Immigration (Canada) Archives - Page 17 of 32

January 6, 2020December 25, 2023

Canadian HoC Foreign Affairs Committee Endorses UN Parliament In 1993, And Again In 2007

(Canada’s House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee approved the idea of a UN Parliament in 1993, and again in 2007)

1. Important Links

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/un-parliamentary-assembly-proposed-a-k-a-global-government/
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly#cite_note-24
(3) http://archive.is/mslRy
(4) Wayback Machine, for archive of 1993, 8th Report, Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, House of Commons, Parliament of Canada, Spring 1993, chaired by Hon. Jon Bosley.
(5) https://web.archive.org/web/20071229011523/http://www.worldfederalistscanada.org/0896unpa.html
(6) http://archive.is/e9IMH
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/committee/391/faae/reports/rp3066139/391_FAAE_Rpt08_PDF/391_FAAE_Rpt08-e.pdf
(8) CLICK HERE, for “conservative” Senator Douglas Roche.

(9) https://en.unpacampaign.org/proposal/
(10) http://archive.is/GMgwO
(11) https://en.unpacampaign.org/supporters/survey/
(12) http://archive.is/KpIqW
(13) https://en.unpacampaign.org/supporters/overview/?mapcountry=CA&mapgroup=mem
(14) http://archive.is/P7ZS9

(15) https://en.unpacampaign.org/meetings/november2007/
(16) http://archive.is/NKaj8
(17) http://archive.is/kRdVJ
(18) https://en.unpacampaign.org/meetings/november2008/
(19) http://archive.is/z1jUo
(20) http://archive.is/tNX9Z
(21) https://en.unpacampaign.org/239/establishment-of-a-global-parliament-discussed-at-international-meeting-in-new-york/
(22) http://archive.is/5lMyX
(23) http://archive.is/dXbo6
(24) https://en.unpacampaign.org/265/declaration-calls-for-intergovernmental-conference-on-un-parliament/
(25) http://archive.is/dXbo6
(26) https://en.unpacampaign.org/311/post-2015-agenda-should-include-elected-un-assembly-to-strengthen-democratic-participation/
(27) http://archive.is/xloAX
(28) http://archive.is/I4Mtb

2. Context For This Article

While the story of the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) is still in the news, it is still a theory, at least for now.

However, Canada’s globalist politicians have been at it since well before 2007. In fact, Brian Mulroney’s Government originally approved the idea in 1993.

Why should Canadians care? Well, if you think getting fair and adequate representation from Ottawa is difficult, try getting it from a global government.

3. Timeline For UN Parliament

Spring 1993 – CDA HoC Foreign Affairs Comm endorses UNPA
July 1993 – Brian Mulroney replaced by Campbell as PM
October 1993 – Jean Chretien elected as PM
1996 – Support in Chretien’s Gov’t for UNPA
2002 – Sen. Douglas Roche endorses UNPA
January 2006 – Harper replaces Martin as PM
July 2007 – CDA HoC Foreign Affairs Comm endorses UNPA
August 2007 – Bernier replaces MacKay as FA Minister
November 2007 – First UNPA Int’l Meeting, Switzerland
November 2008 – Second UNPA Int’l Meeting, Belgium
October 2009 – Third UNPA International Meeting, USA
July 2010 – Trudeau endorses UNPA as an MP
October 2010 – Fourth UNPA Int’l Meeting, Argentina
October 2013 – Fifth UNPA Int’l Meeting, Belgium

September 2015 – Harper signs Agenda 2030

October 2015 – Trudeau replaces Harper as PM

4. Quotes From 1993 Standing Comm Report

The decline in Canadian support for things international – and the decline is palpable – is explained more by loss of self-confidence among Canadians than by lack of caring. There is no more important task before us than to recover some of that confidence and no more important means of doing so than through the empowerment of the United Nations. People must see that the centre can hold and that they have a role to play in making it so.

By way of building the public and political constituency for the United Nations, the Committee recommends that Canada support the development of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (21) and that we offer to host the preparatory meeting of the Assembly in the Parliament Buildings as the centrepiece in our celebration of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in 1995. We would further recommend that the Government work closely with the national organizing committee for the 50th anniversary and encourage the active participation of non-governmental organizations in the planning and holding of the Assembly.

Conclusion
.
In closing this long letter the Committee wishes to commend the Government for being one of the few that has contributed energetically to keeping An Agenda for Peace alive. But alive is not good enough. Much more needs to be done. The proposals of the Secretary General should be the beginning of a vital international process of reform and renewal of the United Nations system. Canada should work hard to help make it so. The Committee intends to keep the empowerment of the UN high on its agenda and to hold additional hearings in the new session of Parliament. We would ask that the Minister respond in writing to this letter by early May.

This is what it sounds like. The Mulroney Government, which calls itself “conservative”, has the Foreign Affairs Committee approve in principle participation in a United Nations Parliament.

Note: Mulroney had a huge majority at that time, so there was no real need to get opposition approval on this. So no one can say he was pressured into doing it.

5. Approval Of UNPA In 1996

In recent years the demands on the United Nations have increased. In response, the organization has been given more autonomous powers and responsibilities. At the same time, it is necessary that the UN maintain support for its actions and decisions of the world’s citizens and governments. Creation of a UN Parliamentary Assembly is a vital first step in this process of democratizing the United Nations and ensuring its legitimacy in the eyes of world public opinion.

The European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), demonstrate the important contributions that supranational parliamentary bodies can make to the work of international institutions. The history of both of these supranational parliaments also demonstrates the important, indeed essential, role in their creation to be undertaken by committed national parliamentarians.

Under Andrº Ouellet, Canadian foreign policy was distinguished primarily by its emphasis on international trade issues. Trade promotion overshadowed some other progressive initiatives taken by Canada, notably Canada’s work at the UN on creation of an International Criminal Court, and the Canadian peacekeeping proposal (entitled Toward a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations) which was presented at last Fall’s session of the UN General Assembly.

As Foreign Affairs critic when the Liberals were in opposition, Lloyd Axworthy was a strong proponent of arms control and human rights issues and is a strong advocate of improved multilateral institutions. Many analysts expect that under Mr. Axworthy these international law and ‘world order’ issues will become a greater priority.

In the Spring of 1993, the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade (SCEAIT) brought forward a report on Canada’s role in the United Nations. One of the Committee’s three recommendations called for Canada to support creation of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA), and for Canada to host the preparatory meeting of the Assembly in the Canadian Parliament Buildings. Following release of the SCEAIT Report, an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians and non-governmental representatives was established to build political support for a UNPA. Lloyd Axworthy was among a handful of Liberals who participated in the ad hoc Committee’s two meetings. Unfortunately, very little was accomplished before the 1993 general election was called and the 1993 session of the House of Commons ended.

The New Liberal Chretien Government shares the globalist appetite and ideas that the previous Mulroney Government did. More support for creating of the actual world government.

6. Senator Douglas Roche & UNPA, 2002

The arguments below contain these assumptions in their essence. However, it is understood (perhaps reluctantly) that world federalism and the end of the state system is not in the mainstream political agenda for a contemporary UN. The objectives of UN reform and addressing issues of international governance are reasonable and feasible in contemporary politics. Implications for a Kantian vision of world federalism can be bruited, but at this point not much more.1 A UNPA would not be a world parliament, although some supporters and detractors of a UNPA think of it as a step towards a form of world government or global federalism.

World government is not a necessary criterion in discussing a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. World government is not the case here. What is at issue is governance, by which is commonly understood to be the regulation of an increasingly complex and interconnected world comprising States, societies, corporations, individuals and epistemic communities.

The question of a UNPA, then, becomes one relating to a UNPA within the UN system and a UNPA within both the growing interconnectedness of trans-national politics and existing networks of global governance. Governance, transparency, democracy, diplomacy and international norms of behaviour – how states behave when their affairs are so intertwined – these are the issues in the background when discussing the formation of a UNPA.4 Specifically discussed below are those aspects of these phenomena that today seem to drive the argument for a UNPA.

Some nice double speak here. Senator Roche is trying to argue that a United Nations Parliament would not actually amount to a world government. Okay.

7. Quotes From 2007 Standing Comm Report

CHAPTER 8 CANADA’S ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND MULTILATERAL APPROACHES TO DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT
[W]e need democracy as a basis of a safer world, we need democracy as the basis for a just system of international relations …
Her Excellency Nino Burjandze, Speaker of the Parliament of Georgia

The Committee has already made reference in previous chapters to Canada’s welcomed multilateralist approach to democratic development and to its valued contribution to multilateral bodies. We believe that should be continued, and enhanced where most effective, as part of the evaluation of all Canadian support for international democratic development that we have recommended.
The Committee observes as well that international organizations are increasingly expanding their work into all areas of democratic development and governance. For example, in our meeting at the Commonwealth Secretariat, its Secretary General told the Committee that the Secretariat is trying to work both at the cultural level and with parliaments and political parties on understanding the role of the opposition and on introducing accountability measures. Mr. Christopher Child, Advisor and Head of the Democracy Section, commented that “we’d like to do much more party training.” Strengthening party systems has also become an important area of work for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Systems (IDEA). The role of political parties in democracy-building was the subject of the Council of Europe Forum for the Future of Democracy which took place in Moscow in October 2006 with the involvement of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to which Canada sends observers.

The World Bank, to which Canada is an important contributor through the Department of Finance, is not allowed by its Charter to take into account the nature of the political regime, hence its role in “political development is obviously constrained,” as Sanjay Pradhan, Sector Director in the Public Sector Governance Unit told the Committee in Washington, D.C. However, within a broader conception of good governance that is linked to democratic development: “We are doing a lot in terms of accountability of the state to its citizens.” So the Bank works on things that might be considered “building blocks” of democracy. Mr. Pradhan distributed a paper “How Ongoing Operations of the World Bank Currently Strengthen Participation and Accountability,” which lists six major program areas for Bank interventions. One of these includes “parliamentary capacity development.”

Mr. Steen Lau Jorgensen, Director of the Bank’s Sustainable Development Network, elaborated that the Bank has programs directly involving local communities in development decisions, thereby increasing the effectiveness of projects. In the Bank’s experience, more open countries do much better in achieving their development goals. The Bank therefore has an interest in building the capacity of civil society and it now even gets close to election-related processes, as in Ivory Coast where it is helping with the compiling of a national registration list. In this case, the Bank is working with the EU and the UN and through the country’s prime minister’s office. Registration is not just about elections but about establishing citizen’s eligibility for social services.

As Mr. Jorgensen put it, there has been a “fundamental change in mindset” towards seeing poor people as citizens having rights and responsibilities. The Bank’s consequent shift away from major infrastructure projects since the late 1980s has been approved by its Board. The Bank sees this as linked to development effectiveness, which incorporates a good governance and anti-corruption agenda. For example, in the public procurement process, the Bank has established oversight through a “Procurement Watch” mechanism, and it now has a “zero tolerance” policy on corruption in World Bank-supported projects. Mention was also made of a “Global Integrity Alliance” as part of an anti-corruption strategy involving leaders in the recipient countries.

The role of a major international financial institution like the World Bank is noteworthy in another sense, since many believe that these powerful international organizations are not themselves sufficiently democratically accountable to the publics in the countries which make up their memberships. Several of the Committee’s witnesses addressed the issue of the need to advance democratization processes from the local and national levels of governance, to the dimension of global governance. For example, John Foster of the North-South Institute referred to the Finnish-supported “Helsinki Process” which produced a 2005 Report, Governing Globalization-Globalizing Governance, that made recommendations for democratizing oversight of the global economy and strengthening the role of parliamentarians and civil society in that regard. He also made reference to the work of the Forum International de Montreal — which gets most of its funding from non-Canadian sources — and to the Spanish-based “World Forum of Civil Society Networks and its Campaign for an In-Depth Reform of the System of International Institutions…”

The presentation to the Committee by the World Federalist Movement — Canada also devoted a lot of attention to advancing democratization at the level of international institutions, in particular in the context of United Nations reforms. Indeed it noted that this Committee in 1993 had supported the concept of a parliamentary assembly at the UN, and it went on to state:
In April 2007, the Committee for a democratic UN (an NGO organizing network working with parliamentarians) will present publicly the “International Appeal for the Establishment of a United National Parliamentary Assembly, at press conferences around the world. Following the Appeal launch in April, an international parliamentary conference is planned for October 2007 in Geneva.

The World Federalist representatives urged the Committee to give favourable consideration to this international appeal. We note as well that the European Parliament has supported the establishment of UN Parliamentary Assembly as part of overall UN reform, most recently in a resolution of June 9, 2005.

In terms of working through international organizations, the biggest of all is of course the UN system. Most of the UN funding related to democratic development and governance goes through the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Indeed, when the Committee met with the UNDP’s Pippa Norris, Director of the Democratic Governance Group, Bureau of Development Policy, and other senior staff (many of them Canadians) at the UN in New York, it was noted that this group is the largest within the UNDP.

Ms. Norris shared with the Committee the group’s Strategic Plan, 2008-2011, and explained that its mandate in the area of democratic governance comes from various UN sources including the Millennium Declaration and a General Assembly resolution in 2000, the 2002 statement Democratic Governance Practice in UNDP, and a recent high-level panel report Delivering As One. Documents provided to the Committee included the UNDP’s Global Programme on Parliamentary Strengthening, on Support for Arab Parliaments, on Strengthening the Role of Parliaments in Reconstruction and the Prevention of Conflicts, and the annual report of its Democratic Governance Thematic Trust Fund. There was also a briefing note on CIDA-UNDP collaboration in Afghanistan. On gender issues, the Committee was told that an international knowledge network on women and politics was to be launched in February 2007, centred on an on-line tool to help education in this area. In addition, the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) does a lot of work on civic education for women. On electoral assistance, it was noted that collaboration between Elections Canada and UNDP goes back as far as Cambodia in 1993. However, another Canadian staff member Elissar Sarrouh (Policy Advisor, Public Administration Reform) — who formerly worked at the Parliamentary Centre — added that Elections Canada is always short of resources. So when countries express interest in having Canadian expertise, sometimes the resources are not there.

On the UN’s work on election processes, the Committee also met with Craig Jenness (again, a Canadian), Director of the Electoral Assistance Division within the Department for Political Affairs, who explained that this takes the form both of direct electoral support, and work on electoral best practices. Rather than election observation, the UN focuses either on providing assistance to electoral offices in host countries, or on assisting with electoral operations as part of peacekeeping missions in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Haiti. The budget is relatively small, with a dozen people at headquarters, although a large roster of people — including many Canadians — work around the world. Also, there is a small trust fund to allow the quick deployment of people when necessary to places like Nepal. Some 102 UN member states — and four non-member states have requested electoral assistance since 1992, and over 30 countries are now receiving or have requested such assistance — most of them in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

One important reason UN help is requested is that this helps legitimate the result and get it accepted — for example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The UN does not work with countries unless asked by the host government or there is a Security Council mandate. The UN tries to not run elections themselves, but to assist the host government in setting up the necessary structures to do so. In post-conflict situations, a problem that often comes up is that everyone wants to win an election, but it is often difficult to convince the losers that there is a real role for oppositions. According to Mr. Jenness, “parliamentarians can help” with that since they can talk to colleagues in other countries on a peer-to-peer basis.

Before turning to UN’s innovation of a “Democracy Fund” in 2005, and Canada’s potential role in that, it is important to recognize that notwithstanding all of this work, many questions still surround the UN’s involvement in democratic development, as well as that of international organizations such as the Community of Democracies or alternatives, which can be more explicit than the UN about their pro-democracy aims since their memberships are limited to at least nominally democratic states.

In observing that “the UN has often been in a situation where it has been an advocate of democracy”, Jane Boulden, Canada Research Chair in International Relations and Security Studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, told the Committee:
There are a number of member states that are not happy about the fact that the UN should play a role in advocating democracy, even when it comes to post-conflict situations where parties have agreed to democracy as part of the peace agreement.
This relates partly to the ongoing questions about sovereignty. With the responsibility to protect, for example, there’s been an increasing acceptance that sovereignty is not sacrosanct, and for those who are resistant to these ideas, the idea that democratization or democracy is an important universal value is seen as yet another hook that western states can use as a criterion for intervention in states.

If democracy is to be put forward as a universal value, we need to be able to make that case more effectively than we are now. That’s a factor the United Nations is grappling with, but I think it goes across the board for states as well. On this point, the questions of perceptions relate as well to the image or the perception in a number of states that the UN engages in a number of double standards. Why do we, through the United Nations, react to some conflicts and by extension then deal with some post-conflict scenarios with resources and commitment, and not others? When we feed that into the broader question about whether democracy is a western value or not, you can see how the whole package becomes an issue.

Scepticism about UN multilateralism combined with the need to engage the United States multilaterally has led to various alternatives being suggested. For example, two prominent U.S. scholars have recently made a detailed proposal for the establishment of a 60-member “Concert of Democracies.”

Yet to get around the fact that the UN includes many non-democracies, there has already been the creation of the Community of Democracies in 2000, with Canada as a founding member, and which met for the first time at the UN in 2004 as a UN “Democracy Caucus”. The Committee was told during our New York meetings in February 2007 that the 100-member “Caucus” is currently chaired by Mali, which is also an active member of the Group of New and Restored Democracies. His Excellency, Cheick Sidi Diarra, Ambassador and Permament Representative to the UN of Mali, was among a group of UN ambassadors and permanent representatives with whom the Committee met. We have already referred in Chapter 4 to Canada’s participation in the Community of Democracies (CD). One of our Canadian witnesses, Jeffrey Kopstein argued that, given the UN’s weaknesses and limitations, the CD should be bolstered. In Washington, where we met with Richard Rowson, President of the CD’s Council, Theodore Piccone, Director of the Democracy Coalition Project (and representative of the Club of Madrid in Washington) argued that “Canada should be a member of the [CD] Convening Group,” and that notwithstanding our multi-lateralist reputation, Canada “has been mostly at the margins in this regard.”
Others were less convinced of the CD’s effectiveness. Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Committee that the CD defines its democracy membership criteria too broadly and is too large to be a meaningful actor. Thomas Melia, Deputy Director of Freedom House told the Committee in Washington that the Convening Group of the CD represents in part the strategic interests of the member governments. For example, Morocco is a member although it does not meet the democracy criteria. Mr. Melia also had some cautionary words on trying for global coordination, stating that “a lot of effort can be diverted into coordination.” Instead he saw the need for “complementarity,” and “the way to pursue that is to build one’s niche.”
Gareth Evans, President of the International Crisis Group, has also cautioned:

Don’t pin too many hopes on Democracy Caucuses and similar grand international strategies. While in principle an attractive idea, there are simply too many institutional and interest differences between democratic countries for a united front to be sustained on anything very much, and it is not at all clear that the tentative moves to create such mechanisms have so far placed any useful pressure on non-democracies, or generated any net positive returns.

At the same time, Mr. Evans, who remains a strong believer in a strengthened and reformed UN system, points out that individual democratic countries, notably those with great-power interests such as the U.S., are often not the best placed to promote democratic development. Even if, as several U.S. witnesses told the Committee, Canada is sometimes able to do things that the U.S. cannot, Canada cannot go it alone in this field either. Mr. Evans argues that: “One way to have an impact without such visible badging [association with Western big-power interests] is working through collaboration with multilateral coordinating mechanisms in the UN and elsewhere — the new UN Democracy Fund now getting off the ground will hopefully prove of real utility in this respect.”

The Committee shares that hope. Indeed, there is no substitute for action by the UN, for all its faults, since it is the only truly global body. We, too, want to see it reformed and made into a more credible instrument for advancing democratic development. With respect to the UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF) set up as a result of the September 2005 UN Summit, it is supported through voluntary donations not assessed contributions. The largest donor by far is the U.S., and the second largest donor has been India, the world’s most populous democracy, with a contribution of US$10 million. That amount was matched by Japan in early March 2007, adding to UNDEF’s funding capacity of about US$ 65 million, and making it the Fund’s 28th donor country. So far Canada is not among these.

When the Committee met with UNDEF representatives, Acting Executive Director Magdy Martinez-Soliman and Senior programme Officer Randi Davis (a Canadian) in New York in February 2007, Mr. Martinez-Soliman observed that the Fund is the first UN organization to use the word “democracy” in its title.377 Moreover, parliaments have been one of the better allies of the new fund; UNDEF staff having met with delegations from India, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States and others, now including Canada. The visit of the Committee was prominently noted on UNDEF’s web site (http://www.un.org/democracyfund/). It was made clear to the Committee that Canada’s involvement would be welcomed, especially as Canada’s democracy is looked upon favourably by many countries in the world.

The idea for UNDEF was explained as a U.S. initiative proposed as part of the UN reform debate along with priorities such as human rights, management reform and a Peacebuilding Commission. (The Committee also met separately with Canadian Carolyn McAskie, UN Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Peacebuilding Support Office.379) UNDEF currently works mostly through civil society organizations as well as partnerships with other UN organizations, including peacekeeping missions. Its first funding tranche in August 2006 involved some 70 NGOs, including in Canada the Parliamentary Centre and a journalists group in Toronto. Importantly, UNDEF funding also comes from the South; it is not in the “import-export” business in terms of democracy, and does not offer a democratic model for others to copy. Significantly, too, UNDEF does not require host government permission when it decides on funding projects. It operates with the support and legitimization of the Secretary-General and the states that make up its board, composed of the six largest contributors. UNDEF is also one of the earliest examples of the “One UN” model proposed by the report of a recent High Level UN Panel on Coherence, Delivering as One,380 that was also referred to in the Committee’s meeting at the UNDP.

UNDEF is still a fledgling organization with only six staff (as of February 2007), and has just starting work on the ground, although it already has some 125 projects in 110 states and territories. Its regional priority is Africa (37% of project funding), followed by least developed countries outside of Africa. Project decisions are made on the basis of detailed proposals after consultation with the UN’s Department of Political Affairs and other UN organizations active in each country, following which a short list is made and presented to the board, which makes an even shorter list for presentation to the Secretary-General. With no formal advertising, UNDEF received over 1,300 applications in its first two weeks of operation — although about 700 of these did not meet its criteria. (Even when UNDEF did not fund projects, however, it has shared its database of proposals with other UN bodies, so these projects may get funding from elsewhere.)

The UNDEF governance structure is bi-level: one composed of UN member states, and one of NGOs, respecting geographic balance, and with an advisory board that includes international democracy experts such as Guillermo O’Donnell cited by the Committee in Chapter 1. Asked why UNDEF has accepted funding from states such as Qatar that are not fully democratic, Mr. Martinez-Soliman responded that UNDEF does not judge the degree to which its donors are democratic, but poses the larger questions of: Do the citizens within a state think it is democratic, and do other states think so?

Mr. Martinez-Soliman added that UNDEF has about 15 projects that work directly with political parties in countries such as Bolivia, Serbia and Peru. There are obviously sensitivities involved in such work. Observing that some countries have tightened their legislation on the transfer of foreign money to NGOs, in order to prevent these countries from shutting the door, UNDEF specifies that NGOs must be recognized either nationally or internationally. UNDEF also works in partnership with global and regional interparliamentary forums — for example, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), particularly on the issue of support for increasing the number of women parliamentarians, and including the Assemblée parlementaire de la francophonie.

The Committee was told, by our Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations John McNee, that Canada’s official position on UNDEF remains one of “wait and see.” We agree that UNDEF is a work in progress. But at the same time, it is part of UN reform and a global UN effort to take democratic development seriously. Surely that goal merits Canadian support. We note as well that among UNDEF’s donors are five of Canada’s G7 partners and its Commonwealth partner, Australia. Accordingly, we believe that Canada should consider whether to become a UNDEF donor.

Finally, there is a recurring theme that has struck the Committee during its meetings with international organizations supported by Canada that are involved in democratic development: namely, the impressive number of Canadians who are working in these organizations, often at senior levels. This is a great pool of expertise and experience upon which to draw. While some of these Canadians may be attracted back to Canada by the new Canada foundation for international democratic development that we proposed in Recommendation 12, it is also a good to have Canadians in positions of influence inside the multilateral organizations that Canada funds.

The Committee believes that a greater effort should be made to tap into the knowledge accumulated by Canadians working in multilateral organizations. This could enrich Canada’s own approach to democratic development as it is elaborated through an enlarged Democracy Council and through the independent Canada foundation that we have proposed.

The Foreign Affairs Committee of Stephen Harper’s Government also approved the idea of participating in a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly in July 2007. It seems that all of these successive administrations are globalists.

8. Recommendations From 2007 Report

Recommendation 19
The independent evaluation of all Canadian support for democratic development that we have recommended should also assess the effectiveness of multilateral channels to which Canada provides funding. That evaluation should guide appropriate funding levels.

Recommendation 20
Recognizing that the future challenges of democratization processes involve governance at the level of international organizations, as well as in national and local settings, the Canada foundation for international democratic development should include these dimensions within its mandate, and should consider related proposals for support from Canadian non-governmental bodies and civil-society groups working in this area.

Recommendation 21
As part of the essential role of a reformed and strengthened United Nations in global democratic development, the Parliament of Canada should give favourable consideration to the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly.

Recommendation 22
In light of the establishment of the United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF) as part of UN reform proposals in 2005, Canada should consider whether to become a donor to UNDEF.

Recommendation 23
Taking into account the expertise and experience on democratic development that has been accumulated by Canadians working in this field through multilateral organizations, Canada should make an effort to tap into this pool of knowledge in furthering its own approach to democratic development.

Exactly what it sounds like: create and participate in a United Nations Parliament.

9. Trudeau Endorses UN Parliament

Our current Prime Minister endorsed the concept back in 2010. It seems doubtful that he has changed his mind since.

Interestingly, Green Party leader Elizabeth May (who also sits on the Trudeau Foundation) has endorsed this as well.

10. CDA Globalist Gov’ts All In Support

Successive Canadian Governments all support being part of a UN Parliament if it ever became a reality. Canada is pretty screwed.

January 2, 2020June 16, 2020

Guest Post: CdnSpotlight Researching Corruption Within Canada’s Ranks

Another researcher getting into the muck and filth that is the Canadian Government and administration. Here is some of the work unearthed and exposed. Worth a good long read, for anyone who is truly concerned about the future of the nation. Here are just a few of the postings. Go check out more.

CLICK HERE, for the Gab account where this research can be found.

1. Dominic Barton

CANADA’S DEEP STATE
What began with a negative news article about Dominic Barton becoming our new ambassador to China in Sept. got me curious so I started digging.

And what I’ve been finding is alarming.
It is much, much larger than just lowly ol’ Barton as the pic shows.
The tentacles are far-reaching and the Canadian players involved are so intertwined that it’ll cause some ‘splodey heads like mine.
So please bear with me as I try to explain this in my series/threads.

So let me start with the article that started it all:
Terence Corcoran: Dominic Barton could be the right man for China … if he remembers what makes Canada work:
Barton’s admiration and support of China’s statist economic ideas, and his frequently stated disdain for market capitalism, certainly give one reason to pause – Sept. 2019

CLICK HERE for an article on the subject.

Read every word of that article, it briefly describes Barton’s “philosophy” & ideology

“China as the world’s leading practitioner of state corporatism. Barton thinks the Communist Party of China has developed some fantastic economic models that might even be exportable to the rest of the world, including Canada.

Barton and McKinsey, for example, have been enthusiastic backers of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a massive global infrastructure scheme

the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) infrastructure initiative, the project was described by Barton in 2015 as “inspiring” and a model for “long-term thinking” with infrastructure spending as the foundation for economic growth.

China’s Belt/Road model, suggests Barton, is the way of the future. “The Chinese saying ‘build a road first if you want to get rich’ is spot on — data suggests that for every $1 billion in infrastructure investment, 30,000 to 80,000 jobs are created, generating $2.5 billion in new GDP.”

In my humble opinion, this is where Canada’s headed…

2. CPPIB, Blackrock, Mark Wiseman

CANADA’S DEEP STATE Part 2
Now that ambassador Dominic Barton has been identified as the architect, let’s look at some of his buddies and their connections with BlackRock and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB)

Born in Niagara Falls Ontario, Mark Wiseman became a Senior Managing Director at BlackRock NYC in 2016 as Global Head of Active Equities for BlackRock and Chairman of BlackRock Alternative Investors. He also serves as Chairman of the firm’s Global Investment Committee and on its Global Executive Committee.

He was President and CEO of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) 2012-2016 after starting there in 2005 as Senior Vice-President, Private Investments.

Prior to joining CPPIB, Mark was responsible for the private equity fund and co-investment program at the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. He has worked at Harrowston Inc., a publicly traded Canadian merchant bank, and as a lawyer with Sullivan & Cromwell, where he practiced in New York and Paris.

He also served as a law clerk to Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin at the Supreme Court of Canada – ring a bell? During the Justice Committee hearings with Jody Wilson-Raybould about the SNC-Lavalin Scandal, Buttsputin & Clerk of the Privy Council had insisted Jody talk with her for “advice”.

But the BlackRock ties don’t stop there.

BlackRock Canada CEO is Marcia Moffat since 2015– who just happens to be Mark Wiseman’s wife – based in Toronto. Mark returns home to Toronto on weekends from New York. She was formerly with RBC under Janice Fukakusa (see pic)

Wiseman is also the Chairman of FCLTGlobal (formerly Focusing Capital on the Long Term), an organization that encourages longer-term approaches in business and investing, which was set up by BlackRock, CPPIB, Dow, McKinsey & Company and Tata in 2016.

Mark is also a member of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, which advises Finance Minister MORNEAU on economic policies to achieve long-term, sustainable growth. Mark serves on the boards of several non-profit organizations, including Sinai Health Services in Toronto, the Capital Markets Institute and the Dean’s Advisory Board at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

At CPPIB, Wiseman made a name for himself by opening offices and pursuing investments abroad, particularly in South America and South Asia.

CPP investment chief Mark Wiseman to make surprise exit after nearly four years at helm.

While the one source characterized his departure as amicable, another source familiar with CPPIB’s inner workings said there was friction on leadership issues.

“…some questioned whether it was only the CPP’s interests that were being promoted” His years as CEO at CPPIB have been marked by a stream of deals, ranging from a lucrative early investment in Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba.

In 2015 – Why the head of Canada’s biggest pension fund is bullish on energy.

Mark Wiseman says CPPIB is looking at a range of investments from buying equity and partnering on acquisitions to outright takeovers
Mark Wiseman, who runs Canada’s biggest pension fund, offered the Davos crowd last week a two-pronged argument on why he’s bullish on energy assets after the recent plunge in oil prices.

Wiseman said that simple supply and demand perspective all but guarantees oil prices will be higher 10 years down the road, offering investment opportunities now for the $234 billion fund. “I’ll take that bet” on oil’s rebound, he said in an interview Tuesday at Bloomberg’s Toronto office.

“We see a lot of value in the Western Canadian basin,” he said, noting that oil sands projects are on his radar.
“WE LIKE COMPANIES THAT HAVE GOOD UNDERLYING ASSETS AND BAD BALANCE SHEETS. That’s the perfect scenario for us.”
–> premonition?

He encouraged the Canadian federal and provincial governments to look to jurisdictions like Australia, where state governments are given incentives to invest in infrastructure and court outside funding.

In the meantime, Canada Pension is looking to places like China, India and Brazil.

3. Willy Porneau’s Advisory Council

Let’s take a look at how quickly the Liberals put Deep State into play.

Willy Porno (Morneau) and his new Dream Team – the Advisory Council on Economic Growth.

Less than 2 months after the 2015 federal election, Willy Porno announces the new Advisory Council in his speech to the Toronto Region Board of Trade.

This was obviously planned long before the election.

CPAC December 14, 2015 – Bill Morneau – Keynote Speech
Finance Minister Bill Morneau addresses the Toronto Region Board of Trade, discussing the government’s strategy for supporting the middle class and long-term economic growth in Canada, including a plan to create an advisory council for economic growth. Following his speech, Morneau responds to questions from the board.

You should see this, and also see this.

A month later, the Crime Minister is at the World Economic Forum in Davos, with Dominic Barton:
“I would bet that almost all of you have Canadians in leadership positions in your companies—you may not know it because we don’t often shout it from the rooftops, some clichés about Canadians are true. In fact, at least half of you have hired Dominic Barton at one point or another.”

While in Davos, PMJT met with many high rollers – Microsoft CEO Natya Nadella, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg,

and billionaire George Soros, whose interests include combating climate change.

Then on Feb.22, 2016 Willy Porno announced Barton as Chair of the Council:
This article references the earlier ties Barton had to Wiseman by creating Focusing Capital on the Long Term (FCLT) Global in 2013 – board of directors include Larry Fink CEO BlackRock NYC – Wiseman’s future boss in 3 short years.
McKinsey executive to head new federal economic council.

4. Canada Infrastructure Bank

Canada’s Deep State Part 4 – Canada Infrastructure Bank
The Canada infrastructure Bank (CIB) has been steeped in controversy since it was first proposed.

The Liberal’s 2015 election promise was to provide low-cost financing to municipalities for infrastructure projects, as a vehicle for Ottawa to use its strong credit rating and lending authority to help municipalities reduce their cost of borrowing.

The Liberal plans evolved considerably since the party first promised an infrastructure bank during that election campaign – there was no mention of attracting private capital. The role of the proposed Canadian Infrastructure Development Bank was to attract financing from institutional investors to fund projects over the next 10 years as a Crown corporation.

Dominic Barton and Michael Sabia sketched out the infrastructure bank idea at the Public Policy Forum summit in Oct. 2016, a more ambitious plan in which the bank would gather and prioritize large projects that could earn revenue, such as electrical networks, and that attract billions in added international investment.

Sounds an awful lot like McKinsey’s “for-profit public-sector work” and advising governments.

The proposal to entice global pension funds into major Canadian investments goes far beyond anything promised to date by the federal Liberals, but Finance Minister Bill Morneau – who worked directly with the panel over the past several months – signalled a strong openness to the recommendations announced Thursday.

However, the panel’s 14 members include leaders of some of those institutional investors, including Mark Wiseman, senior managing director of BlackRock Inc., and Michael Sabia, CEO of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec pension fund.

Examples of potential projects listed… include toll highways and bridges, high-speed rail, port and airport expansions, city infrastructure, national broadband infrastructure, power transmission and natural resource infrastructure.

PM hopes to attract billions in private capital for infrastructure
Trudeau takes his foreign-investment agenda to investors, two weeks after announcing an infrastructure bank.

He will be accompanied by nine members of cabinet, including Finance Minister Bill Morneau, Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi, Transport Minister Marc Garneau, and Health Minister Jane Philpott. Trudeau and four of the ministers also are set to make their pitch to about a dozen Canadian investors — insurance companies and big pension funds like the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board — in the morning before meeting with the international investors in the afternoon.

Attracting billions in private-sector capital for “transformative” infrastructure projects is key to the Liberal government’s long-term strategy to boost Canada’s sluggish economic growth.

5. Century Initiative

Canada’s Deep State – Part 5 Century Initiative

When I first started digging about Canada’s new ambassador to China Dominic Barton, he popped up in a group called Century Initiative – a “non-profit” Canadian “registered charity”

Century Initiative’s 6 Founding Members – Dom, his buddy Mark & some new players
Dominic Barton, new Ambassador to China, prev. Global Managing Partner McKinsey & Co
Mark D. Wiseman, BlackRock NYC, former CEO Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
Goldy Hyder, Business Council of Canada president and CEO
– Future post to come on Hyder
Willa Black, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs – Cisco Canada
Tom Milroy, Managing Director, Generation Capital Limited
Andrew Pickersgill, also McKinsey & Co

Registered in Jan.2016, a few short months after the 2015 election, a month after Willy Porno announces the Canada Infrastructure Bank at the Toronto Region Board of Trade and while Dom & PMJT are schmoozing at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Now what would 6 capitalists be doing with a charity? Is this Barton’s belief that “corporations should be vehicles for social responsibility, not profits, and they should act for the welfare of all stakeholders, not just shareholders”?

This charitable status is a huge concern – if I’m not mistaken, there is no reporting or accountability of charities – no records of donors. A perfect vehicle for money-laundering & off-shore investments, likely thru the CIB, and tax write-offs for donors – the prefect storm for the elite 1%. I also believe the recent changes to charities in Bill C-86 was an “indirect” benefit to them.

Seems odd that Dom would set up a charity because in the past decade, McKinsey made a major push into FOR-PROFIT PUBLIC-SECTOR WORK, advising governments around the world.

Possible links to 21st Century Initiative by the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) & Obama??? Anons???

From Jan. to Sept. 2016, there doesn’t appear to be much about Century Initiative in the news. Of course Dom & Wiseman are busy with the Canada Investment Bank. But their buddies at Century Initiative were busy busy setting up, writing reports & hiring Shari Austin as CEO, previously VP of Corporate Citizenship and Executive Director of the RBC Foundation – not sure of her connection with Gordon Nixon, Janice Fukakusa or Wiseman’s wife Marcia Moffat at RBC but you can bet there is one.

In Oct. 2016, press releases & new articles start exploding on the scene

Hidden behind the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s “mandate” is Century Initiative, a “registered charity”
Finance Minister’s key advisers want 100M Canadians by 2100

Barton sees a dovetail between some of the ideas behind the Century Initiative and the growth council (Advisory Council), but he says they are separate.

In fact, behind the closed doors of the growth council meetings, Barton said the Century Initiative’s 100-million goal didn’t come up.

He did acknowledge that he and Wiseman were among the biggest proponents behind the immigration-boosting idea that the group presented to Morneau.

“Probably because Mark and I have been in (Century Initiative) we’re obviously more naturally bullish towards it,” said Barton, who also noted that there was a lot of debate on the scope of the immigration proposal.

6. Go Follow CdnSpotlight

The above is only a small sample of what has been posted on the Gab account by CdnSpotlight. Lots of dirt, and much of it very unpleasant. However, Canadians concerned about their country should take a look into this.

The rot and corruption runs deep throughout the Canadian political systems. Unfortunately, most people just don’t want to know about it.

December 25, 2019July 22, 2024

Municipal Nominee Program — Expanding On Provincial NP, But Quebec Exempt

(CBC article, QC exempt from new program)

(Liberal pledge to create Municipal Nominee Program)

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

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

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

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/municipal-nominee-program-liberals-2019-1.5309009
(2) http://archive.is/Jhy8k
(3) https://www2.liberal.ca/our-platform/more-help-for-communities/
(4) http://archive.is/okGXj
(5) https://www2.liberal.ca/our-platform/strengthened-immigration-to-grow-the-economy/
(6) http://archive.is/sN34r
(7) https://www2.liberal.ca/our-platform/a-more-affordable-path-to-citizenship/
(8) http://archive.is/qrMrN

3. Context For This Piece

For years there have been agreements between the Federal and Provincial Governments. In essence, the Provinces write up what they think they will need for immigration, and the Feds try to accommodate that. Theoretically, these agreements act as a form of partnership which Ottawa oversees.

And covered in other articles, there is little to no attention paid to the culture clash or demographic shift that can take place, nor of the added foreign competition that locals will face. There is little mention of wages being driven down, or of added burdens to social services. Nor much talk about the environmental impact of having to develop more housing, or expand the size of towns. Instead, the focus is always on the ECONOMIC benefits of immigration, though the connection is fuzzy at best. But hey, diversity is our strength.

Now a new program is about to be launched which will expand on the idea: allowing not just provinces, but cities to have a say in selecting their immigration numbers. Of course, the above mentioned issues will still apply.

And it needs to be stressed: that Quebec will be exempt from having to participate in this program. That means that the Prime Minister’s home Province won’t be experiencing the benefits of added immigration. Strange how that is.

4. Media Coverage Of Announcement

In Saint-Georges, there are “we’re hiring” signs everywhere — they’re stuck in storefront windows and to the sides of buildings. Morin says it is the most pressing problem facing the region.

The Liberal Party of Canada has made a promise to help small, rural municipalities like Saint-Georges access more immigrants. But because the provincial government pledged to curb immigration, the program may never come to Quebec even if the federal Liberals are elected.
.
The new program would be called the “municipal nominee program.” It would mirror a similar provincial program.

The municipal nominee problem could be a tool to help mitigate that challenge.
The party platform doesn’t offer many details, saying only that it would create a minimum of 5,000 spaces for such a program. That’s a drop in the bucket of Canada’s overall immigration numbers. Canada is set to see more than 330,000 immigrants in 2019.

The promise is short on details, but was a promise the Federal Liberals made. While Liberals are prone to lying, continuing to flood cities and make them unrecognizable is a promise they are likely to keep.

And it also needs to be said, that 310,000 is not an accurate number. As addressed repeatedly here, Canada lets hundreds of thousands of “temporary” workers and students in, all of whom have a pathway to permanent residence, or to extending their stay.

5. No Citizenship Fee

Worth mentioning is this gem, where Trudeau promises to make citizenship applications free of charge to anyone who applies. Get ready for a deluge of applications if this promise is ever kept.

December 21, 2019July 22, 2024

How Many Students And Temporary Workers Actually Stay?

(StatsCan on % int’l students becoming permanent residents)

(StatsCan findings: close to 30% eventually become PR)

(StatsCan: latest cohort TFW/IMP transitioning at higher rates)

(StatsCan on int’l students, earnings growth)

(Federal Gov’t education strategy 2019-2024)

(Status of “Temporary” Foreign Workers transitioning to PR)

(Program launched in July 2019: PR-Path for illegals)

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

2. Important Links

3. Context For This Article

The topic of “temporary” mass migration to Canada is discussed here a lot. This is partly because of their size, and partly because various “temporary” programs actually lead to Permanent Resident status.

Three groups which receive regular attention are these:
(a) Temporary Foreign Worker Program;
(b) International Mobility Program;
(c) Student Visas

Now, it has been asked several times: how many of these people actually do stay? Of course, this is a logical follow-up question. Obviously, not everyone will stay after their work of schooling ends.

However, it’s not so easy to answer. Yes, we have data suggesting that approximately one quarter or more (25-30%) do attain PR status. That is pretty straightforward information to get a hold of.

But after that, things are much less clear. Until 2016, Canada did not track people leaving the country (only entering). Even today it does not cover everyone. This is unlike nearly every other developed nation, which tracks both entry and exits across borders. Also, the Federal Government does not make easily available (if it even knows), how many people apply for other visas or programs. Worse, it has been discovered that the CBSA deletes older arrest warrants. Additionally, there is little reliable information accessible on how many people are working illegally, or receiving public benefits illegally.

Back to the question of: “How many people stay?”
My answer: At least 25-30%. Probably a lot more.

4. People Leaving Canada Aren’t Tracked

In 2016, the Federal Government announced plans to start collecting exit information from people leaving the country. This really is common sense. While we (theoretically) know how many people, who, and when, are ENTERING Canada, until now they Government doesn’t track who is LEAVING. Perhaps we just take it on face that everyone leaves when they should.

And one of the major benefits stated is to help reduce immigration fraud. If a person is “counting time” towards living in Canada, but doesn’t actually live here, then the Immigration Ministry should know about it.

When this does get implemented, then a gaping hole in Canadian border security should be fixed, right? Maybe not.

Canada collects basic biographic information on travellers who enter and leave the country by land to ensure complete travel history information is available, thereby strengthening the management of our border.

Biographic entry information is routinely collected directly from all travellers entering Canada upon presentation to a CBSA officer at a port of entry as part of the primary inspection process. Canada also collects exit information in the land mode. Canada receives biographic entry information from the United States (U.S.) on all travellers who enter the U.S. through a land border crossing, thereby enabling the creation of a Canadian exit record.

Regulatory amendments for the air mode are expected to come into force in Summer 2020. Once fully implemented in the air mode, Canada will collect basic exit information directly from air carriers through passenger manifests. Exit information collected in the air mode will not be shared with the U.S.

The collection of exit information enhances the CBSA’s ability to manage border security by closing the loop on an individual’s travel history. This allows the CBSA to focus efforts and resources towards unknown or higher risk travellers.

This still isn’t fully implemented, and won’t be until at least 2020. That’s right, these changes were announced in 2016, and over three years later, are not fully implemented. Guess the potential fraud and security risks aren’t that great.

Right now, departures by air are not recorded by CBSA. Unless someone is travelling to the United States, (and even then not always) he/she is flying in a plane. Boating isn’t really a practical solution for international travel to and from Canada.

5. CBSA Cancels Old Arrest Warrants

Currently, there are more than 48,000 active arrest warrants in Canada for people wanted on immigration violations. According to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the “vast majority” of these cases involve people wanted for deportation.
But these figures may not tell the whole story.

Global News has learned the CBSA cancels arrest warrants for failed refugee claimants and other people wanted for removal who it cannot find, even in cases where it is not clear whether a person has left Canada.

What’s more, the CBSA does not track how many warrants it cancels in cases where a person’s whereabouts are unknown.
.
Because the CBSA only recently started tracking people when they exit the country by land — and still doesn’t track people who leave by air — there’s no way for the government or CBSA to say for sure how many people have overstayed their welcome.

Back in the early 2000s, when he worked at the agency that would later become the CBSA, Sundberg says he was assigned to a team in Lethbridge, Alta., tasked with “culling” old warrants for people facing deportation whose cases had been in the system for at least five years.

The protocol for cancelling a warrant, Sundberg said, involved calling known associates of the wanted person, doing internet searches and checking criminal and entry records in other countries to see if someone wanted for arrest had left Canada voluntarily.

The Canada Border Services Agency apparently cancels warrants for people wanted for immigration violations, if the warrants are old.

Moreover, there appears to be no tracking of how many warrants get cancelled either. Just a hunch, but it probably looks bad in the CBSA’s eyes if they have a lot of outstanding warrants. Makes them look slow and unproductive. Alternatively, this could be a deliberate attempt to make sure that people in the country illegally and/or committing other crimes won’t be deported.

6. Scale Of Illegal Aliens Unknown

The Toronto Star reported in 2008 that 41,000 illegals in Canada had been lost track of.

The Toronto Sun reported in 2017 that there somewhere between 200,000 to 500,000 illegal workers in Canada. Not illegals altogether, just illegals working.

Although the focus of this article is not on illegals, or people overstaying their visas, there is an important point to be made here: we don’t really have a clue how many people do stay.

7. Amnesty Program Started July 2019

Ottawa, July 5, 2019 – Canada has launched a new temporary initiative to create a pathway to permanent residency for up to 500 out-of-status workers in the construction industry in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). These construction workers have come to Canada and made contributions to its economy and currently have limited means to regularize their status.

Over many years, even decades, some workers who have come to Canada with valid temporary resident status, and who have filled labour shortages in the construction industry, have fallen out of status. Previous changes, such as “four in, four out”, have resulted in some workers losing their status. These workers have continued to address significant labour shortages in the construction industry, while also contributing to the economy and their communities. Without valid immigration status, these workers and their families have lived in fear and been left feeling very vulnerable. The presence of out-of-status workers in a significant industry leads to depressed wages for Canadians and makes workers vulnerable to employer exploitation and abuse.

The Canadian Government announced in July 2019 a pilot program to give 500 illegals (and their families) a pathway to permanent residence in Canada if they were to work in construction. Yes, we are talking about an actual amnesty program that will lead to PR, and eventual citizenship.

The Canadian Labour Congress supports this initiative. Why wouldn’t they? It will result in an inflation of workers, and allow employers to push down wages. It really is about more cheap labour.

This program is stated to target 500 people (and their immediate family members). But we should not be naïve. Once this is launched, the next question will be how to upscale it.

8. Government Making Illegal Entries Easier

This article isn’t really about illegal entry into Canada (see the Federal Court cases for more). Nonetheless, a major act of hypocrisy must be pointed out.

The Federal Government makes the absurd statements that the Canada/U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement is necessary to protect Canadian borders, but also claims that citizens have no standing to make a claim to close the loophole.

Yes, the agreement must be enforced at all border crossings, but if someone were to GO AROUND those checkpoints, then it is direct entry into Canada.

To summarize where we are right now in the article:
(a) About 25% of students/temps become permanent residents, and
(b) Canada doesn’t track people exiting the country
(c) CBSA cancels old arrest warrants
(d) Number of illegals in Canada is unknown
(e) Amnesty for illegals is starting up
(f) The Canadian Government wants to keep S3CA loophole open

Now that we have covered how the Canadian borders are at best dysfunctional, let’s take a dive into the research into just how many people are staying in Canada (legally). At least this will be considerably more definitive

9. Annual Reports To Parliament

Unlike permanent residents, temporary residents are in Canada for a limited time. This group consists of students, foreign workers and visitors, including tourists. Temporary residents contribute to Canada’s economic growth and to the vitality of our educational institutions.

Before coming to Canada, applicants must obtain a temporary resident visa, unless they are coming from a country that is exempt under the IRP Regulations. Visa officers consider a number of factors when evaluating temporary residents’ visa applications. For example, they can verify whether the visitor is in good health, has a criminal record, is a security threat to Canada, holds a valid passport or travel document, has enough money to live on while in Canada, and will leave voluntarily at the end of his or her stay in Canada. The visa officer evaluates the situation before deciding whether the applicant is a genuine visitor or if he or she might stay in Canada illegally. To that end, the visa officer studies the applicant’s reason for the visit, his or her employment, family situation, and the general economic and political stability of his or her country of origin.

(Page 22 of 2004 Report to Parliament)

Foreign Students
In recognition of the social and economic benefits that foreign students bring to Canada, the federal government has committed to making our country a destination of choice for talented foreign students. To obtain a study permit, candidates must submit an application to study in Canada. Applications must be submitted to and approved by a visa office outside Canada. The permit indicates the level of study and the intended duration of the visit. In general, foreign students must present an acceptance letter from the institution they want to attend, prove that they have sufficient money to pay their tuition fees and living expenses, satisfy the visa officer that they intend to return to their country of origin at the end of their studies and undergo a medical examination.

(Page 23 of 2004 Report to Parliament)

Worth noting that for “temporary” workers and students, the reports emphasize that these are to be temporary, and that the resident is expected to return to the home country afterwards. Remaining in Canada is not to be the goal.

One other point is that the 2004 report makes no mention of any temporary worker or student/graduate transitioning to permanent resident.

The 2005 report (page 29) reiterates that these temporary workers and students are expected to leave once their designated time is up. It is also stated that changes were made so student visas would be for the full duration of the program.

Pilot projects initiated in 2003 (in Alberta, New Brunswick and Manitoba) to test these program changes proved to be highly popular with international students, educational stakeholders and provinces. In 2004–2005, CIC signed agreements with Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador to allow international students to work in Canada for a second year after graduation. An agreement was also reached with Quebec to allow students outside Montréal and Québec City to work off campus.

The 2005 report (page 31) talks about a rule change that allows some graduate to work in Canada for 2 years now after graduation. I’m confused. I thought the point was that these students were to return home after graduation, not work in Canada afterwards.

On April 18, 2005, the Minister announced initiatives to address some key issues facing international students. These included the expansion of the pilot projects mentioned previously that aim to better attract, integrate and retain international students in regions of the country in partnership with the provinces and educational institutions. The first pilot project will allow international students at public post-secondary institutions to work off campus while completing their studies so that they can experience the Canadian labour market and gain a greater understanding of Canadian society. The second pilot project will allow students to work in Canada for two years after their graduation, rather than one year. To help spread the benefits of immigration to more of Canada’s regions, this second initiative will apply outside Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver. The Government of Canada is investing $10 million a year for five years to support these new initiatives.

These students are supposed to be in Canada “temporarily”, but the Government makes rule changes so they can work in Canada afterwards. Almost like they can become permanent residents.

The limit on the number of provincial nominations was removed to give Saskatchewan greater flexibility in operating its immigration program.

The 2006 report (page 10) explains how Saskatchewan took off the cap of its Provincial Nominee Program.

CIC also launched a national initiative in April 2006 that allows foreign students enrolled full-time in post-secondary programs to seek employment off-campus.

The 2006 report (page 11) states that students enrolled full time in college or university programs are now allowed to work off campus.

Foreign Students
Foreign students bring with them new ideas and cultures that enrich the learning environment within Canadian educational institutions. Foreign students who enter Canada on temporary visas may also be an important source of future immigrants in the skilled worker category since they are well prepared for the Canadian labour market.

The 2006 report (page 23) states that students can be a valuable source of future immigrants. But I thought these “temporary” residents were going home after graduation.

Working with Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC), Service Canada, and the provinces and territories, we implemented a series of administrative improvements to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. As announced in Budget 2007, we are developing ways to make it easier, faster and less costly for employers to access the workers that they need, while also introducing measures to ensure that employers comply with program terms and conditions. We are also developing the Canadian Experience Class, a new avenue to immigration that will, under certain conditions, permit foreign students with Canadian credentials and work experience, as well as skilled temporary foreign workers who are already in Canada, to apply for permanent residence.

The 2007 report (page 4) states 2 things.
First: new measures will be enacted to bring in cheap, foreign labour even faster and more cheaply.
Second: we’ll make temporary workers and students eligible for permanent residence.

As well, the Plan includes the introduction of the Canadian Experience Class, a new avenue to immigration that will permit, under certain conditions, temporary workers and foreign students with a Canadian credential to apply for permanent residence.

The 2007 report (page 9) reiterates the plan to make students and temporary workers eligible for permanent residence.

First-ever framework agreements were signed with Alberta on May 4, 2007, and with Nova Scotia on September 19, 2007. To meet the growing demand for labour, the limit on the number of immigrants that can be nominated through the PNP was removed, and the intention to develop annexes to facilitate the entry of temporary foreign workers was announced. In addition, a renewed PNP agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador, which came into force in November 2006, removed the limit on the number of provincial nominees.

The 2007 report (page 10) tells how Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador had their Provincial Nominee Program caps removed. Saskatchewan did so the year earlier.

Other initiatives in 2006 included policy and planning work to develop options for facilitating the transition from temporary to permanent status. This culminated in the announcement in Budget 2007 of a proposed new avenue to immigration by permitting, under certain conditions, foreign students with Canadian credentials and skilled work experience, and skilled temporary foreign workers who are already in Canada to apply for permanent residence. This will allow qualified individuals with Canadian skilled work experience, or with a combination of Canadian work and studies, to make the transition to permanent status. The program is expected to lead to improved economic outcomes for newcomers in this class.

The 2007 report (page 13) repeats the intention to make students and temporary workers eligible for permanent residence. It’s a common misperception that they will be going home afterwards.

We introduced the Canadian Experience Class, which offers qualifying temporary foreign workers and international students with Canadian work experience the possibility to stay in Canada permanently. This program will make our immigration system more responsive to Canada’s labour market by helping retain those temporary foreign workers and international students who have demonstrated their ability to succeed in Canada.

The 2008 report (page 5) repeats the pledge from the last report to make it easier for temporary foreign workers and students to transition into permanent residents.

As well, the Post-Graduation Work Permit Program was significantly improved by extending work permits from one to up to two years for international students who have graduated from public post-secondary institutions and certain private institutions located in regions outside of Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver. The aim is to help spread the benefits of immigration to more of Canada’s regions. During 2006–2007, a total of 1,388 students received two-year work permits. More broadly, the total number of students who received post-graduation work permits increased from 7,354 in 2005–2006 to 9,121 in 2006–2007. In 2007–2008, the number of post-graduation work permits issued increased to 10,933.

The 2008 report (page 28) talks of expanding the Post Graduate Work Permit Program from 1 year to 2, and of issuing more permits altogether. The goal is to “spread the benefits of immigration” as they call it.

There are many other passages in these reports obviously, that support the claim that “temporary” workers and students aren’t really temporary. However, the point has been made, so let’s move on to how many temps and students are transitioning to permanent residents. In these first 5 reports, there is no mention of any of it.

10. Transitioning To Permanent Residents

Intake of: (a) TFWP; (b) Int’l Mobility; (c) Students from 2015 to 2017

Transitions from Temporary Foreign Worker or International Student Status to Permanent Residence (from 2018 report, covering 2015 to 2017)

Not only are the numbers of students and “temporary” workers increasing, but they are obtaining permanent resident status in higher numbers.

The Provincial Nominee Program, which grants permanent residence, is a very common choice among post secondary school graduates.

Now, all of the above data comes from the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, and covers the years 2015 through 2017. But what about the longer term implications? In the big picture, how many students and temps are getting PR?

11. StatsCan Research On Transitioning Rates

Transition to permanent resident status
International students likely come to Canada for various reasons. Some may intend to return to their home country once they have acquired their Canadian qualifications, while others may intend to remain in Canada for a period of time to obtain work experience in an advanced economy. Still others may hope to become landed immigrants and remain in Canada permanently.

It is possible to estimate the proportion of international students who become permanent residents by calculating a cumulative transition rate. The cumulative rate, which can be calculated for any cohort, is the share of international students who become landed immigrants a number of years after obtaining their first study permit.

For example, among international students who obtained their first study permit between 1995 and 1999, about 15% became permanent residents in the five years that followed. When the period of observation is extended to the first 10 years after the study permit was received, that proportion rises to 20%, and then to 22% by the fifteenth year (Chart 1).

Of the international students in the early 1990s (1990 to 1994), late 1990s (1995 to 1999) and early 2000s (2000 to 2004) cohorts, those in the early 1990s cohort were the most likely to subsequently become permanent residents in Canada. Over the 10 years after they received their first student permit, 27% of the early 1990s cohort became permanent residents, while this was the case for 20% and 25% of individuals in the late 1990s and early 2000s cohorts, respectively. The transition rates of international students in the late 2000s cohorts looked like those of the early 2000s cohorts over the first 5 years after receiving a study permit, but additional data must be accumulated to see whether this trajectory continues over the longer term.

In addition to varying across cohorts, rates of transition into permanent residence also vary across sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, age, level of study and source country. Again, transition rates by characteristic are examined at the tenth year after the first study permit is received (Table 2).

India and China are the top 2 source nations for student visas to Canada. This should be obvious to anyone who visits a college or university.

The research conducted by Yuqian Lu and Feng Hou is too lengthy to go over entirely here, but it is very interesting. Long term, is suggests that roughly a quart of international students will eventually become permanent residents of Canada.

An interesting fact noted: 49% of people who obtained a post-graduate degree (a Master’s) obtained PR status. It has to do with the added points in the immigration system.

12. When Exactly Did This Start?

But wait a minute. The above research by Yuqian Lu and Feng Hou cover international students that have transitioned to permanent residents since 1990. However, the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration spoke of this new option in 2006/2007. (See below)

That is a screenshot from the 2007 report on page 13. It refers to this transition to permanent residence as something to happen in the future.

The transitions to PR have been happening under the Provincial Nominee Programs primarily. The announcement in the annual reports must have just been to boost the numbers, by adding other categories.

13. Transition Rates Increasing For Temps

The 2005-2009 cohort, is the most recent one available from this StatsCan research, and could easily hit 25-30%, if the same pattern is demonstrated. This graphing attempts to demonstrate collect trends of transitioning to permanent residence after a given time.

Bear in mind, that new programs are available can boost this and future cohorts higher.

14. Most “Temp” Workers Had Current Status

Another StatsCan research piece documents the status of so-called “temporary” workers who held visas at or before the time that they transitioned to permanent residence.

It is broken into two periods: 1990 to 1999, and 2000 to 2009. Although it does not give the totals, as a percentage, around 87% of people who transitioned to permanent residence had current status.

Although the International Mobility Program existed well before the 2013 TFW scandal, participants were still able to become PR.

15. Students/Temps: 25-30% Will Get PR

Based on the information provided by StatsCan, it is safe to say that 25-30% of students and temporary workers will eventually get their Permanent Resident status. Transitions do start out at a fast rate, and understandably peter out. This is based on research done by some StatsCan researchers.

Now, a few caveats must be talked about here to make the picture more complete. This is not the end of the story.

First, rule changes by successive Federal Governments have expanded the number of programs, and eased the restrictions and numbers available. It stands to reason that rates will increase from what has been shown before. The information given about previous years may be obsolete.

Second, this information does not take into account people who have remained in the country but not transitioned to Permanent Resident status. While the common belief is that students will return home after their schooling is done, or workers will return home after their work term ends, that is simply not the case. Even StatsCan admits that people from lower GDP countries are more likely to stay given the higher standard of living in Canada.

Third, these findings do not consider people now living illegally in Canada. Inexplicably, we still have no real exit tracking system. As such, the Federal Government, or at least the Immigration Ministry, doesn’t know who is leaving Canada and when.

Fourth, this is all predicated on the assumption that the Government puts out truthful and accurate findings. This type of “backdoor immigration” system is not popular with the public, so minimizing the scale of it isn’t much of a stretch.

In short, 25-30% of temporary workers and students (officially) will stay in Canada. But take that conclusion with a grain of salt. It may be much, much higher.

December 20, 2019May 11, 2022

IMM #9: Demographic Changes Are Causing Voting Changes In The West

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-midterm-vote-divisions-by-race-gender-education/
(2) http://archive.is/lfmVW
(3) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/09/how-latinos-voted-in-2018-midterms/
(4) http://archive.is/OQ7Qn
(5) https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2018/10/25/hispanic-voters-and-the-2018-midterm-elections/
(6) http://archive.is/wip/CcQzE
(7) https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/
(8) http://archive.is/Z3Kio
(9) https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/89/hr2580/text
(10) http://archive.is/wip/XDpVh
(11) https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-city-250g-illegal-alien-immigration
(12) http://archive.is/Tim4b
(13) https://cis.org/Report/Impact-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigration-Apportionment-Seats-US-House-Representatives-2020
(14) http://archive.is/wip/E4WnR
(15) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/astat/sc-2011-c-26/latest/sc-2011-c-26.html
(16) http://archive.is/wip/LrCMy
(17) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/tory-bill-would-add-30-new-mps-to-house-of-commons
(18) http://archive.is/wip/JVZqM
(19) https://globalnews.ca/news/2291301/immigrants-voted-liberal-by-a-landslide-and-other-things-we-learned-from-the-federal-election-results/
(20) http://archive.is/slmup

3. Why Canadians Should Care

Demographic changes in the U.S., both from legal “and” illegal immigration are changing voting trends. Specifically, most first generation immigrants vote for Democrats, and by a large margin.

This is not lost on Democrats. The party is pushing for:
(a) More immigration;
(b) More amnesty programs for illegals already here
(c) Voting rights for illegal aliens
(d) Abolishing the Electoral College
(e) Getting felons the right to vote in more states
(f) Getting younger people to vote
(g) Voting without photo I.D.

The reason behind this is not idealistic or moral. The idea is to effectively rig elections by getting more people to vote, if they are part of groups that vote for them by large margins.

As demographics change, voting patterns change. Once solidly conservative states are “turning blue”, as demographics now favour Democrats in more and more places. At one time unthinkable, Virginia turned blue, and Colorado, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Texas and others are close to turning blue.

This issue is important to Canadians because the same thing is happening here. Demographic changes are turning more and more ridings liberal and socialist. It is making conservatism an unelectable ideology. While it is nice to say that demographics don’t matter, the fact is they do.

Look at the recent Canadian election. The Greater Toronto Area is now solidly Liberal, despite Trudeau’s horrible job as Prime Minister. This population change is irreversible, and will never support conservative candidates again.

Interestingly, it was Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney who flooded the GTA from 2006 to 2015, making those ridings uncompetitive. And when the next riding redistributions go ahead, there will be more and more liberal/socialist ridings created.

4. Data From 2018 U.S. Midterms

In U.S. congressional races nationwide, an estimated 69% of Latinos voted for the Democratic candidate and 29% backed the Republican candidate, a more than two-to-one advantage for Democrats, according to National Election Pool exit poll data

Blacks voted overwhelmingly (90%) for the Democratic candidate, including comparable shares of black men (88%) and black women (92%).

Overall, 41% of voters said whites in the country today are favored over minorities; 19% said that minorities are favored over whites, while 33% said that no group is favored. Attitudes on this question were strongly correlated with vote choice. Among those who said whites are favored in the U.S., 87% voted for Democrats. By contrast, large majorities of those who said minorities are favored (85%) or that no group is favored (69%) voted for Republican candidates.

Among voters who said this was the first midterm in which they voted, 62% favored the Democrat and just 36% supported the Republican.

The data from Pew Research makes it pretty clear: minorities vote by very large margins for Democrats. 90% of blacks, and 70% of Hispanics support them, margins that have remained fairly constant for decades.

Why do Democrats push for more and more immigration? Amnesty for illegals? Voting rights for children? Voting rights restored for felons? Because they want more voters.

Demographics are destiny, and these changes are permanently altering Western nations.

5. Whites To Become A Minority

The Brookings Institute that in 2045, whites will stop being an overall majority in the United States, and will drop below 50% completely. From there the percentage of whites will continue to fall.

Of course, if more amnesties are granted for illegal aliens, that switch could happen a lot sooner than 2045. As stated before, Democrats are pushing for amnesty, as they know the (net) vote addition will go very well in their favour.

New census population projections confirm the importance of racial minorities as the primary demographic engine of the nation’s future growth, countering an aging, slow-growing and soon to be declining white population. The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.7 percent of the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1 percent for blacks, 7.9 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for multiracial populations

Why this drastic shift? Well, it could be the 1965 Hart Cellar Act, which changed U.S. immigration laws that favoured Europeans and capped the number. Despite claims that there would be no drastic change in the makeup of the United States, that has proven to be false.

But don’t worry, these changes won’t lead, to people being arrested or fined for hate speech. Oh wait, yes they will.

6. Changes To Lead To Seat Redistribution

High Immigration Causes Political Redistribution.
If immigrants were evenly spread throughout the country, they would have no impact on the distribution of House seats. Historically, immigrants have always been concentrated in some areas, and that is still true today. Of course, immigrants do tend to become more dispersed over time, but it is a very gradual process. In 1990, the top six states of immigrant settlement accounted for 73 percent of the total foreign-born population, while in 2000 these same six states accounted for 69 percent of the total foreign-born population. In 2020, the top six states will account for 63 percent of all immigrants, but only 40 percent of the nation’s total population. Although immigrants will almost certainly continue to move into new parts of the country, for decades to come there will continue to be states with very large immigrant populations, while other states have only a modest number. In 2020, there will still be 11 states with fewer than 100,000 immigrants, while five states will have more than two million.

The redistributive effects of immigration are not just a result of its concentration, but also partly depend on immigrants’ share of the total population. A very large immigrant population, even if it becomes more dispersed, can still have a significant impact on the distribution of House seats and Electoral College votes. As long as the number of immigrants (legal and illegal) entering the country remains very high, immigration will continue to redistribute political power in Washington. (While not examined in this report, the same dynamic applies within states, in drawing districts for the state legislatures.)

Representing Non-Citizens in Congress.
Although the political stakes for low-immigration states from continued high levels of immigration are clearly very significant, the related question of creating districts because of the presence of non-citizens is equally important to consider. While there is a consensus that naturalized citizens should be represented in Congress just like any other American, awarding congressional seats to states on the basis of their non-citizen populations raises important questions about political representation. This is especially true when one considers that these districts are created by taking representation away from states comprised of American citizens.

Consider the case of Ohio, the biggest loser from immigration-induced reapportionment. In 2020, there will be 292,000 non-citizens in Ohio, accounting for just 2 percent of the state’s population; California will be home to nearly 4.8 million non-citizens, accounting for 12 percent of the state’s population. Non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections, serve on juries, or work for the federal government in most cases. Many non-citizens, including foreign students, guest workers, and illegal immigrants also may not make campaign contributions. Thus, it may seem odd that they are “represented” in Congress. This is especially true because the majority of non-citizens in the country are either illegal immigrants or temporary visitors such as foreign students or guest workers. While one can at least argue that legal permanent residents who have not naturalized are entitled to representation in Congress because they are future Americans, illegal aliens and temporary visitors can make no such claim.

It is predicted that a few dozen seats will go towards Democrats in the 2020 election. This is because that immigration and population shifts will result in more seats that Democrats can win. This is about shifting political power.

Why Republicans support mass migration when it continuously dilutes their own base and voting bloc is a bit of a mystery. Is the cheap labour they import really worth it?

7. Canadian Parliament Seat Redistribution

The 2011 Fair Representation Act added 30 seats to the Canadian Parliament, (or about 10%) bringing the total to 338. It gave Ontario 15 more seats, BC 6 more, Alberta and Quebec 3 each. As a result, areas with most growth, such as high immigration, get more political power.

Although the Parliament has a limited number of seats, shifts will continue to mean high concentrations of immigrant communities will gain more power. Consequently, the original beliefs and values of the founding stock will continue to be replaced.

Well, according to this graph from Global News, most ridings with the highest immigrant population tend to vote Liberal.

8. About Those Students, Temp Workers

Not only is there the “official” population replacement going on in Canada, but there is the unofficial replacement as well. Specifically, hundreds of thousands of international students and temporary workers are coming to Canada. As has been covered here repeatedly, there are almost all eligible for some option of remaining in Canada long after their visa runs out.

How will Canada’s electoral map look after the next seat distribution? How many more safe Liberal ridings will there be as a result.

Whites are expected to become a minority in Canada soon. What will elections and voting results look like then?

December 19, 2019May 13, 2023

IMM #2(E): What Are The Main Sources Of Demographic Replacement?

Canada is changing, to put it mildly. How serious is it, and what are the main sources of it? Let’s take a dive into those Annual Reports to Parliament.

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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.

Note: the 2019 report was added to the article on April 18, 2020.

3. Where Do People Come From?

This isn’t everyone who stays in Canada, and certainly not everyone who enters Canada. However, it does provide a glimpse into WHERE people are coming from. Canada is importing the 3rd World, and becoming the 3rd World as a result.

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(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)

(Page 33 of the 2020 Annual Report to Parliament)

Did you think that importing large numbers of people from:
(a) China
(b) India
(c) Philippines
(d) Pakistan
(e) Iran

might be the reason we have such large enclaves of these groups? Think there may be some connection between them? This is not a single year, but a consistent pattern. This does not lead to enrichment, but to balkanization, It leads to low trust communities where people care less and less about others. Robert Putnum’s research (though he tries to spin the findings) is a must read.

4. True Size When Temps Factored In

Above are the “temporary” categories listed in the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. Now, let’s take a look at all of it in context. Data is compiled from the 2004 to 2018 Annual Reports (which covers the years of 2003 to 2017)

Report Year	Stated Imm	Temporary	Actual Imm
2004	221,352	143,444	364,796
2005	235,824	147,204	383,028
2006	262,236	156,622	418,858
2007	251,649	174,361	426,010
2008	236,758	229,834	466,592
2009	247,243	272,028	519,271
2010	252,179	263,618	515,797
2011	280,681	278,433	559,114
2012	248,748	289,225	537,973
2013	257,887	318,383	576,270
2014	258,953	333,175	592,128
2015	260,404	420,708	681,112
2016	271,845	468,126	739,971
2017	296,346	551,342	847,688
2018	331,226	620,149	951,375

Shocking isn’t it? This is what it looks like when “temporary” workers and students are factored in. Now, not all will stay, but the option is there. These programs are in fact pathway to permanent residence.

5. Changes In Census Data

Year	Population	% of Canada
1871	3,433,315	98.5%
1881	4,146,900	95.9%
1901	5,170,522	96.0%
1911	7,005,583	94.35%
1921	8,568,584	96.0%
1931	10,134,313	97.7%
1941	11,242,868	97.8%
1951	13,582,574	96.83%
1961	17,653,864	96.8%
1966	–	96.8%
1971	20,763,915	96.3%
1981	22,402,000	93.0%
1986	–	–
1986	–	–
1996	24,531,635	86.0%
2001	24,678,880	83.3%
2006	25,000,155	80.0%
2011	25,186,890	76.7%
2016	25,111,695	72.9%

Based off the Wikipedia page, it’s sources are: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

To point out the obvious, yes the data table is incomplete. There are a few years missing. However, the overall trend shows an undeniable pattern towards those of European descent declining as a percentage and losing voting power.

Euro Canadians will be a minority in about a decade or so. How well will we be treated then?

6. Population Replacement Is Real

Is there any connection between importing large numbers of Chinese year after year, and the Chinese enclaves that are around Canada? Maybe there is something to it.

Is there any connection between importing large numbers of Indians year after year, and the Indian enclaves that are around Canada? Maybe there is something to it.

Is there any connection between importing large numbers of Muslims year after year, and the Muslim enclaves that are around Canada? Maybe there is something to it.

This is nothing short of full fledged population replacement going on. Import (on an ongoing basis), hundreds of thousands of people from cultures and backgrounds that have little to do with the European founding that Canada has.

However, it is taboo for Europeans to have an identity to be proud of. Other nations have a strong history, culture, and founding stock. But in Western nations, have instead, the values of “diversity, tolerance and multiculturalism”.

One rule for me, another for thee.

1. Important Links

2. Context For This Article

3. Timeline For UN Parliament

4. Quotes From 1993 Standing Comm Report

5. Approval Of UNPA In 1996

6. Senator Douglas Roche & UNPA, 2002

7. Quotes From 2007 Standing Comm Report

8. Recommendations From 2007 Report

9. Trudeau Endorses UN Parliament

10. CDA Globalist Gov’ts All In Support

Share this:

Like this:

1. Dominic Barton

2. CPPIB, Blackrock, Mark Wiseman

3. Willy Porneau’s Advisory Council

4. Canada Infrastructure Bank

5. Century Initiative

6. Go Follow CdnSpotlight

Share this:

Like this:

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

2. Important Links

3. Context For This Piece

4. Media Coverage Of Announcement

5. No Citizenship Fee

Share this:

Like this:

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

2. Important Links

3. Context For This Article

4. People Leaving Canada Aren’t Tracked

5. CBSA Cancels Old Arrest Warrants

6. Scale Of Illegal Aliens Unknown

7. Amnesty Program Started July 2019

8. Government Making Illegal Entries Easier

9. Annual Reports To Parliament

10. Transitioning To Permanent Residents

11. StatsCan Research On Transitioning Rates

12. When Exactly Did This Start?

13. Transition Rates Increasing For Temps

14. Most “Temp” Workers Had Current Status

15. Students/Temps: 25-30% Will Get PR

Share this:

Like this:

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

2. Important Links

3. Why Canadians Should Care

4. Data From 2018 U.S. Midterms

5. Whites To Become A Minority

6. Changes To Lead To Seat Redistribution

7. Canadian Parliament Seat Redistribution

8. About Those Students, Temp Workers

Share this:

Like this:

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

2. Important Links

3. Where Do People Come From?

4. True Size When Temps Factored In

5. Changes In Census Data

6. Population Replacement Is Real

Share this:

Like this: