Tag Archives: Ricardo Duchesne

Canada Was NOT Created by Immigrants of Diverse Races: A Statistical Demonstration

Posted on by

Canada Was NOT Created by Immigrants of Diverse Races: A Statistical Demonstration

by Ricardo Duchesne

Canadian Soldiers in WW I
Canadian Soldiers in WW I

One of the most powerful memes in Canada is that “Canada is a nation of immigrants”. Millions of individuals have indeed migrated to Canada since John Cabot first claimed either Newfoundland or Cape Breton Island for England in 1497. But the intended meaning of this phrase goes well beyond this simple fact.

This phrase, continuously repeated by the media, and shoved down the throats of unsuspecting students from primary to higher education, is intended to fashion an image of Canada as a nation populated from the beginning by peoples from diverse cultures and racial backgrounds, in order to portray the Third World immigration patterns we have been witnessing since the 1970s as if they were a natural continuation — continuation naturelle — of past migration patterns, rather than as what they are: a radical departure aimed at the termination of Canada’s deep-seated European ethnic character.

What follows is a statistical refutation of this deceptive meme. The historical record, the facts we have about the people who came to Canada, the racial makeup of the immigrants, the proportion of Whites to non-Whites, the birth rate of Eurocanadians, the rates of immigration versus the domestic fertility rates, demonstrate, to the contrary, that Canada was a nation created from top to bottom by immigrants from Europe and by Eurocanadians born in Canada, with next to zero contributions by non-Europeans.

The Facts

Facts to lean on
  • In 1871, according to the first census after Confederation, of the total population of 3.2 million, 32 percent were of French ancestry, 24 percent Irish, 20 percent English, 16 percent Scottish, and 6 percent German. Notice, therefore, that we should acknowledge the immense importance of the Irish and Scots in the first centuries of “English Canada”. There were only 21,500 blacks and 23,000 natives in 1871; by contrast, there were 202,991 persons of German origin.
  • Canada cannot “accurately be portrayed at Confederation as a nation of immigrants”. In 1867, 79 percent had been born in Canada. Over the 400 years before Confederation, there were only “two quite limited periods” of substantial arrivals of immigrants: from 1783 to 1812, and from 1830 to 1850. In these two periods, the immigrants were “overwhelmingly of British origin”. Immigration was not a major factor in population growth from 1850 to the end of the nineteenth century. From 1871 to 1891, “a high rate of naturalincrease allowed the population of Canada to grow from 3.7 million to 4.8 million”.
Ukrainian Farming Family, Saskatchewan
    • From 1608 to 1760, immigration to New France consisted of only 10,000 settlers, and thereafter it was “almost non-existent”. The French-speaking population numbered about 90,000 by 1770s, and thereafter, until the late 1800s, the population expanded rapidly with women having 5.6 surviving children on average. The increase in population in Lower Canada from 330,000 in 1815 to 890,000 in 1851 “was mainly attributable to the continuing high birth rate within the French-speaking community”. By 1950, the Quebec population was almost 4 million. This increase was not a result of immigration, but primarily of the still continuing high fertility rates. It was only in the 1970s that Montreal saw an increasing inflow of non-European immigrants.
    • Between 1896 and 1914, Canada experienced high immigration levels with more than 3 million arriving within this period. However, the ethnic composition of the nation remained 84 percent of British and French origin, while the European component rose to 9 percent. Between 1900 and 1915, the high mark in “Asian immigration” before the 1960s, 50,000 immigrants of Japanese, East Indian and Chinese descent arrived, but this number comprised less than 2 percent of the total immigration flow. In contrast, in 1914, there were nearly 400,000 Germans in Canada, the largest ethnic group apart from the British (which includes the Irish and Scots) and French.
English Immigrants
English Immigrants
  • The total intake of immigrants between 1946 and 1962 was 2,151,505. At the same time however, between 1941 and 1962, the population of Canada increased from 11.5 million to 18.5 million, “largely accounted” by Canada’s “extremely high domestic birth rates”, the so-called baby boom generation. Ninety percent of all immigrants who came to Canada before 1961 were from Britain.
  • It was only after the institutionalization of official multiculturalism in 1971 that immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East and Asia at large started to arrive in large numbers. During the 1970s, the proportion originating in Europe was cut by half, whereas the proportion coming from Asia almost quadrupled. Of the 1.5 million who came between 1971 and 1981, 33 percent came from Asia, 16 percent from the Caribbean and South America and 5.5 percent from Africa.
  • In the period 1991-2001, immigrants of European origin fell below 20 percent at the same time that Asian immigration soared to nearly 60 percent. From 1991 to 2000, 2.2 million immigrants were accepted, the “highest ever for any decade”. In recent years, Canada’s visible minority population has been growing much faster than its total population: 22 percent growth from 1996 to 2001 versus 4 percent growth in the general population. Today, roughly one out of every four people in Canada is a member of a visible minority.

Fight Against Multicultural Revisionism!

George Orwell 1984 on control of the past
George Orwell (1984) on the totalitarian method of manipulating history

Don’t let them deceive you! Copy these facts and use them against the deceivers occupying our educational establishments. Don’t believe the globalist claim that your nation was a creation of diverse races and that “White racists” were supposedly hiding away the equal contribution of non-European immigrants. This is a historical falsehood of major proportions. Canada was created by people of British and French descent, and other European ancestries. All the institutions, legal system, educational curriculum, transformation of wilderness into productive farms, all the cities, the parliamentary traditions, the churches, the entire infrastructure of railways, ports, shipping industries, and highways, were created by hardworking Eurocanadians.


It should be noted that the following authors try to portray Canada as a nation that was from its beginning created by diverse immigrants leading to the official enactment of multiculturalism by P.E. Trudeau in 1971. Nevertheless the facts they bring out, which are the ones contained in the documents, show that Canada was a nation homogeneously White from its very beginnings.

  • J. M. Bumstead, Canada’s Diverse Peoples: A Reference Sourcebook, 2003
  • J. M. Bumstead, The People’s of Canada: A Pre-Confederation History, 2003 and The People’s of Canada: A Post-Confederation History, 2004
  • Ninette Kelley and Michael Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic. A History of Canadian Immigration Policy, 1998
  • Roger Riendeau, A Brief History of Canada, 2007

Canadian Cities as “Hubs of Diversity”: Part I

Posted on by



Canadian Cities as “Hubs of Diversity”: Part I
by Ricardo Duchesne

Inline image 1

Kerry Starchuk

Afew days ago the Canadian Race Relations Foundation sent an invitation to Kerry Starchuk to “two very important events” being hosted by this organization in the Greater Vancouver Area. The first event, “The Urban Agenda Vancouver. Creating a Great City of Communities”, is taking place at UBC Robson Square on January 19, 2016. The second one, “Richmond Living Together Symposium”, is taking place in Richmond, on January 21.

These two events, and other similar ones, have been occasioned by a need to reinforce among Vancouver residents the blessings of diversity in response to the dissenting actions of Kerry Starchuk, a fourth-generation resident of Richmond, which is sometimes identified as a city itself, or as part of “greater” Vancouver, against the usage of Chinese-only signs in businesses.

Starchuk has drawn local, national, and even international media attention. She is not a designated speaker at any of these events, but is expected to sit and listen to officially approved diversity ideologues. I will be writing about these two “very important events” in Part II.

I have spoken to Kerry a few times, and she is extremely upset and psychologically depressed about the way Asian immigration has ransacked the Anglo identity of Richmond. Her questioning of Chinese-only business signs poses no threat, and yet it has frightened the establishment for fear that her objections may open the door to a groundswell of discontent against the impending marginalization of Anglo-Europeans in Vancouver.

She has been an keen eye witness to an extreme demographic shift in Richmond, from a congenial and harmonious British city to a crass immigrant land-lot plastered with ugly Chinese commercial signs in just a matter of three decades. The Chinese proportion of the population has grown from 34% in 1996, 40% in 2001 and 45% in 2006, to 47% in 2011, and still rising. Overall, more than 70 per cent of Richmond’s population is currently categorized as a “visible minority”. The 30 percent White residents are still categorized as the “majority” and in need of learning to cope with diversity. 

Inline image 1

Journalists have flown in from places such as South Korea, Germany and Japan to spend days with Kerry Starchuk, to talk about the dramatic demographic changes occurring in Richmond, B.C.

Community Engagement: Language on Commercial Signs

What she, along with other and Richmond residents, has been pursuing in the last few years is a simple bylaw requiring English-only signage. But a few months ago, May 2015, Richmond Mayor Malcolm said there would be no language by-law. Instead there would be “education programs” “to facilitate community harmony”. The “two very important events” are a continuation of this effort. A preceding first effort, “Community Engagement: Language on Signage”, took place on March 2015, organized directly by the City of Richmond, described in the official website as “a multi-pronged outreach and education campaign to explore the issue of language on signs in the context of community harmony”. 

This workshop is worth examining in some detail. Innocuous a gathering as it may appear, a mere local affair, it is actually a salient embodiment of the ruling ideology of our times across the West. 

The workshop “presentation” is totally committed to further diversification, with the signage issue turned into an opportunity to “enhance intercultural harmony and co-operation in Richmond”. In order to make Richmond “the most appealing, liveable and well-managed community in Canada”, the presentation states that Richmond citizens need “to better incorporate a value for and understanding of diversity into all its planning and services.” Never mind that every other town and city in Canada has exactly the same mandate, celebrating each city as “unique in its diversity,” while making everyone feel that this is what all Canadians are doing, what is normal everywhere else. Every inhabitant ofevery city in Canada is being told that diversification is a unique component of their city’s vitality; making it the “most appealing and liveable” city. Not just in Canada, but in every country in the Western world. 

Richmond residents will be educated to have “pride in and respect for diverse heritages and traditions”. Be assured that this is primarily directed at White residents; the whole workshop, after all, was occasioned by the Anglo residents in Richmond who objected to Chinese-only signs. Richmond is already 50 percent homogeneously Chinese, and over 70 percent Asian, and the objective is to encourage the remaining White minority to accept the further expansion of Asian residents in Richmond. This is why the mandate looks to the future and speaks in terms of making Richmond “the most welcoming, inclusive and harmonious community in Canada”. 

There is stuff about “inter-faith dialogue” and, of course, about natives, with a brilliant new idea to hold “the first National Aboriginal Day Celebration at City Hall”. Natives are now regularly exploited as mascots by diversity promoters. 

There are two videos; in the first one we see the participants, mostly Whites and Chinese, with a few other Asians. They are all adults. Everyone gives pre-packaged answers, everyone is an agreeable participant in the diversity project; they are all “accepting” people; it is all about making diversity “work.” No one in the audience actually debates the merits of immigration or diversity itself. Whites are expected to be “accepting” about this “intercultural” state of affairs. This is why the new lingo of these promoters is “dialogue”, not “debate”, as we will see in more detail in Part II. 

Debating, a singularly Western trait, the spirit of inquiry, questioning, not accepting the claims of powerful elites, is now deemed by academics and leftist bureaucrats as too disruptive and not conducive to “community harmony”. These are the same arguments elites made in Communist and Nazi controlled societies. 

The second video consists of pro-diversity answers about Richmond and the signage issue. Most of the respondents are non-White, and they all love diversity; some say it might be a good idea to add English in the Chinese-only signs, but the fact that Richmond originally an Anglo community and is undergoing a radical demographic transformation with no end in sight, is not even an issue. Everyone interviewed was a conformist or a minority enjoying multicultural welfare. Diversity is great, and it does not matter if it means less Whites, that is the objective. One Asian in the video is sympathetic to the presence of Chinese-only signs, for, after all, she noticed that this “community” is mostly Chinese; so why should non-Chinese immigrants expects the Chinese majority not to use only their language? 

This is the “ideas board”: 

Inline image 3

This is what politics among adults in Canada has been reduced to; child like images and child like slogans interpreted as “ideas” — all amounting to the acceptance of mass immigration and the displacement of Whites from their homelands.

Artistic Rendition of Canadian/Western Values

There is an “artistic rendition of workshop discussion,” which is even more revealing in capturing all the central tenets, feelings, and cliches of the diversity regimen. This work of “art” is the front image for this article, which can be foundhere. According to this artist, “community harmony” was agreed upon by the participants, and by this they meant “multiple sounds”, “empathy”, “inclusive”, “capacity for difference”, “understanding before judgment”, “addressing racism”, “multiculturalism”. These values are inherently inclusive and everyone agrees that they are good; capacity for difference does mean a capacity to think whether diversity may be entailing the radical dissolution of Eurocanadian communities, whether Richmond was already harmonious and democratic before the Asian invasion. 

No, it means a capacity to accept the dissolution of Canadian communities, to accept on your knees millions of immigrants, their different customs, languages, even if this brings an Asian ethnic majority in many cities in Canada. One of the values stressed in this workshop is “good conversation” and “shared vision”; sharing, that is, the diversity vision, and talking about issues in a way that is not disruptive, through amicable dialogue, amicable acceptance of the goals. 

There is “rendition” of questions about assimilation: should new immigrants assimilate the same way Eurocanadians did, learning the English language? I am sure there were participants in this harmonious workshop with queries, comments about what exactly multiculturalism entails; does it mean retaining one’s culture, or do new immigrants assimilate to “Canadian values”? But in reality this question is deservedly on the margins of the artistic rendition, since “Canadians values” have already been predefined by the harmonizers as “multiculturalism”, “respect” for “difference”, for the Chinese language. 

“How do we learn from other ethnic leaders?” It is a done deal: Diversity = Canada, and it means accepting it, and those who want to debate the principles will not be tolerated, accepted, included in the workshop, but instead will be labelled as beyond the pale of acceptable dialogue, ostracized in the most damaging ways, with labels intended to avoid any discussion with them. 

This artistic rendition sums up the entire philosophical outlook dominating the West today. It is the same view Justin Trudeau continually voices when he says that Canada is not really a nation but a place in which humans from multiple cultures around the world hold the same common values of diversity, tolerance, and inclusiveness. It is the view every leader of the West, be they socialist, liberal, or conservative, expresses whenever they make a general statement about their most deeply held beliefs as leaders of their countries.

Multiculturalism and Marxist Bias in Academia – SWC Interviews Dr. Ricardo Duchesne

Posted on by