Textbook Teaches National Suicide OK

Textbook Teaches National Suicide OK

This bulletin examines a small section of the B.C. Social Studies 11 textbook, ‘Counterpoints…” It points out the mistakes and omissions the text makes in its immigration-related material. This is Part 2 of a look at this textbook which all Grade 11 students in B.C. use.

(1) The Mistakes + Questions : On Page 211, the textbook “Counterpoints” defines “multiculturalism” as ” a policy of encouraging the expression of the cultures of many ethnic groups that make up a country’s population”. If the definition sounds Polyannish and superficial, it’s because it is. The textbook should have stated how Canada’s Multiculturalism policy originated. Trudeau’s gov’t faced opposition to his very sensible Bilingualism and Biculturalism policy. That policy was an effort to assert Canada’s colonial French and British roots. But instead of persisting, the Trudeau gov’t  surrendered to criticism and switched to a Multiculturalism policy. In doing so, it abandoned Canada’s historical roots and set Canada on a path to marginalizing Canada’s mainstream  population. In order to achieve its destructive goals, Multiculturalism needed a high immigration intake. It began to get that in the 1970’s and it achieved it in 1990. Multiculturalism’s demographic effects in Canada are similar to China’s demographic effects on Tibet. At least some of the textbook’s writers would condemn China for using part of its massive Han population to overwhelm the population of Tibet. So why didn’t these writers, as a “counterpoint” to their multiculturalism cheer-leading, ask our mainstream students in particular to consider whether China, in its world-wide grasping for resources, may be using the same tactic in Canada? By not considering this, aren’t they trying to convince students to accept multicultural policies which may result in national suicide?   

(2) The Mistakes + Questions : On Page 211, the text book presents a list of 12 “Canadian Immigration Milestones”. It implies in most that Canada is obligated to take immigrants regardless of problems, particularly economic, that Canada might have faced.  For example, it tells students that in 1931,  “Admission to Canada was restricted to American citizens, British subjects, and agriculturalists with economic means” and that in 1939, “The St. Louis, a ship carrying 930 Jewish refugees from Germany is turned away from Canadian ports” and forced to return to Europe where most perish. In both of these “milestones”, it ignores the crucial point that through most of the 1930’s, hundreds of thousands of Canadians had no jobs and travelled from place to place all over Canada as virtual refugees in their own country.  Hindsight is wonderful, but if Canada had accepted the St. Louis passengers, what would it have said to its own economic refugees? Canada provided only meager support for them. Regarding the issue of regular immigrants, if it were to allow anyone in, those people had to have a way of supporting themselves. What was wrong with demanding that?

(3) The Mistakes + Questions : Another of the “Milestones” states that in 1962, “New regulations eliminate most of the racial discrimination in Canada’s immigration policy” and that in 1967, Canadian immigration became “colour blind”. On P. 247, the book does concede that in places like Rwanda and Yugoslavia, “ethnic diversity has ripped communities and families apart”. But on most other pages, the writers and contributors’ priorities are to cheer-lead immigration of any kind and to be guilt-mongers. Why does the book ignore the point that transforming Canada from a relatively homogeneous country into one where large ethnic groups compete for power sounds like a recipe for future civil war?

(4) The Mistakes + Questions : Another of the textbook’s “Milestones” tells students that from 1978 to 1981, refugees comprised 25% of all immigrants to Canada and that in 1986, the UN awarded Canada the Nansen Medal in recognition of its contributions to the cause of refugees. Again, the book ignores the point that in 1986, Sri Lankan Tamil “asylum shoppers” who were living in Germany, some as accepted refugees, decided they could get more benefits in Canada, thanks to the Singh Decision which gave refugee claimants the same benefits as Canadian citizens. The Tamils travelled by ship to Newfoundland and became the seeds for a huge Sri Lankan Tamil inflow that created widespread asylum fraud over the next 20+ years. That group alone has grown to over 300,000. Why did the writers and contributors not point this “milestone” out to students? Is it because it could be more properly described as a “Millstone”? The book also boasts that in 1976, “”Immigration regulations change to allow immigration of family members with relatives already in Canada”.  Did the writers and contributors consider that fake refugee claimants would seize on this regulation and abuse it as much as they could?

(5) The Mistakes + Questions : The book omits a number of very important immigration events . For example, in 1976, in response to a federal request, Canada’s Science Council reported that Canada should restrict immigration, conserve its resources and stabilize its population. In the view of these eminent scientists, Canada had to do these things in order to preserve its standard of living. Had the writers assumed that Canada can grow forever and that it can have an open-door immigration policy? Have the writers and contributors connected the stagnation in Canadian workers’ wages with an over-supply of labour, caused largely by high immigration? Did the writers not even know of this study?

(6) The Mistakes + Questions : The book also neglects to say that for many years, Canada had a Tap-On, Tap-off Immigration policy. This meant that Canada decreased immigration in bad times and it increased it in good times. That policy was abandoned in 1990 when Immigration Minister Barbara McDougall announced that she had convinced her Cabinet colleagues to increase immigration intake to 250,000 per year. Her reason :  so that her party could compete with the Liberal Party for the immigrant vote !!!. This incident is probably the most shameless incident in Canadian immigration history. It dwarfs the current uproar in B.C. over using apologies to get the ethnic vote. It has resulted in Canada taking  250,000 (mostly unnecessary) immigrants per year for the past 22 years—a total of well over 5 million. Yet this country-altering incident is not even mentioned in this book !!! Why ?

(7) The Mistakes + Questions : Lastly, the book’s list of “Milestones” does not mention Canada’s Employment Equity Act of 1986. Among a number of things. researchers of the act tried to determine whether job discrimination existed against one of four groups (visible minorities). The Chair of the Employment Equity  Commission, Rosalie Abella, made the critical error of  not making allowances for the time immigrants had spent in Canada. Her conclusions stated that visible minorities (most immigrants) had been discriminated against. This resulted in visible minority immigrants being pushed to the front of the job line-up. It also meant that a significant segment of those in the line-up, especially white Canadian males, were pushed far back in the queue. This discrimination is especially galling because Ottawa has never provided a single, sensible reason for the post-1990 policy of taking 250,000 immigrants per year and for currently allowing another 300,000+ foreign workers to work here. The students who are using the “Counterpoints” textbook will soon be either entering the Canadian labour force or competing for places in higher education. Why did the writers and contributors not mention this completely unnecessary immigration and this very unfair Employment Equity policy which has resulted in untold inequity and injustice for many mainstream Canadians? Is the “Counterpoints” textbook supposed to prepare them to accept their own and Canada’s suicide?