Recent Posts

Posted on

IMM #2(C): Backdoor Replacement Migration In Canada — More Detail

(Temporary Foreign Workers can become Permanent Residents)

(One option for college, university graduates is the Provincial Nominee Program. Its name varies slightly by Province)

(Brooks, AB, and cheap foreign labour)

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://canucklaw.ca/cpc-endorses-globalism-canzuk-birth-tourism-citizenship-for-refugees-islam/
(2) https://www.immigroup.com/news/top-7-fastest-and-cheapest-ways-immigrate-canada
(3) http://archive.is/Sudgr
(4) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/rural-northern-immigration-pilot/about.html
(5) http://archive.is/Sbub5
(6) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/leamington-growers-temporary-residency-1.5222443
(7) http://archive.is/LIhVK
(8) https://moving2canada.com/study-in-canada/
(9) http://archive.is/7Ppmu
(10) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/fact-sheet-temporary-foreign-worker-program.html
(11) http://archive.is/YCxhQ
(12) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/temporary-residents/foreign-workers/eligibility/open.html
(13) http://archive.is/AnuBK
(14) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hussen-migrant-workers-abuse-1.5157114
(15) http://archive.is/p8J8H
(16) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/family-sponsorship/fees-permits-victims.html
(17) http://archive.is/jPoeh
(18) https://canucklaw.ca/cbc-propaganda-3-ignoring-the-root-cause-of-domestic-violence/
(19) conservative.party.of.canada.policy.declaration

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

3. The Rule From Before

If a Conservative or Nationalist isn’t willing to talk about the FULL SCALE of immigration into the country, there’s no reason to trust anything they say on the subject.

Disclaimer: If any program has been missed, please contact and it will be promptly added.

4. Faith Goldy Drops Truth Bombs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm-cqB2jE9k

Faith Goldy does a livestream here, discussing the full scope of mass migration into Canada. She correctly points out that public debate is limited (Permanent + Refugees), while other categories are not discussed in the political sphere. She also points out the elephant in the room: politicians focus on replacing citizens with foreigners rather than promoting higher birth rates within Canada. The name “replacement migration” fits perfectly. Great video. Watch and subscribe.

Honourable mentions: YouTuber Rants Derek also points out some hard truths. (See 1:10-1:50). Another channel worth subscribing too, as he covers difficult and important topics. Also see this article by Spencer Fernando.

5. National Citizens Alliance Addresses It

The video is of NCA founder, Stephen Garvey. It’s nice to finally have a political party in Canada address the problem in an honest manner. No low-balling here.

6. Totals From Before

(From the 2018 Report to Parliament)

(From the 2018 Report to Parliament)

Source: 2018 Report To Parliament

Also worth noting, 525,000 people got their citizenship in a 12 month period. This is despite the “backlog”, and only taking ~350,000 people into Canada.
Source: StatsCan population data.

Year TFW Int Mobility Student
2015 73,016 175,967 218,147
2016 78,402 207,829 265,111
2017 78,788 224,033 317,328

Remember: This table only covers “temporary” entrants (workers and students), and is outside what politicians typically declare. While these programs are officially marketed as temporary, there are a number of avenues to stay longer and become a permanent resident.

Now, combine the 2017 “temporary” totals with the approximately 350,000 permanent and refugees that the government declares and you get this. Note: the report itself lists slightly lower actual entry (330K) under Permanent and Refugee totals, but 350K is the stated goal.

350,000 (Permanent + Refugee)
+78,788 (Temporary Foreign Workers)
+224,033 (International Mobility)
+317,328 (Student Visas)
970,149 (total)

However, the only heading being debated is the 350K at the top (permanent and refugee). Very disingenuous to not include the entire amount.

Canadians are deceived, as most are likely not aware of the actual intake. The P+R categories only represent about a third of total immigration. And this doesn’t even cover the illegal entries.

7. Temporary Foreign Worker Program

This should be self explanatory, but let’s get some more information on this. Is temporary really temporary? Not really. From the factsheet which is freely available online.

Advantages to Employers
For employers who have been unable to recruit Canadian citizens or permanent residents for job openings, the TFWP makes it possible to hire workers from abroad. Employers might also find a qualified foreign worker already in Canada, such as a foreign worker who is about to complete a job contract with another employer or a foreign national holding an open work permit that allows the employee to work for any employer in Canada.

While most temporary foreign workers will be hired to address a specific, short-term labour need, some temporary foreign workers who initially came to fill a temporary vacancy can transition to permanent residence if they meet certain requirements. For example, the Canadian Experience Class is open to foreign nationals who have been working full-time in Canada as trades people or in managerial or professional occupations and meet certain other requirements. Other foreign workers may qualify through the Provincial Nominee Program for permanent residence in Canada. These routes exist to ensure that workers who have shown that their skills are in continuing demand and that they have already adapted well to life in Canada can build a future here.

Source is here.
While this is called the “Temporary” Foreign Worker Program, the wording makes it very clear. The pathway to Permanent Resident is built in intentionally. This absolutely is a pathway to PR, and from there, citizenship. Extremely misleading to the public.

Not only that, there is no requirement to attempt to hire a Canadian worker. An employer can just hire a foreigner who happens to already be in Canada.

8. Agriculture Specific PR Path

Thousands of temporary foreign workers in greenhouses, mushroom farms and meat processing plants will soon be given a path to permanent residency.

Under the three-year “Agri-Food Immigration Pilot,” 2,750 workers and their families will be able to apply for permanent residency each year. The federal government says it could mean up to 16,500 new permanent residents.

From this article, a pilot program set up to fast track people in agriculture to Permanent Resident status. It was created specifically for this industry.

Working in meat processing plants? Kind of like how things went in Brooks, Alberta, after Jason (Bilderberg) Kenney brought in cheap foreign labour? Those Somali Muslims?

Another boutique program to greenlight permanent residence to people coming into Canada.

9. Northern And Rural Program

The Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot is a community-driven program. It’s designed to spread the benefits of economic immigration to smaller communities by creating a path to permanent residence for skilled foreign workers who want to work and live in 1 of the participating communities.

This new initiative aims to get more immigration to smaller towns under the pretext of “economic development”.

In reality, it will likely make such small towns unrecognizable by inducing rapid demographic shifts. Want to get away from all the diversity in big cities? Now you won’t be able to, bigot.

Take for example, Brooks, AB, which was culturally enriched by then Immigration Minister Jason Kenney bringing in Somali Muslims to fill jobs at a meat packing plant.

10. Student Visas

Information is from here. Rather than rehashing it, here is the actual quote. It outlines a number of benefits to studying in Canada. They include

(1) International students in Canada can work for up to 20 hours per week during semester, and on a full-time basis during school breaks.
(2) The tuition fees to study in Canada, even for international students, are usually lower than in other countries.
(3) The spouse or common-law partner of an international student may accompany the student in Canada. Not only that, spouses and partners may obtain an open work permit, allowing them to work any hours they wish and for any employer.
(4) International students in Canada can bring their children to Canada, and the kids can attend one of Canada’s public elementary or secondary schools without needing their own study permit.
(5) Canada’s largest cities are ranked among the best student cities by the QS World University Rankings, with Montreal ranked the best student city in the world and Vancouver and Toronto not far behind.
Graduates can work in Canada for up to three years on an open post-graduation work permit (see below under ‘Earn’).
(6) Rather than closing the door on graduates who complete their studies in Canada or making things incredibly difficult, as some countries may do, Canada actively sets out to provide permanent residence pathways to students and graduates (see below under ‘Stay’).
(7) Canada’s liberal citizenship naturalization process allows international students to count time spent on a study permit towards citizenship residency days requirements.

The Provincial Nominee Program is a common, but not only, option for graduates looking to stay.

Not much I can add to this. Comparatively lax standards, and easy to move to Permanent Residence. Upon graduation, you are given 3 years. Also your time studying counts.

Canada’s international student population is surging, even as domestic student count is falling. Why is this? Different motivations. More and more Canadians realize that university, (and to a degree college), is useless for employment. However, foreigners looking to immigrate to Canada see college as a stepping stone to do so.

Will all students stay after graduating? No, but a lot will.

11. Students, Bring Your Families

This was alluded to earlier. Canada not only takes in lots of students, but allows them to bring a spouse and children. For everyone, time in Canada counts towards obtaining permanent residency.

Not just one person gaining time towards Permanent Resident status, but the family. Let that sink in.

In 2017, Canada issued 317,000 student visas. Theoretically, every one of those people would be able to bring a spouse and children, if they had any.

It is not the education that is the real value. Even STEM degrees don’t guarantee employment. Rather, student visas are used as a stepping stone to permanent immigration into Canada.

12. International Mobility Programme

Also known as the Youth Mobility Program, this allows foreign workers to come to Canada for 1-2 years for casual work, schooling, or travel. There is an age limit of 35. In 2017, Canada admitted 224,000 people under the International Mobility Programme

While this is sold to the public as a “temporary” visa, that is not the full story. Is a person is resourceful, they will likely be able to find another way to stay in the country. This would be by lining up another visa, making further education arrangements, getting married, or pursuing another method.

There absolutely are ways around the “temporary” nature.

True, many people will go back to their home countries after that 1 or 2 year period is up. But it is also true that creative people can get around the intent of the program.

13. Allegations Of Domestic Violence

From an earlier article on domestic violence:

Research by her organization found some shelter providers in Calgary found up to 40 per cent of women seeking help were visible Muslims. Many are new immigrants and refugees and can be socially isolated with few friends and no family in Canada.

And what does that translate to overall? Calgary’s Muslim population is about 3% of Calgary’s overall population. So let’s do an apples to apples comparison.

Let’s do some math: suppose you have a city with 1,000,000 citizens, which would mean 30,000 muslims, and 970,000 non-muslims. Now, suppose there are 1,000 incidents of domestic violence in a year. That means that 400 of those incidents would involve muslims, and 600 would involve non-muslims.

Now, those 30,000 muslims would have been involved in 400 domestic violence incidents, or about 1333 per 100,000 people. The 970,000 non-muslims would have been involved in 600 domestic violence incidents or about 62 per 100,000 people. Comparing the two groups of 1333 and 62 per 100,000, we divide and (1333/62=21.5). We get about a magnitude of 21 or 22.

That’s right. Per capita (assuming the research is correct), Muslim families engage in domestic violence at more than 20 times the rate of non-Muslim families. Let that sink in.

That is likely to get a lot worse, though not for the reasons you might be thinking.

Beginning July 26, newcomers who are victims of domestic violence can apply for a free temporary resident permit that will give them legal immigration status in Canada. That will include a work permit and health-care coverage. In “urgent” situations of family violence, the government will expedite the process by allowing people to apply for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

According to the CBC, people leaving domestic abuse situations can apply for a temporary residence permit. That can then become permanent residence based on compassionate grounds.

Get ready for more claims. Furthermore, it doesn’t specifically limit one spouse per person.

14. CANZUK Will Erase Borders

(The CPC strongly supports CANZUK)

(CPC policy is to give temporary workers permanent residence status wherever it is feasible. From Page 52 of policy guidelines)

The Conservative Party of Canada fully endorses CANZUK. This is the Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK pact which eliminates trade and movement barriers between countries. Plainly said, it erases the borders. While this seems harmless, it must be noted that the agreement explicitly states that other nations may be added later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does that scare you yet? India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Bangladesh have a combined population of almost 2 billion people. Imagine erasing the border between them and Canada. It would be a population overrun, if even 10% of those people came here.

What does the (potential) CANZUK list look like?

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

CANZUK is a trojan horse. It is “marketed” to the public as a loosening of borders between only Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. However, the group makes it explicit that other countries joining is entirely possible.

If, for example 50 million Indians were to come to Canada (just 4% of their population), Canada would double in size, and the voting results would be altered forever. This is demographic replacement.

15. Global Migration Compact Implemented

While officially “non-binding”, that is not really the case. They can become the basis for court decisions at later dates. For reviews, see here, see here, and see here.

This was signed by the Liberals on December 10, 2018. While the People’s Party, and now the Conservative Party, claim to oppose the Compact, how serious are they? Both “conservative” parties support mass migration and give little thought to protectionist measures.

“Conservative” parties value immigration for growth in terms of population and GDP. They care little, if at all, of ensuring cultural compatibility. Furthermore, conservatives never focus on boosting births within their nations. It is always more immigration.

16. Focus On Raising Local Birthrates

(Russia on boosting birthrates)

(Hungary: No income tax for women with 4+ children)

Thailand is encouraging more children. Italy is doing a land giveaway for married couples.

Why do Canada’s politicians not do this? Why is the solution always immigration? The exact methods and incentives are totally up for debate, sure. But governments should be encouraging their own citizens to have more children if they need more growth, or even just to reverse a decline.

Guess what, when you try to replace with migration, you eventually replace your population. Having more Canadian children here, and raising them as Canadians is far preferable to importing replacement cultures.

17. Canadians Need To Know The Truth

Yes, some of these topics have been covered before. But the truth still needs to be told, and needs to be made clear.

Canada’s politicians are lying about the scale of mass migration and replacement migration in Canada. The “debate” is limited to a few categories, while others are ignored. In fact, it is those “ignored” topics that actually comprise the bulk of immigration in Canada

Canada’s annual immigration rate is not around 300,000 to 350,000. All told, it is more like a million a year. The public is lied to about this.

Not only is the full scale lied about, but globalist politicians in Canada want to erase borders with agreements like CANZUK and the Global Migration Compact.

If more people are needed, then they should come from within. Boost the birthrate of Canadians, and grow the country organically.

WE NEED CANADIAN CHILDREN, NOT REPLACEMENT MIGRATION

Please spread the truth, and make other people aware.

Posted on

CANZUK — Erasing Canada’s Borders and Sovereignty

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

(Canzuk video on its website)

1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

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

2. Important Links

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

3. CANZUK’s Political Advisors

>

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

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

4. CANZUK’s Official Mission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice bait-and-switch.

5. CANZUK Could Expand To Other Countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Possible CANZUK Joint Defense Force

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

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

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

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

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

7. Where Is CANZUK Going?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

(Temporary Foreign Workers can become Permanent Residents)

(One option for college, university graduates is the Provincial Nominee Program. Its name varies slightly by Province)

(From the 2018 Report to Parliament)

(From the 2018 Report to Parliament)

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

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

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

2. Important Links

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

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

3. Words Of Wisdom Here

If a Conservative or Nationalist isn’t willing to talk about the FULL SCALE of immigration into the country, there’s no reason to trust anything they say on the subject.

Remember this message.

4. Rants Derek Drops The Red Pill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04h7e-Gnn68
Derek dropped a number of truth bombs in this video. Watch 1:10 to 1:50 for the relevant facts. His channel is a great resource for Canadians on many topics.

  • Hundreds of thousands of temporary workers, with a pathway to permanent residence status
  • Hundreds of thousands of student visas, with a pathway to permanent residence status
  • Actual number close to 1 million
  • 1/2 million new citizens in a year
  • Surge in citizens means surge in voters

5. From the 2018 Report To Parliament

Year TFW Int Mobility Student
2015 73,016 175,967 218,147
2016 78,402 207,829 265,111
2017 78,788 224,033 317,328

Remember: This table only covers “temporary” entrants (workers and students), and is outside what politicians typically declare. While these programs are officially marketed as temporary, there are a number of avenues to stay longer and become a permanent resident.

Now, combine the 2017 “temporary” totals with the approximately 330,000 permanent and refugees that the government declares and you get this.

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

Correction: while the 2017 totals for Permanent and Refugee were aimed at around 300-350K, the 350K is the one frequently touted. As such, it was the number used originally in the article. The actual is 330K, which is slightly lower.

Now it is certainly true that many will not stay. However, the vast majority of them will try to. There are many legal avenues to extend a visa, or get a new one. Then there comes the sticky issue of chain migration

Think about it: why drop $100,000 on a useless college degree or program, or work for slave labour for years, UNLESS the ultimate goal was a better life?

While these programs are sold to the public as “temporary”, the reality is that they are backdoor migration.

However, so-called Conservatives, and even some self-identified Nationalists don’t want to talk about the full scope of mass migration in Canada. They prefer to parrot the talking points of the mainstream political parties, who claim there is about 310,000 to 350,000 annually in Canada.

This applies to proposed “reductions” to 250K/annually, (now pegged at 100-150K), while ignoring the true size of the issue. A common talking point of “populists”.

Remember the rule from before.

6. Canada’s Population Isn’t Decreasing Naturally

Note: Difference = Live Births – Total Deaths
Note: Per Day = (Difference)/365 or 366

Year Birth Deaths Diff Day
1991 402,533 195,569 206,964 567
1992 398,643 196,535 202,108 552
1993 388,394 204,912 183,482 503
1994 385,114 207,077 178,037 488
1995 378,016 210,733 167,283 458
1996 366,200 212,880 153,320 419
1997 348,598 215,669 132,929 364
1998 342,418 218,091 124,327 341
1999 337,249 219,530 117,719 323
2000 327,882 218,062 109,820 300
2001 333,744 219,538 114,206 313
2002 328,802 223,603 105,199 288
2003 335,202 226,169 109,033 299
2004 337,072 226,584 110,488 302
2005 342,176 230,132 112,044 307
2006 354,617 228,079 126,538 347
2007 367,864 235,217 132,647 363
2008 377,886 238,617 139,269 381
2009 380,863 238,418 142,445 390
2010 377,213 240,075 137,138 376
2011 377,636 243,511 134,125 367
2012 381,869 246,596 135,273 370
2013 380,323 252,338 127,985 350
2014 384,100 258,821 125,279 343
2015 382,392 264,333 118,059 323
2016 383,102 267,213 115,889 318
2017 379,450 276,689 102,761 281
2018 375,390 283,706 91,684 251

Canada’s population is “naturally” growing at about 300 people/day, and has been for years. This is births and deaths. Immigration is not taken into account. To be fair, however, the number of illegals giving birth here (creating anchor babies) isn’t taken into account.

Of course, even if you need a bigger population, there is another way. It is the ways nations have always done, prior to the “multiculturalism” mental disorder. They grew their populations.

Side note: it’s also how Muslims plan to become a global majority and impose Sharia law everywhere. It’s not as if they embrace multiculturalism or pluralism. And guess what your tax dollars are being used for in Toronto hotels and public housing. See this video from Rebel Media

Now, it doesn’t have to be that way. Hungary, for example, is taking measures to reverse its declining birth rate. While the specifics vary by nation, this is a prime example of a leader putting his people first.


You also never hear mainstream “Conservatives” talking about the idea of promoting bigger families. It’s always “import more and more” and economic growth.

Conservatives give little to no consideration of the natural inclination of people to want children. Nor do they care that people who are raised in Canada grow up as Canadians. Forget the culture. Forget the society. Besides, nations aren’t the people, but just abstract ideas apparently.

Canada already has people from a large array of backgrounds. Why not stop and work with what we have?

Ask yourself, which is more of a priority: economic growth, or protecting your way of life and culture? If the former, remember that eventually the demographics shift to such a degree that your way of life can be “democratically” rescinded.

7. Conservatives, Fake Nationalists, Are Gatekeepers

The Conservative Party of Canada’s policy declaration openly states it prefers to turn temporary workers into permanent residents. (Page 52, topic 139(ii)). Furthermore, the CPC endorsed CANZUK, which opens Canada’s borders to some other nations.

Maxime Bernier sort of addressed immigration rates into Canada, and was critical. However, he avoided the awkward truth that these “temporary” categories can lead to permanent residence.

The National Citizens Alliance addressed the issue in this video. So far, other parties seem to embrace the “mass migration is good” delusion.

Many self-identified Conservatives claim they are for much less immigration. However, they balk at the claim (and evidence) that it is much higher than they thought.

This seems an exercise in futility, and has led to many arguments. But such a topic must be discussed openly. Certainly, the exact numbers, programs, lengths, conditions for various programs should be open to debate. But it must be an informed debate or discussion.

Once more: If a Conservative or Nationalist isn’t willing to talk about the FULL SCALE of immigration into the country, there’s no reason to trust anything they say on the subject.

8. Why Go On About This Topic?

Because people need to know the truth about it.

They are being lied to daily by the media, and by politicians. It is a much easier sell to Canadians if they aren’t forced to look at the full numbers. It’s also easier to pitch is the lie is perpetuated that the population is declining and needs a boost.

And to restate, true, not everyone who comes to Canada will stay (regardless of entry class). But most will, given the standard of life here. Our laws allow many such pathways.

In a sense, the UN Global Migration Compact was a diversion and a soft target. EVERYONE was against it, and what it stood for.

Serious question to Canadians: Do you want to replace yourselves?

8. Disclaimer

This is not to state that immigration into Canada has been 1 million/year continuously. Rather, it has been consistently trending upwards, and is now at 1M/year.

Posted on

Should The Public Finance Sports Teams & Stadiums?

Uppity Peasants weighs in on Calgary Arena ultimatum. City given 1 week to accept deal, or the Flames may leave altogether. Not the most eloquent response in the tweet, but the point is clearly made. There are far more important things cities need than to be financing new stadiums or new arenas.

In a broader sense: to what degree should the public be financing private events or teams?

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Rick Bell, & Calgary Flames’ ultimatum.
CLICK HERE, for a lawsuit against the Prince George Canada Winter Games Host Society, claiming breach of contract.

CLICK HERE, for $5.23B Calgary Olympic bid estimate.
CLICK HERE, for the $17.7M cost of Calgary’s Olympic bid.
CLICK HERE, for Montreal’s Olympic costs, 40 years on.
CLICK HERE, for Forbes article. Stadiums are a game that taxpayers will always lose.
CLICK HERE, for the subsidy drain of “public” sports teams.

2. Flames Show Calgary No Loyalty

The estimated cost of the Event Centre, aka the new arena. $550 million.
The Flames pay $275 million, which was always their number. The city will put up $275 million, which was not always their number.
The city will also pay out another $15.4 million, including the lion’s share of the tab for the Saddledome demolition.
The city will own the arena and for 35 years the Flames will cover the operating costs and they won’t leave town.

And to rub salt in the wound, the article closes off by saying this.

The arena deal hits the street less than 24 hours before city council chinwags over $60 million in cuts to the city budget in the dog days of summer when many Calgarians have scrammed out of town.

Apparently Calgary was $300 million for a new arena for the Flames to play hockey, but $60 million had to be cut from city services. Does this seem like a fair use of taxpayer dollars?

It’s not as if the Flames don’t have an arena to play in. They do. They just want a newer and better arena. What better way to turn off your fanbase by threatening to abandon them in what amounts to a shakedown?

Fair question to ask: does it serve the public to be pouring limited dollars into areas which a very small percentage will actually use? Wouldn’t it be better to spend it on things like: hospitals, fire services, and road maintenance? This is a theme that will come up throughout the article.

3. Olympics Are A Money Pit

Continuing to use Calgary as an example. Let’s note that the city bid to host the 2026 Winter Games, at was to be an estimated cost of $5.23 billion.

The costs would be allocated:

  • $1B from the city of Calgary
  • $1B for the Province of Alberta
  • $1B from the Federal Government
  • Rest from private sponsors

CALGARY—The Calgary Olympic Bid Corporation says the city needs a new mid-sized arena and field house — plus $3 billion of government funding — to host the 2026 Olympics, which it expects to cost a total of about $5.23 billion.

The BidCo’s draft hosting plan, released Tuesday, says eight existing Calgary venues and three mountain venues also need to be updated and “modernized” to prepare for the Winter Games. Those funds come from the urban development cost for the Games, which would total $1.6 billion. BidCo says security costs are estimated at $610 million.

The $3-billion public cost would be split between the city, province and federal government. The remaining cost would be paid for privately through ticket sales, corporate sponsorship and a contribution from the International Olympic Committee. All figures are in 2018 dollars.

The bid was eventually shot down when a majority of Calgarians voted against it. While there was agreement there would be a temporary boost to the local economy, concerns lingered that the debt would never fully be paid off

However, even to “bid” on the games ended up costing over $17 million. Just to make an official bid.

Governments spent a total of $17.7 million on Calgary’s scrapped bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics, according to the city’s final report on the project.
Initially, $30 million has been committed, with roughly a third coming from each level of government.
But the exploration was cancelled after Calgarians voted against it during a November 2018 plebiscite vote — which cost $2.2 million, $2 million from the province and the rest from the city, according to the report which is set to be presented to city council on Monday.

This was just “to bid on” the Olympic games for 2026. It should also be noted: the Alberta and Federal Governments (or rather, taxpayers) coughed up about 2/3 of that bill. Even if the bid were successful, it is an event that areas outside of Calgary would not actually benefit from.

For a Canadian example, let’s take Montreal, which hosted the 1976 Summer Olympics. It cost (in today’s dollars), about $4 billion. So comparable to the proposed situation with Calgary. From the Globe & Mail:

Montrealers can only look upon the Olympic Stadium (which alone cost about $4-billion in today’s dollars) the way modern-day Romans see the Colosseum. It remains an awe-inspiring testimony to a headier time, when an entire civilization dared to dream big, but now serves no practical purpose and costs a fortune to maintain. At least the Romans once had an empire to pay for it all.

The article notes that it needs a constant infusion on cash in order to be maintained, removing is impractical. The few events that it hosts annually come nowhere close to making it a viable enterprise.

43 years later, Montreal still has the regret. But at least tourists can get their pictures taken.

4. Stadiums In General Fleece Taxpayers

This Forbes article debunks the notion that building stadiums or other arenas are a boon for public coffers. It is based on 2 main reasons: economic activity doesn’t not equate tax revenue, and money spent here can’t be spent elsewhere.

Economic impact is not the same as tax revenue…. Some of that tax revenue has to go toward government costs associated with the holding of sports events: extra police, traffic control, perhaps more public transit, etc. At the end of the day, only a very small fraction of total spending associated with stadium events is left over to help pay back the taxpayers for building a stadium.

A valid argument. Just because people may come from out of town, it doesn’t mean all (or even most) of their money will be going to that sporting event. Very little may. Also, there are extra public costs associated with the running the stadium.

On to the second point. When people spend money to go to a sporting event, they cannot just pull that money out of thin air (tragic, but true). Rather, the money comes from their family budget, meaning something else has to give. If I buy tickets to an Atlanta Hawks game, the result of that spending might mean several fewer trips to the movies, not going to a local amusement park, or not going to a local restaurant or two.

Also true, but very obvious. If a person (or family) is spending money on an overpriced sporting event, is that not money that would still have been generating economic activity anyways?

One more consideration: the average person cannot afford to attend professional sports events other than very rarely, if ever. So is it fair to force them to chip in for something they might never be able to be a part of?

5. Reality: It’s Always Subsidised

From the NPR article, it makes the “public cost, private profit” argument. Interestingly enough, that is the same logic used to object to bank bailouts in 2008/2009.

“Public subsidies for stadiums are a great deal for team owners, league executives, developers, bond attorneys, construction firms, politicians and everyone in the stadium food chain, but a really terrible deal for everyone else,” concludes Frank Rashid, a lifelong Detroit Tigers fan and college English professor. Rashid co-founded the Tiger Stadium Fan Club in 1987, and for the next twelve years he fought an unsuccessful battle against Michigan’s plans to spend $145 million in public funds to replace that historic ballpark. “The case is so clear against this being a top priority for cities to be doing with their resources, I would have thought that wisdom would have prevailed by now.“

Yes, a small number of people will get very rich off of starting and running a sports team. However, the public will keep paying, regardless of the percentage who are actually interested in the event.

One additional piece the article left out is the cost overruns. Construction projects are almost never completed on time and are typically well over budget. Contract language varies, but typically it is the public who eats the losses.

Sports fanatics would argue that the city or national prestige is worth it. However, those who have little interest would see it as a waste.

6. What Is City Or National Pride Worth?

This is something that each person has to answer on their own.

For the most diehard fans, this is worth it. For the average person, I suspect not.

Objectively speaking: “public” teams with private owners are always a losing deal financially for taxpayers. They require endless subsidies, cater to a niche crowd, and don’t offer anything concrete to the public. At best, a small number of seasonal jobs will be created. The tax revenue generated comes nowhere close to what the subsidies cost.

As seen with the Calgary Flames (though there are other examples), threat to pull a team from a city is a form of economic extortion. For most people it is an empty threat, though politicians will often cave.

When public services get cut to pay for sports events or subsidies, that is when people get angry.

Posted on

Response From Elections Canada Questions

Below is the response from July 5, 2019 email

Thank you for your correspondence dated July 5, 2019, in which you seek clarification on four distinct federal election topics. Please note that we cannot provide legal advice regarding specific factual situations. We can, however, provide guidance with respect to general principles of the Canada Elections Act (Act), which may be of assistance with your enquiries.

1. Voter Identification

In 2007, Parliament imposed, for the first-time, voter identification requirements for electors voting at the polls, giving them three options (see s. 143 of the Act):

  1. provide one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government or agency (federal, provincial, or local) that includes their name, address, and photo (e.g. driver’s licence);

  2. provide two pieces of identification from a list authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada (CEO), both of which must include the elector’s name and at least one of which includes their address; or

3. swear an oath or affirmation and be vouched for by another eligible elector with acceptable proof of identity and residence whose name appeared on the electoral list for that polling division and who had not previously either been vouched for or vouched for another elector in that election, prior to receiving a ballot.

In 2014, Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, replaced the vouching process (the third option above) with a new attestation process. Through attestation, an elector could provide two pieces of identification, each of which established the elector’s name, and have someone attest to their residence on oath in writing. The attestor’s name had to appear on the list of electors for the same polling division. The attestor had to know the elector personally, know that the elector resides in the polling division and be able to prove his or her own identity and residence without attestation. The attestor could not attest to the residence of another person. Both the elector and the attestor had to receive oral advice from the person who administered their oath of the penalty that may be imposed for contravention of the attestation rules.

Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act, which came into force on June 13, 2019, reinstated vouching as a way for an elector who has no identification to prove identity and address. The person being vouched for does not require a piece of identification, however the elector vouching for them does. The elector must solemnly declare in writing that he or she resides at the address at which he or she claims to reside, ii) is at least 18 years old or will be on polling day, iii) is a Canadian citizen and iv) has not previously voted in the election. Anyone vouching for the elector must sign a written solemn declaration providing that i) they know the elector; ii) the elector resides in the polling division; iii) to the best of their knowledge the elector has not previously voted at the election; iv) the voucher is a Canadian citizen when the other elector votes; v) the voucher has not vouched for the residence of another elector at the election (an exception applies in institutions where seniors or persons with a disability reside); vi) their own residence has not been vouched for by another elector at the election. Warnings must still be provided to both the voucher and the person being vouched for as to the potential penal consequences for making a false declaration, voting or attempting to vote at an election knowing they are not qualified, or committing a vouching offence, although these warnings can now be provided in writing, and do not have to be read out at the polls.

2. Vote by Canadian citizens residing outside Canada

On January 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Frank v. Canada (Attorney General) that a Canadian elector, living abroad, who has previously resided in Canada, is entitled to vote by special ballot in federal elections regardless of how long they have been living abroad (see ss. 220-230 of the Act).

Elections Canada maintains a register of electors who are residing outside Canada. Electors may register by sending Elections Canada an Application for Registration and Special Ballot form.
The elector’s completed application must be received by Elections Canada in Ottawa no later than 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on the Tuesday before polling day. The application may be sent by fax and be accompanied by a photocopy of proof of identity (a copy – of pages 2 and 3 – of a Canadian passport, a birth or baptismal certificate attesting that the elector was born in Canada, or a Canadian citizenship certificate or card).

Once the elector’s application is approved, Elections Canada sends a voting kit to the elector. The elector then completes the ballot and inserts it into a series of envelopes in accordance with the instructions provided and ensures that Elections Canada receives it no later than 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on polling day in order to be counted. On one of these envelopes, the elector signs a declaration that states that the elector’s name is as shown on the envelope, and that he or she has not already voted and will not attempt to vote again in the election.

3. Social Media

You ask if the government should be looking into social media influence. This is an issue best addressed by Parliament’s legislative branch. Elections Canada is a neutral agent of Parliament that operates independently of the government. We invite you to write to your local Member of Parliament for further information on this matter.

Please note that Parliament recently added new provisions to the Act that define online platforms and impose obligations on them with respect to digital ad registries. Elections Canada (EC) has recently issued an online guide entitled New Registry Requirements for Political Ads on Online Platforms to assist online platforms in complying with the new requirements. The Act also requires certain ads placed by parties, candidates and third parties to bear tag lines saying who placed the ad (s.320, 349.5, 352 and 429.3). This applies to social media ads.

Bill C-76 also clarified and expanded existing provisions against some kinds of online impersonation, misleading publications as well as false statements about candidates (see ss. 91, 480.1 and 481).

Elections Canada’s role is to ensure that Canadians have easy access to accurate information about the voting process, including where, when, and how to register and vote. We will be monitoring the social media environment to enable us to rapidly correct any inaccurate information about the voting process. We have created an online repository of all of our public communications, so that citizens and journalists can verify if information that appears to be coming from Elections Canada truly is.

4. Cash-for-Access

Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), came into force on December 21, 2018. This bill introduces notice and reporting requirements for certain regulated fundraising events. The bill does not prohibit cash-for-access types of fundraisers, but it makes certain types of fundraisers subject to the scrutiny of the public or the media.

First, the fundraising activity must be organized for the benefit of a party represented in the House of Commons, or one of its affiliated political entities. Second, the activity must be attended by a leader, a leadership contestant, or a cabinet minister. Third, it must be attended by at least one person who has contributed over $200, or who has paid an amount of more than $200 that includes a contribution to attend.

If the fundraising event meets these conditions, two types of disclosure are required. First, notice of the event must be prominently posted on a party’s website for five days before it takes place. Second, a report must be provided by the party to the Chief Electoral Officer within 30 days of the fundraiser. During a general election, notice of fundraisers would not be required, and a single report for all fundraising events held during the election would be due within 60 days after polling day.

For more on this topic, we invite you to view Elections Canada’s online Guideline on Regulated Fundraising Events.

I trust that the above information is of assistance and thank you for your interest in the federal electoral process.

For more information about the Canadian federal electoral system, visit our website at elections.ca or call 1-800-463-6868, toll-free in Canada and the United States. Our hours of operation are from Monday to Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

Public Enquiries Unit
Elections Canada

Posted on

Creative (Climate) Communications — Effectively Marketing Psuedo-Science

No joke. There actually is a book out on how to “effectively communicate” on climate change. Loads of logical fallacies and emotional manipulation.

1. Important Links


(Other articles on climate change scam)
https://canucklaw.ca/the-climate-change-scam-part-1/

CLICK HERE, for the article in the ironically named “Scientific American” journal, authored by Max Boykoff, to promote his book.

CLICK HERE, for link to book sale.

2. Site Promoting Book

Conversations about climate change at the science-policy interface and in our lives have been stuck for some time. This handbook integrates lessons from the social sciences and humanities to more effectively make connections through issues, people, and things that everyday citizens care about. Readers will come away with an enhanced understanding that there is no ‘silver bullet’ to communications about climate change; instead, a ‘silver buckshot’ approach is needed, where strategies effectively reach different audiences in different contexts. This tactic can then significantly improve efforts that seek meaningful, substantive, and sustained responses to contemporary climate challenges. It can also help to effectively recapture a common or middle ground on climate change in the public arena. Readers will come away with ideas on how to harness creativity to better understand what kinds of communications work where, when, why, and under what conditions in the twenty-first century.

Includes strategies that help people have productive conversations about climate change that involve listening and adapting rather than just trying to win an argument
-Bridges sectors and audiences, bringing together important material for undergraduate and graduate courses
-Shows the importance of being creative in communications about climate change in the twenty-first century – many businesses, institutions, and collectives can benefit from this, not just students and academics

Reading through this, you will notice that the topic of additional reading and research never comes up. There is no push to understand other perspectives or review scientific findings.

Instead, the focus is on using sociological and psychological techniques to convert normies to your position, without actually providing evidence. This is all about language and emotional manipulation.

Ironically, there is science involved here. But instead of science relating to researching “climate change”, the research focuses on how to change people’s minds. Seems that the priorities are all backwards.

Item #1: Strategies that help people have productive conversations. Presumably this is ways to insert climate change topics into otherwise normal talks.

Item #2: Cram more of the propaganda into university classes.

Item #3: Be innovative about #1 and #2.

3. The Scientific American Article

From synthesizing this work, I distill these lessons into some important “rules of the road.”
-Be authentic.
-Be aware.
-Be accurate.
-Be imaginative.
-Be bold.
From there, additional features on the road map help to navigate toward resonant and effective communications.
-Find common ground on climate change.
–Emphasize how climate change affects us here and now, in our everyday lives.
-strong>Focus on benefits of climate change engagement.
–Creatively empower people to take meaningful and purposeful action.
–“Smarten up” communications about climate change to match the demands of a 21st-century communications environment.

The first items on this list would only make sense if truth was actually a goal. Be aware and be accurate are good principles.

However, climate change advocates tend to be extremely dismissive of different ideas, opinions, facts and research. A commitment to being accurate would undermine the sense of superiority that many possess.

Find common ground and emphasizing the effects are attempts to emotionally manipulate people by inserting the topic in places where it really doesn’t belong. Indeed, the goal seems to be to make “everything” about climate change. Make it an omnipresent issue.

Lately, climate change has imposed itself on the public sphere. Through extreme events linked to changes in the climate, new scientific reports and studies, and rejuvenated youth movements (along with many other political, economic, scientific, ecological, meteorological and cultural events and issues) climate change has been increasingly difficult to ignore.
.
But you wouldn’t really have picked up on that in the first round of the U.S. Democratic party primary debates that took place in Miami, Florida. As 20 candidates made their case to the American people, it was striking how minimally and shallowly they discussed climate change.

To be fair, in a debate (10 people each over 2 days), there isn’t much chance to give long answers.

However, the author, Max Boykoff, makes the point — and will repeatedly make this point — that everything is connected to climate change. He takes the Anita Sarkessian approach, though not with gender.

Sadly, this illustrates a contradiction we have been living with for some time. That is this: amid extensive research into the causes and consequences of climate change, climate communications—and thus, conversations about climate change in our lives—have remained stuck.

There are many reasons. Among them:
-Climate change is still regularly treated as a single issue. This was clearly on display in the debates, and even during the paltry time devoted to surface-level discussions of climate change.
-There has continued to be inadequate funding provided to support sustained and coordinated social science and humanities research into what constitutes more effective climate communications.
-We have all been short on creativity, and we generally have stuck to ineffective climate communications approaches (e.g. merely scientific ways of knowing) as we muddle along.

Interesting take on the problem. Max Boykoff goes on about how the science is sound, but that we just aren’t making any headway in communicating the solutions.

Yes, climate change is still treated as a single issue (that part is true). The author’s goal is to make it an issue of everything. Again, the Anita Sarkeesian technique.

All the money that we pay in various carbon tax schemes apparently aren’t needed for climate change research. Rather, they are needed to SHARE THE RESULTS of the climate change research.

Boykoff seems to believe that it is the “strictly scientific” approach to sharing research that keeps people from seeing what is before their eyes. Seems condescending.

<

p style=”padding:2px 6px 4px 6px; color: #555555; background-color: #eeeeee; border: #dddddd 2px solid”>Yet climate change is a collective action problem that intersects with just about every other area of life. It traverses critical issues such as public health, jobs, education, inequality, poverty, violence, trade, infrastructure, energy, foreign policy and geopolitics. While everyday people clearly have the capacity to care, they reasonably often focus on immediate concerns, such as issues of job security, local school quality, crime and the economy. In recent years, however, it has become more and more clear that these issues are interlinked with climate change.

So, in making these connections, we can more effectively get to the heart of how we live, work, play, find happiness and relax in modern life, shaping our everyday lives, lifestyles, relationships and livelihoods.

Apparently we are too naïve to see the forest for the trees. Ordinary people have lives to live. We don’t spend every waking moment trying to connect aspects of our lives with climate change.

Again the author assumes, with no evidence, that every major aspect of your life is connected to climate change. It must all be pointed out.

Of course, Boykoff will never get into the conflict-if-interest that plagues climate change research. Most of it is funded with a certain outcome expected. Remember, if you aren’t concluding that climate change is a threat to humanity, then you likely won’t be funded anymore. Why keep financing climate research if it isn’t an emergency?

There has been an urgent need to improve communications about climate change at the intersections of science, policy and society. With that in mind, I wrote Creative (Climate) Communications. It is essentially a handbook that bridges sectors and audiences to meet people where they are on this critical 21st-century challenge. In the book I integrate research from the social sciences and humanities that has provided insights into better understanding what communications work, where, when, why and under what conditions.

I also examine how to harness creativity for more effective engagement. I integrate these lessons by assembling what I call features on a “road map” along with “rules of the road.” The guide is then meant to help as researchers and practitioners proceed with both ambition and caution into struggles to effectively address the many issues associated with climate change.

Although Boykoff doesn’t come right out an say it, book is about marketing techniques. What tactics are most persuasive and under what circumstances? People can’t straight up accept “facts and truth”, it needs to be pointed out again and again.

In short, most people are too stupid to see the big picture. Boykoff implies it, but doesn’t not actually state it.

Through this guidance, I seek to help maximize effectiveness and opportunities and minimize mistakes and dead ends in a resource-, energy- and time-constrained environment. In putting this together, I also emphasize that successful and creative climate communications strategies must be tailored to perceived and intended audiences and can be most effective when pursued through relations of trust. And I underscore that context is critical; cultural, political, social, environmental, economic, ideological and psychological conditions matter.

Move away from hard data and facts. Use “soft techniques” to sell it. To once more point out the obvious, everything is connected to climate change.

I also argue that an expanded approach involves processes of listening and adapting rather than winning and argument or talking people into something. Authentically considering other points of view fosters meaningful exchanges and enhances possibilities for finding common ground. Facts established through scientific ways of knowing about climate change are important, but they are not enough. We therefore need to enlarge considerations of how knowledge influences actions, through experiential, emotional, visceral, tactile, tangible, affective and aesthetic ways of learning and knowing about climate change.

Facts aren’t enough. Tell people again and again, that climate change impacts everything. Look for more subtle ways to get your message across.

4. Reflection On This Article


To address the elephant in the room: it is darkly amusing to post in “Scientific American” about scientific methods to convince people to accept pseudo-science about climate change.

Boykoff mentions several times about considering other peoples’ perspectives. But this is hypocritical considering the amount of times “skeptics” or “deniers” are ridiculed or scorned for trying to find out the truth.

Boykoff also neglects any mention or idea that any of the “climate change” findings might be exaggerated or flat out wrong.

It seems the climate-change industry has given up on science, and instead focuses its efforts on trying to market their agenda.

Might be worth buying the book just to do a thorough debunking of it. Understand your enemy after all.