While the British Columbia provincial NDP divides Canadians between indigenous and non-indigenous, OneBC believes in unity. We’re ALL Canadian and only Canadian, with equal rights and no special privileges.
This NDP government has been stopping economic development with the justification of First Nations people when their own policies are hurting the First Nations community.
We need prosperity for all not poverty for all, but the NDP thinks that everything will be better if we are all equally poor.
White Guilt, Made Up Native “History”, Out-of-Control Courts: Could this be the end of private land ownership in Canada?
All eyes are on Richmond, B.C., a Vancouver suburb now at the centre of a growing storm over private land rights in Canada. A recent Supreme Court ruling granted Aboriginal title to the Cowichan Tribes on privately owned land. Days later, homeowners opened their mail to discover something shocking — they might not fully own their homes after all! Amid a nationwide push for “reconciliation,” many Canadians are now asking the same question: Are our homes truly safe? This decision has reignited the debate over land acknowledgements —the scripted rituals repeated in schools, workplaces, and government meetings. If these acknowledgements declare that Canada sits on “stolen land,” are they quietly laying the groundwork for more claims like the one in Richmond?
That’s why OneBC Leader Dallas Brodie introduced the Land Acknowledgement Prohibition Act last week. It’s a bill she calls a stand against “the anthem of a suicidal nation.” I sat down with Brodie and her Chief of Staff Tim Theilmann, a former Aboriginal law attorney, to talk about why this bill mattered. I also spoke with B.C. Conservative MLA David Williams to discuss why most of his party joined the NDP in killing this bill. Click here to watch my report.
Land acknowledgements have gone from symbolic to absurd ritualistic mantras that humiliate ordinary Canadians and deny our country’s sovereignty. Unfortunately, Brodie’s bill never got a fair hearing, thanks to the NDP, and shockingly, most of the B.C. Conservatives. (If the so-called Conservatives won’t defend land rights, what exactly are they conserving?)
This situation is directly connected to B.C.’s adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) — now law in the province. Brodie’s bill was an opportunity to push back against compelled speech and to stand up for B.C.’s sovereignty. Instead, the political class chose cowardice and wouldn’t even allow the bill to pass first reading. If you want to help fight back against this UN-fuelled overreach and support our independent reporting that defends Canada’s sovereignty, visit StopUNDRIP.com.
Yours truly, Drea Humphrey
P.S. B.C.’s UN-inspired Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act creates a two-tiered society where an elite group’s influence and legal authority take precedence over the interests of the vast majority of Canadians. That’s not reconciliation. It’s discrimination. Help us stop it by visiting StopUNDRIP.com and sending a one-click email to B.C. Premier David Eby demanding this dangerous law be repealed.
Media refuse to expose the relationship between immigration policy and rising political power being accumulated by Canada’s “special interest” communities.
For those concerned with a morphing of Canadian society toward “post-modern” status, a particular phenomenon remains worthy of public exposure.
It goes like this: when “special interest” communities experience incidents of so-called racism, media scream it to the high-heavens. Conversely, in cases of socio-political accomplishment, we hear nothing but a cacophony of silence.
Take, for example, the Liberal government-3rd World political powerhouse in the Greater Toronto Area. This geographic area can accurately be described as “Third World” central. In this regard, the key to the Liberal Party domination in ridings such as Brampton, Ontario remain poorly understood among Canadian society.
Within these ridings, demographics and political power go hand-in-hand. Brampton is a white-minority riding. Of its five members of Parliament, four are Sikh-Canadian and the other Muslim-Canadian.
Those interested in the “changing face” of Canadian society should be aware of these circumstances. Due to media sublimation, most of us don’t have a clue regarding the extent of ethnocentricity employed by election strategists.
Who more than government understand Canadian demography as shaped through immigration intake? Applied for decades, the formula runs like this: analyze a riding’s ethnic identity; match MP candidates with the dominant ethnicity.
As millions of 3rd world migrants arrive in Canada, the phenomenon filters down to a provincial level. Take, for example, the upcoming election in British Columbia. A quick analysis of candidate identity tells the story.
B.C. contains 93 provincial ridings. In total, 31 Sikh-Canadians are registered as MLA candidates, most of whom are running for the New Democratic Party. Where the rubber hits the ethnocentric road is found in 11 ridings in particular. Most are urban, with the phenomenon now spreading suburban and rural constituencies.
Burnaby-Centre, Burnaby-South, Delta-North, Richmond-Centre, Richmond-Bridgeport, Richmond-Queensborough, Surrey City Centre, Surrey-North, Surrey-Fleetwood, Surrey-Newton, Surrey-Panorama, Vancouver-Fraserview, Vancouver-Hastings.
What do these provincial ridings have in common? No white candidates– that’s what. In our mind, CAP can now hear the accusations of “racism” begin to roll. But is it really the case?
Is it not a matter of exposing what legacy media neglect to place in front of the eyes of Canadians? And that reasons why are to be found in potential accusations of racism toward media? This information is factual, not conjecture. In this, we see how our country is being held hostage by the mighty “race-card.” Our eyes open to the idea that this dynamic is leading to comprehensive social inversion in Canada.
Media refrain from speaking of the trajectory of demographic identity rooted in immigration policy. Immigration is power. It’s the lifeblood by which “Old Stock” Canadians are to transition to a minority community as we stumble our way toward the half-century mark in 2050.
The riding of Vancouver-Hastings is a solo affair. Elections B.C. list a single candidate, current provincial NDP Attorney General Niki Sharma. In Langley-Highlands, incumbent NDP Minister of Housing Ravi Kahlon is all-but certain to retain his seat. Surrey-North NDP MLA Rachna Singh, Minister of Education, is a controversial figure, so much so that members of her own community have attempted to remove her from office based on her LGBT affectations:
“An attempt to recall British Columbia’s education minister has failed. The attempt, filed by Gurdeep Jassal, had to collect signatures from more than 40 per centof eligible voters (11,811 signatures) in Rachna Singh’s Surrey-Green Timbers riding by Jan. 29, 2024.”
Additional members of the Executive include Jagrup Brar, Minister of Trade; Harry Bains, Minister of Labour. All told, Sikh-Canadians comprise 20% of executive members of the NDP government in British Columbia. An interesting fact, seeing as the Sikh community population of B.C. was 290,870 as of April 2024. In 2019, the population of British Columbia was just over 5 million. The math informs us that 5.9% of the provincial population is Sikh.
What does this tell us? Cultural Action Party [est.2016] pull no punches. Sikh-Canadian politicians are over-represented in British Columbia. Why do we harp on this?
The reason why is found in the perpetual narrative from Canada’s woke contingent which demands “proportional representation” according to demographic make-up. The “multiculturalists” love this one, leveraging Canada’s changing demography to advance their ethnocentric interests.
Yet, when over-representation rules the roost, Canadians hear nothing about it. In this, we come to understand how the prickly issue of “racism” is being used by government and media to control Canadian society.
Shafted in the entire procedure are Canada’s multi-generational “Old Stock” Anglophone communities. The more immigration, the faster our country transitions to the “stuff of globalist dreams.”
With federal New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh playing back-up quarterback, the entire circumstance is devoid of media exposure. Obviously, they want what Trudeau and Singh want.
The election in B.C. also includes a dozen candidates drawn from Chinese-Muslim communities. Caught in the crossfire are Canada’s “silent majority,” held captive by political correctness and additional elements of socio-political control falling under the under the umbrella of “liberalism.”
Filtering down to the provincial level in British Columbia and Ontario, it’s only a matter of time before our entire nation is reconfigured through immigration policy and its socio-political manifestations.
The White-Hating Wrecking Crew Want to Abolish Dundas St.
Back in 2021 on July 14 (ironically the French Revolution’s Bastille Day), after the orgy of Black Lives Matter guilt-mongering, the ultra woke City of Toronto voted to change the name of Dundas Street, a long east-west throughfare that actually extends all the way west to London, Ontario. Dundas is also the name of a county and a city (now part of Hamilton, Ontario), a city square, and many streets and parks across Ontario.
A statement from the City explains: “Following discovery sessions with Black, Indigenous and other local community members [were any Old Stock Canadians consulted?] , extensive academic research and a review of over 400 global case studies, this decision furthers the City’s commitment to confronting anti-Black racism, advancing truth, reconciliation and justice, and building a more inclusive and equitable Toronto.” Yes, more inclusive by excluding a part of our history.
According to Wikipedia, “Henry Dundas (1742-1811) 1st Viscount Melville, PC, FRSE, styled as Lord Melville from 1802, was the trusted lieutenant of British Prime MinisterWilliam Pitt and the most powerful politician in Scotland in the late 18th century.” He was an important politician at a time of rapid growth in Upper Canada, now Ontario. While he supported abolition and even won a key legal victory to keep a runaway Jamaican slave in Britain free from being returned, his critics claim that he advocated gradual rather than immediate abolition of slavery. In 1807, the Slave Trade Act abolished slavery in Britain. Dundas’s moderate approach had got the job done. But even moderation is not enough for the White haters and self-haters.
The City of Toronto is all but broke. It needs to find $1.5-billion to balance its budget. Nevertheless, Toronto NDP Chinese Mayor Olivia Chow remains gung-ho on renaming Dundas St. and squandering $8.6-million to replace 730 signs.
Even three centrist or leftist former Toronto Mayors have spoken out against renaming Dundas Street. “In their Aug. 14 letter, Art Eggleton, David Crombie, and John Sewell, however, say there’s reason to believe that Dundas was not the person many think he was and was, in fact, a ‘committed abolitionist.’ They point to a case that Dundas took on in Scotland in 1778 where he defended an enslaved man named Joseph Knight. Their letter read that in court, Dundas said that he ‘hoped for the honour of Scotland, that the Supreme Court of this country would not be the only court that would give its sanction to so barbarous a claim. Human nature, my Lords, spurns at the thought of slavery among any part of our species.’ ‘The judges not only agreed but ended slavery completely in Scotland,’ they wrote in the three-page letter.” (CTV News, August 21, 2023)
Most Canadians are probably not aware that on April 1 of this year, they will be told to celebrate “Sikh Heritage Month”. The following is a list of reasons why Parliament should have never even considered the celebration of a “Sikh Heritage Month” (the result of a law passed by Canada’s Parliament.). (1)
The behaviour of some of the earliest Sikhs to arrive in Canada in 1914 was a foreshadowing and a warning. It demonstrated Sikh willingness to use fraudulent documents. It also showed their arrogant attitude. They believed that they had a right to enter Canada and that Canada had no right to oppose their entry. Current NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has the same arrogant attitude. That 1914 incident helps to explain much of what happened later. Sikhs repeatedly use that event to proclaim victim status. They omit many facts including the fact that Sikhs assassinated a Canadian immigration agent. They also omit the fact that the leader of the 1914 Sikh expedition boasted that if he succeeded in landing his passengers, he would bring 25,000 more Sikhs soon after. This threat would have alarmed Canadians because if it had come true, it would have greatly changed Vancouver’s entire cultural make-up. To show some context, consider this: around 1914, the City of Vancouver had a population of about 60,000. For details of the entire 1914 incident, see https://immigrationwatchcanada.org/2008/05/22/the-voyage-of-the-komagata-maru-a-review-and-a-short-summary/ (2)
Although many years of Sikh immigration peace followed, the Singh Decision of 1985 signaled the beginning of Sikh-caused refugee and immigration chaos in Canada. In doing so, Sikhs helped to turn Canada’s refugee system into a quasi-judicial body which soon became mired in tens of thousands of claims (most of them illegitimate). For details see: https://immigrationwatchcanada.org/2005/03/23/the-1985-singh-decision-disaster-vs-the-1985-air-india-disaster/ According to reliable sources, those claims have cost Canada billions of dollars and saddled Canada with people who have contempt for Canada. Is this supposed to be an example of the “Sikh Heritage” that Canadians are expected to celebrate every April? (3)
The Sikh bombing (the murder of 329 people about an Air India plane in 1985) should have moved Canada to place severe restrictions on Sikh immigration. But it did not. That bombing incident (which originated in Vancouver where Sikhs placed bombs on two planes) was the largest mass murder in Canadian history. Instead for years, Trudeau has groveled to the Sikhs. Most important, none of the Sikh ringleaders of the 329 murders has been sentenced for that crime. https://immigrationwatchcanada.org/2016/04/25/dont-apologize-sikhs/ We repeat, Is this another example of the “Sikh Heritage” that Canadians are supposed to celebrate every April? (4)
A major reason why the Sikh bombers have never been held to account is the culture of intimidation by militant Sikhs of other Sikhs. The identities of the Sikh perpetrators are quite likely known even by the Sikh members of Trudeau’s cabinet, not to mention Trudeau himself and hundreds of other Sikh politicians and professionals. As a result, hundreds of the relatives of the 329 murdered victims have never received justice. Until the Sikh criminals are behind bars, the word “Sikh” will be a dirty word to those relatives and to millions of other Canadians. Most Canadians want nothing to do with those Sikhs – let alone celebrate “SIKH HERITAGE”. (5)
Worse still, young and older male Sikhs have become significantly involved in drug industry criminality in Canada. However, when drug incidents are reported, our treacherous CBC and other media make a point of not disclosing the names of the Sikh murderers or Sikhs murdered. Most Canadians have come to expect that when the CBC or other media begrudgingly do reveal the names of the criminals, those names will be ones such as Parvinder, Balwinder or some other Sikh first name. In Metro Vancouver, Sikhs have complained that they needed more police to deal with drug-dealing and drug gang killings. Ironically, the truth is that many people in Metro Vancouver think that Metro Vancouver does not need more police. Instead, it needs fewer Sikhs and less Sikh immigration. In fact, Metro Vancouver residents have also thought that Sikh parents had to finally accept a “Canadian” cultural trait, that of being responsible for their delinquent offspring. Those parents should not be expecting the “gum’mint” to do that job for them. Again, is this very visible Sikh cultural defect what corrupt Sikhs want all Canadians to celebrate every April? (6)
Canadians have become incredibly fed up with aggressive immigrants (both Sikhs and others) who demand that Canada adapt to immigrant customs. So far, no group has made as many demands for exemptions from Canadian laws as the Sikhs. In fact, Sikh demands to wear their turbans and their kirpans have been endless. If Sikhs really want to retain their customs, why are they here? Why would Canada want to create (A) another political mess such as India’s Punjab here and (B) an environmental disaster such as India in Canada through relentless Sikh immigration? (7)
Sikhs have grossly abused Canadian PM Chretien’s naive decision to create an additional Canadian consulate in India’s Punjab. That consulate has become notorious for being the fraud capital of all of Canada’s consulates and embassies in the world. Tens of thousands of Sikhs have entered Canada as a result of fraud there. In other words, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Sikhs have entered Canada illegally. Why would Canada want to celebrate being defrauded by these people? The numbers are not an exaggeration. At recent Sikh festivals in the Vancouver and Toronto areas, some Sikh leaders have boasted that up to 500,000 Sikhs attended. Who else besides corrupt Liberal leader Trudeau and equally corrupt NDP leader Jagmeet Singh would want to celebrate a heritage of political sodomy and shameless fraud? (8)
Political accommodation to the Sikhs has reached new levels of degradation under Trudeau. It is incredible that not a single MP voted against or abstained from voting when the “Sikh Heritage Month” bill was introduced in Parliament. To summarize: Is it sane to accept Sikh political degradation as part of Canada’s “heritage”? This list could be ten times as long. To put the matter bluntly but truthfully, the passing of the Sikh Heritage Act in 2015 is an example of how Canada’s Parliament has descended into the most degrading acts of political sodomy and boot-licking.
Our CBC and many politicians are proud to engage in such activity, but to recover Parliament’s dignity, here is what Parliament should do immediately : REPEAL THE “SIKH HERITAGE MONTH” BILL . IN ITS PLACE, INTRODUCE NEW BILLS TO PROTECT CANADA’S FRENCH AND UK HERITAGE AND PROTECT CANADA’S BORDERS !! For details about Jagmeet Singh’s involvement in Sikh violence, see https://www.reddit.com/r/metacanada/comments/hen2eb/reminder_jagmeet_singh_is_banned_from_india_for/ Dan Murray, Immigration Watch Canada \
Opinion: Immigration may make global net-zero carbon harder
How can the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Greens and Bloc Québécois claim to believe in man-caused climate change – much less support remedies for it – when they ALL continue to support mass immigration?
If the Conservative Party of Canada supports the classical liberal notion of free trade along with mass immigration and official multiculturalism – then what exactly are they“conserving”? This question is now even more timely and relevant as Erin O’Toole apparently opposes social conservatism in all of its forms.How can they claim to be “conservative”when they support liberalized trade, immigration and social policies?
The People’s Party of Canada at least offers a home for social conservatives, supporters of free speech and those who wish to preserve Canada’s current ethnocultural character by way of immigration reductionism as well as an end to official multiculturalism.
However, the PPC still supports free trade,deregulation, outsourcing, offshoring and supply side economics.
A true Conservative political party in the historic High Tory MacDonald to Diefenbaker tradition would support a highly restrictive and reductionist citizenship & immigration policy,assimilation over multiculturalism, economic nationalism and trade protectionism. It would also not demonize social conservatives nor restrict freedom of expression. It would seek to unapologetically preserve the Monarchy,appointed Senate, and our Christian European heritage.
In my opinion, O’Toole AND Bernier are completely divorced from the Canadian High Tory tradition a la MacDonald to Diefenbaker. BOTH offer half bakedversions of the real thing. Thatcherism and Reaganism – which most aspiring Canadian Conservative leaders (including O’Toole & Bernier) have sought to emulate – in whole or part – over the past 40 years – are in reality repackaged 19th century British Liberalism (Gladstonian liberalism)
NDP Jagmeet Singh and Jenny Kwan: ‘White Racists Need to understand that we Asians are the Future of Canada!’
As Canada approaches a fall Federal Election, politicians’ misunderstanding of immigration’s role in Canada becomes more and more ominous. Traditionally, Canada’s politicians believed that immigration had to serve the needs and interests of its majority population. After all, if Canada’s politicians did not look after the needs and interests of its majority population, who would?
However, as Canadians have observed over the past 30 years, Prime Ministers such as Chretien, Martin, Harper and Trudeau have refused to end Canada’s high and unnecessary immigration intake. As a result, the interests of recently-arrived immigrants such as Muslims, Sikhs, Chinese and others have taken priority over the needs and interests of Canada’s majority population. In other words, the question that most recent PM’s have dealt with is not “Should we bootlick?”, but “Can we get down to bootlick faster than our opponents?” All those PM’s have degraded the PM’s office and the entire country with their boot-licking. With only four years in office, Justin Trudeau has out-done all of his boot-licking predecessors. And, contrary to what Trudeau thinks, boot-licking is not something to be proud of.
As for MP’s, most people who aspire to become one have abandoned the traditional idea that immigration should serve the interests of Canada and its majority population. For example, the contrast between the nationalist immigration views of the NDP’s founder (J.S. Woodsworth) and the NDP’s recently-elected leader, Jagmeet Singh and other NDP MP’s such as Jenny Kwan is one of many examples of how disgraceful politicians’ behaviour has become.
Singh is an ethnic Sikh and Kwan is an ethnic Chinese. Their primary loyalties are to their ethnic groups, not to Canada. Their primary goal is to increase the numbers of their groups through high immigration. Kwan demonstrated that several months ago in her role as the NDP’s immigration critic when she led a charge to remove health restrictions on immigrants.
Essentially, Kwan argued that if a potential immigrant is sick, Canada should not prevent that person from entering Canada. In her view, such a practice would discriminate against sick people!! That view is one that NDP founder Woodsworth and traditional NDP’ers would have vehemently opposed.
Kwan went even further. She spoke in favour of a new law that establishes every April as Sikh Heritage Month. To most Canadians, the biggest “heritage’ that Sikhs have in Canada is the bombing of Air India, an incident that killed 329 Canadians. Why is this group, whose members are responsible for the largest mass murder in Canadian history, to be honoured? If anything, they should rot in Canada’s “Hall of Shame” forever.
Kwan may have heard Woodsworth’s name, but she definitely knows little about the traditions bequeathed by Woodsworth and the early NDP to her political party and to Canada. Woodsworth was a Canadian patriot who was very proud of Canada’s founding French and UK settlers. Woodsworth revealed his nationalist outlook about immigration in his 1909 book titled “Strangers Within Out Gates”.
‘White Supremacists have no right to complain about Chinese millionaires controlling the real estate market: get used to it, Vancouver now belongs to the Chinese!’
Like the current NDP leader and many NDP MP’s, Kwan has probably never even heard of Woodsworth’s book, let alone read it. In her most notorious statement as an elected politician , she defended Chinese Immigrant Entrepreneur tax evaders when she stated : “The Chinese are very private about their money.” When some legislators discussed a law to make Chinese millionaire immigrants pay their share of income taxes, Kwan objected :”This law (against Chinese tax evasion) goes against our culture.”
As for Singh, in his acceptance speech as the new NDP leader, he virtually declared that Canada’s two founding groups had no right to be in Canada. In his contempt for Canada’s majority population, Singh has obviously alienated NDP donors and probably tens of thousands of traditional NDP voters. In fact, Jagmeet and his clawing and grasping Sikh supporters, in their crude grab for power, may well turn the NDP into dog meat in the Fall election. Jagmeet himself could well become dog meat.
‘Nothing gives me more pride than my Sikh heritage in my country Canada…There is no place in Canada for EuroCanadian Pride!’
In his 1909 book, Woodsworth foresees that immigrants are becoming a political force and that their interest in getting the franchise and in voting will make them a stronger force in future. He quotes American researcher Preston F. Hall on immigrants impact on the U.S. :
The heterogeneity of these races tends to promote passion, localism, and despotism, and to make impossible free co-operation for the public welfare. (P.208)
Trudeau and other politician boot-lickers should take special note of Woodsworth’s support of Preston. What Preston and Woodsworth are saying is that Diversity is not the strength of immigrant-receiving countries. In fact, it is a significant societal weakness which leads to passion (= violence), localism (= the triumph of local tribal concerns over national ones) and despotism (= an overall lack of social cohesion).
In addition, Woodsworth is saying that the lack of social cohesion can lead to the break-up of countries who currently allow extremely foolish and naive high immigration intakes.
Politicians are taking us down the road to Dogmeat
Dan Murray,
Immigration Watch Canada
As Canada approaches a fall Federal Election, politicians’ misunderstanding of immigration’s role in Canada becomes more and more ominous. Traditionally, Canada’s politicians believed that immigration had to serve the needs and interests of its majority population. After all, if Canada’s politicians did not look after the needs and interests of its majority population. who would?
However, as Canadians have observed over the past 30 years, Prime Ministers such as Chretien, Martin, Harper and Trudeau have refused to end Canada’s high and unnecessary immigration intake. As a result, the interests of recently-arrived immigrants such as Muslims, Sikhs, Chinese and others have taken priority over the needs and interests of Canada’s majority population. In other words, the question that most recent PM’s have dealt with is not “Should we bootlick?”, but “Can we get down to bootlick faster than our opponents?” All those PM’s have degraded the PM’s office and the entire country with their boot-licking. With only four years in office, Justin Trudeau has out-done all of his boot-licking predecessors. And, contrary to what Trudeau thinks, boot-licking is not something to be proud of.
As for MP’s, most people who aspire to become one have abandoned the traditional idea that immigration should serve the interests of Canada and its majority population. For example, the contrast between the nationalist immigration views of the NDP’s founder (J.S. Woodsworth) and the NDP’s recently-elected leader, Jagmeet Singh and other NDP MP’s such as Jenny Kwan is one of many examples of how disgraceful politicians’ behaviour has become.
Singh is an ethnic Sikh and Kwan is an ethnic Chinese. Their primary loyalties are to their ethnic groups, not to Canada. Their primary goal is to increase the numbers of their groups through high immigration. Kwan demonstrated that several months ago in her role as the NDP’s immigration critic when she led a charge to remove health restrictions on immigrants. Essentially, Kwan argued that if a potential immigrant is sick, Canada should not prevent that person from entering Canada. In her view, such a practice would discriminate against sick people!! That view is one that NDP founder Woodsworth and traditional NDP’ers would have vehemently opposed. Kwan went even further. She spoke in favour of a new law that establishes every April as Sikh Heritage Month. To most Canadians, the biggest “heritage’ that Sikhs have in Canada is the bombing of Air India, an incident that killed 329 Canadians. Why is this group, whose members are responsible for the largest mass murder in Canadian history, to be honoured? If anything, they should rot in Canada’s “Hall of Shame” forever.
Kwan may have heard Woodsworth’s name, but she definitely knows little about the traditions bequeathed by Woodsworth and the early NDP to her political party and to Canada. Woodsworth was a Canadian patriot who was very proud of Canada’s founding French and UK settlers. Woodsworth revealed his nationalist outlook about immigration in his 1909 book titled “Strangers Within Out Gates”.
Like the current NDP leader and many NDP MP’s, Kwan has probably never even heard of Woodsworth’s book, let alone read it. In her most notorious statement as an elected politician , she defended Chinese Immigrant Entrepreneur tax evaders when she stated : “The Chinese are very private about their money.” When some legislators discussed a law to make Chinese millionaire immigrants pay their share of income taxes, Kwan objected :”This law (against Chinese tax evasion) goes against our culture.”
As for Singh, in his acceptance speech as the new NDP leader, he virtually declared that Canada’s two founding groups had no right to be in Canada. In his contempt for Canada’s majority population, Singh has obviously alienated NDP donors and probably tens of thousands of traditional NDP voters. In fact, Jagmeet and his clawing and grasping Sikh supporters, in their crude grab for power, may well turn the NDP into dog meat in the Fall election. Jagmeet himself could well become dog meat.
In his1909 book, Woodsworth foresees that immigrants are becoming a political force and that their interest in getting the franchise and in voting will make them a stronger force in future. He quotes American researcher Preston F. Hall on immigrants impact on the U.S. : “The heterogeneity of these races tends to promote passion, localism, and despotism, and to make impossible free co-operation for the public welfare”. (P.208)
Trudeau and other politician boot-lickers should take special note of Woodsworth’s support of Preston. What Preston and Woodsworth are saying is that Diversity is not the strength of immigrant-receiving countries. In fact, it is a significant societal weakness which leads to passion (violence), localism (the triumph of local tribal concerns over national ones) and despotism (an overall lack of social cohesion).
In addition, Woodsworth is saying that the lack of social cohesion can lead to the break-up of countries who currently allow extremely foolish and naive high immigration intakes.
Early Morning in Toronto Hospital Immigrants start lining up to collect Socialized Medicine
Aged hospitals, atrocious wait times, fewer cutting edge treatments, fewer new drugs, a shortage of doctors, a paucity of acute care hospital beds, unfunded liabilities that constitute 46% of the national economy, a middling performance about among countries with universal medical access—yes, the truth is out about Canada’s acclaimed health care system.
You know, the one that American progressives love so much from afar. The one that Canadians ardently loved too—until the 1990s. Then two things happened.
One was a dramatic shift in immigration policy taken by the then Brian Mulroney government at the end of the 1991, when it was announced that annual immigration intakes would virtually double. The second thing to happen was that wait times for necessary surgical procedures grew longer. And longer—until today, the median wait time today of over 21 weeks is twice as long as it was then.
Coincidence? It would stretch credulity to the extreme to deny a connection. The greater the number of patients, the greater demand that is placed on the system, and immigration-driven population growth has added more than 7 million medical consumers to the queue since the departure of “Lyin’ Brian”.
Last year, Canadian taxpayers spent roughly $250 billion on health care, an expenditure equivalent to ll.5% of Canada’s GDP. That works out to over $6,600 per person. Now, one would think that that would be enough to provide us with the comprehensive care we crave. But it’s not. Ours is not an integrated system. Unlike the British National Health Service for example, physiotherapy, dental care and vision care are not covered. Neither are ambulance rides, plus a host of other out-of-pocket expenditures, including, for most of us, the crippling cost of drugs. If the Trudeau government delivers on the promise of a national pharmacare program, you can add another thousand bucks to the $6,600. A figure that’s been growing 4% a year of late.
That $6,600, however, is just an average. What of elderly parents sponsored by adult children under the rubric of “family reunification”? What of the unskilled migrants from “non-traditional” sources who don’t earn enough income to offset the cost of the social services provided to them? Migrants who impose a net fiscal burden of approximately $35 billion a year on Canadian taxpayers? And what about the many tens of thousands of refugee claimants whose settlement costs anywhere from $12,000 to $20,000 a pop? It would be reasonable to assume migrants from Less Developed Countries come with a backlog of unattended medical problems.
Already the big ticket item in every Provincial budget—accounting almost half of all program expenditures—health care spending in this country is on an unsustainable trajectory. The reasons are many. Rising drug costs, the price of new medical technology, over-centralization, the lack of community health clinics, a failure to shift toward preventive and holistic medicine, a failure to implement economies, the under-funding of home care and the refusal of many Canadians to take responsibility for their own health—all factor into the conversation. But the elephant in the hospital room, immigration policy, is a no go zone.
This is not just an issue of financial impositions. There is a human cost as well. The cost born by Canadians who must endure acute pain while waiting in a long line up to get a CT scan or see a specialist, only to join another long line up to have the actual operation. If you want to gauge their suffering think not in terms of faceless millions, but of individuals you may know who suffer in silence or turn to pain killers to get them through the night, and the many months ahead. When I do that, I think of my late mother and the hardship she endured in her final years. I think of the evening when, at age 86, had a medical event in a Vancouver suburb.
Hallway medicine is a reality in many Canadian hospitals
Mom was rushed to hospital only to have to spend the night lying in a gurney in the hallway. All beds were taken. According to protocol, the paramedics who carried her in from the ambulance had to stand around until she was admitted to the emergency ward. They had a long evening. So did I. When morning broke we all knew each other’s life stories.
There was a lot of talking done that night, and at least half of it was in languages other than English. The signs posted near the waiting room and receptions were multilingual. English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and another from the Indian subcontinent. Our other official language—French—was not on the menu. Quite telling that. At times the scene was chaotic because staff were running around trying to make themselves understood.
That’s a common problem in Lower Mainland hospitals. Hallway medicine, stressed out nurses, and very long surgery waits—that’s the reality of our much vaunted health care system, a system that was not designed to cope with the crushing demands now made upon it, never mind the demands which the immigration and refugee lobby would further add. It is confounding that many of the people who grumble about having to wait 6 months to see a specialist or 8 months to get a hip replacement are the same people who favour open borders policies. They don’t connect the dots.
Thankfully, my mother survived the night, but her lifelong socialist convictions did not.
My parents were among the founding members of Canada’s democratic socialist party in 1933, the CCF, re-branded as the NDP in 1961. They fought for the establishment of a welfare state—a 40 hour week, unemployment insurance, government auto insurance…and of course socialized medicine. When the NDP finally formed the government in British Columbia in 1972, they were elated, like most working class people of their generation. Having met the brutal challenges of the Depression and the War, it seemed then that their sacrifices would be rewarded with a worry free future. They would never have to worry about getting the kind of care they would require in their golden years.
But like the loyal working class supporters of labour and social democratic parties in Britain, Europe and Australia, they were betrayed by the politicians who claimed to be their advocates. They worked hard and paid their taxes, only to see people who had never put a nickel into the system bumped to the head of the queue. It was sad to see their bodies fail, but it was heartbreaking to witness their disillusionment. Their God had failed them.
Mom and Dad never left the NDP. The NDP left them.
Nobel Peace Prize winning economist Milton Friedman once said that you can have mass immigration or you can have the welfare state. But you can’t have both. The NDP chose mass immigration.
Meet Ms. Perpetually Outraged. Meet Jenny Kwan. Jenny is the archetypical Social Justice Warrior. A champion of the downtrodden, the marginalized, the excluded, The Other. Her C.V. is impressive.
Jenny was born to be the Immigration critic for the New Democratic Party. Especially now, when we all bear witness to an unfolding global migration crisis that threatens to worsen by several degrees of magnitude in the coming decade. This is her time.
Jenny’s world is full of victims. She sees victims —and perpetrators—everywhere. And if she can’t meet her quota of victims in Canada, she will look for victims in 194 other countries. And all of them, apparently, have a right to seek refuge in Canada.
For Jenny, and all of her parliamentary colleagues, Canada is a land of infinite capacity. It is a big place with lots of room for lots of people. A treasure trove of resources that need only be tapped to fund a social safety net for all of humanity. We can be the soup kitchen of the world. The hospital for all who are sick. An counselling centre for all those who have been traumatized. The words “carrying capacity” are beyond her comprehension. If there is no food in the kitchen, we need only extend the table.
In Jenny’s world, there are no limits. No financial limits. No limits to ethnic fragmentation. No limits to the ability of a nation like ours to assimilate or integrate a multitude of ethnicities. No limits to growth in a finite world. The only limits Jenny can imagine are the limits that she wants to set on free expression, on the speech of people who disagree with her vision of utopia. Every dissident view is inherently “hateful”. Even the mildest criticism of diversity or God forbid, immigration and refugee policy, is intolerant and unacceptable. There is no place in Jenny’s world for opinions like that.
Jenny never met a refugee claimant—or a potential refugee claimant—that she didn’t like. She can’t conceive of an asylum seeker who doesn’t deserve a hearing. Or whose tale of woe is less than credible. A migrant on the run must always be believed. A CBS agent who pursues him must be inhibited. A city that offers him sanctuary must be praised. In Jenny’s world no one is illegal.
Jenny’s victim list is endless. New categories of humanity are added each day, with no end in sight. Nor longer is refugee status to be exclusively conferred on those who fear political, racial or religious persecution or flee from war. The 1951 Refugee Convention is a strait jacket that no longer applies. In Jenny’s world legitimate candidates for refugee status can be anything. They can be battered women, gay men, transgendered people, men nagged by their wives, children with club feet, teenagers with acne, office workers with B.O., southpaws, midgets, the obese, girls who can’t get dates and of course, anyone who lives in Trump’s America, where no one is “safe”. According to Jenny.
Jenny’s world is a scary place. But not half as scary as Canada will be if she and her like come to control the government. Think of Justin Trudeau to the tenth degree. Think of Raspail’s “Camp of the Saints”. Think of Orwell’s 1984, or Sweden on steroids and you will get an inkling of the kind of nation Canada would become. Of course, it really wouldn’t be a country because nations imply borders. Strip Jenny’s arguments down to its rudiments and your suspicions are confirmed. Jenny simply does not believe in sovereign nations. She opposes free trade agreements, but she believes in the free movement of people. Migrants have rights. But not the people whom they would displace. Go figure.
I don’t want to live in Jenny Kwan’s world. I don’t want refugees to make a refugee out of me. Where do I run? Where do I hide? Where and when do I make a last stand?
I am white and there is a bounty on my head. My tribe is on the hit list, slated for cleansing. A disease that must be eradicated. The bane of human existence. A perpetrator who has it coming. At least, that’s what they tell me, in Jenny’s world.
