organizations in Asia and Australia, and with the pet-food industry. It’s not just about getting humans to eat the bugs, but their dogs and cats too.

NACIA retweeted this February 9 article from the World Economic Forum on how eating bug can help reduce climate change. That is a very common talking point: that converting from a meat diet to a bug or plant based diet will reduce greenhouse gases.

NACIA’s Twitter account was created in 2017. Although not terribly active, it does boost other groups and individuals connected in the industry.

In April 2022, NACIA co-hosted a webinar with IPIFF about trans-Atlantic business opportunities for farmed insects both for human and animal consumption. Bugs were also to be used in fertilizer. Interestingly, they cite the corona “pandemic” and conflict in Ukraine as reasons to accelerate. Watch the clip from the start of the video.

Now, what if things were even more organized than that?

This agreement seemed so harmless when Stephen Harper signed it in 2015, doesn’t it? Now, Trudeau is domestically implementing it, showing there’s really just 1 party.

Kudos as well to Jordan Peterson. He did a great job at the U.N. for those 3 years, removing the ideological clap-trap (his terminology), to make the contents less obvious to readers.

Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
2.1 By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round
2.2 By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons
2.3 By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment
2.4 By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality
2.5 By 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at the national, regional and international levels, and promote access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreed
2.a Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks in order to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular least developed countries
2.b Correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets, including through the parallel elimination of all forms of agricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development Round
2.c Adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets and their derivatives and facilitate timely access to market information, including on food reserves, in order to help limit extreme food price volatility

Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries
13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning
13.a Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible
13.b Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities
.
* Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

Consider Goal #2 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda, or Agenda 2030. All of this sounds harmless on the surface, until you realize that “sustainable food systems” means replacing what we have now in the West.

As for Goal #13: if we take the notion at face value that climate change is a dire threat, and bug-based agriculture and manufactured proteins can offset that, then this new type of food supply could be seen as a solution. Of course, this is just an excuse to sabotage existing systems.

It’s a common sales pitch that insect farming leads to a higher protein yield than with more traditional ones (like with livestock). Other sources of protein can be manufactured. The goal is simply to boost production overall, but reducing the quality of the protein sources available. Did anyone here really want bug diets?

It has been widely speculated that pandemic restrictions (particularly restrictions on travel and movement) would be brought back. However, the next iteration would be climate lockdowns. This is a variation of removing freedoms. But instead of losing the ability to travel, the autonomy over diet could be restricted. After all, we can’t have people eating meat when there is a climate crisis.

Re-watch the video above. It’s clear that pushing insect consumption is being done — at least in part — under the guise of UN Agenda 2030. There’s lots of “non-meat” alternatives being pushed.

Of course, it seems very unlikely that the elites who rule us will ever have to eat the bugs. Exceptions will be made for those essential people.

(1) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/
(2) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/innovation-superclusters-initiative/en/about-canadas-innovation-superclusters-initiative
(3) https://nacia.org/
(4) https://nacia.org/partners
(5) https://twitter.com/NACIA_org
(6) https://twitter.com/CEIF_InsectAg/status/1491508619740917763
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIHbSE_1–g
(8) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/how-insects-positively-impact-climate-change/
(9) https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

%d bloggers like this: