OUR SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS BURN THE TRUTH
This is the third part of a look at “Counterpoints”, the B.C. textbook for Social Studies 11. It shows that the book makes a large number of factual mistakes about the immigration issue. Specifically, the book parrots the propaganda that Canada’s immigration lobby has spread about Canada’s immigration intake, our aging population, Canada’s labour force needs, and other issues. This is a very serious matter because this amounts to mis-informing or lying to the entire student population of British Columbia. The result of the lies is that the province’s entire student population is being convinced to marginalize itself in order to make room for mass immigration. Once again, we emphasize that Canadians have never been consulted about mass immigration and our government has never provided any justification for it.
MISTAKE # 1 : “The age structure of Canada’s population is one of the main factors the federal government considers when deciding on the number of immigrants Canada will accept each year.” (P.375)
CORRECTION TO # 1 : At best, this is a completely naive statement. At worst, it is an outright lie. By law, the Department of Immigration has to state in the fall of the year the number of immigrants it intends to take in the following year. But it never looks at Canada’s age structure (the number of young, middle-aged and older) when it makes a decision on this number. To illustrate this point, here is an example of how the federal government ignores evidence and legitimate advice. In 1990, the federal gov’t wanted to find out if immigration would solve problems that an aging population might cause. Therefore, it asked its Department of Health and Welfare to research the matter. After enlisting about 200 researchers to look at this issue, Health and Welfare concluded that immigration would not make Canada younger. Even if Canada had an immigration intake of 600,000 people per year, the change in the average age of Canada’s population would be negligible. According to Health and Welfare, Canada would be better off by making use of its own population to solve problems that might arise from aging. So, to repeat, contrary to what the textbook “Counterpoints” says, the federal government seldom, if ever, looks at Canada’s age structure. The gov’t adopted that attitude in 1990 when Health and Welfare presented the results of its research. It does the same thing today. Its sole focus in deciding the number of immigrants Canada will take is on maintaining or increasing its share of the immigrant vote. All of the other parties are looking for their share of the immigrant vote, so they say nothing about the corruption.
MISTAKE # 2 : “Today, immigrants account for a large and increasing proportion of labour force growth (70 % of such growth between 1991 and 2001).” (P.375)
CORRECTION TO # 2 : The fact that immigrants account for a larger proportion of the labour force may be true, but the real point is whether the federal government should ever have allowed that to happen. In other words, was that a good thing? The answer is “NO!!” The major effect of unjustifiably high immigration from 1991 to 2001 was increased competition for a limited number of jobs. In fact, jobless and under-employed Canadians (long-term as well as those recently-arrived) did not need that increased labour force growth and the increased competition that came with it. Our federal government should be protecting jobless Canadians , but it has abandoned them. The textbook should be saying the following : “The fact that immigrants account for a large and increasing proportion of labour force growth proves that our federal government has abandoned Canadians.”
MISTAKE # 3 : “The 2006 census indicates that 1.1 million of the 1.6 million growth in the Canadian population since 2001 was due to immigration. By 2012, all net growth in Canada’s labour force is expected to come from immigration. ” (Pp.375-376)
CORRECTION TO # 3 : The most important questions are these : (a) Did Canada need to increase its population and its labour force? and (b) Does it need to increase its labour force and its population by 2012? A country does not have to keep increasing its population. If it does do this, it eventually creates the poverty and environmental disasters that many countries, particularly the main source countries of our immigrants, have created for themselves.
MISTAKE # 4 : “Without these levels of immigration, the average age of the Canadian population would increase rapidly.” (P.376)
CORRECTION TO # 4 : Wrong !!! According to research done by Canada’s Department of Health and Welfare, immigration up to as high as 600,000 per year makes very little change in the average age of Canadians. In other words, it does not make Canada younger and it does not make the average age of the Canadian population increase or decrease by any significant amount.
MISTAKE # 5 : “The number of immigrants entering Canada fluctuates above or below the 200,000 level. This is far from the government’s goal (1% of Canada’s population). Immigration levels have never come near the record level of 400,870 immigrants in 1913 which represented 5.5% of a population of 7.3 million. ” (P.376)
CORRECTION TO # 5 : The 1% figure is not that important. The Liberal Party used it for propaganda purposes, that is, to show that it was mass-immigration-friendly. The figure had no connection with what was good for Canada. The figure that is important is the number of job openings in the economy. If Canada has 1,.5 million unemployed, as it does now, and as it has for many years, what point is there in bringing any immigrants here?
MISTAKE # 6 : “Many skilled immigrants, such as those in health care and other professions, find it difficult to get professional accreditation in Canada. There is also fierce competition for highly skilled labour.” (P.376)
CORRECTION TO # 6 : The textbook made two mistakes here.
(a) Regarding the accreditation issue, the key question Canadians have to ask is this : Does Canada really need those skilled people? If it already has a required number of skilled professionals in an occupation, then Canada does not need those people. The length of time immigrants have to wait is irrelevant. In the limited number of cases where Canada does need skilled professionals, Canada has to remember that the source countries of many of these immigrants are extremely corrupt. So-called “credentials” can be bought easily, so there is good reason for Canada’s professional organizations to check credentials very carefully. In other words, it should not be easy to get professional accreditation.
(b) Regarding the issue of so-called “fierce competition for highly skilled labour” : the immigration lobby has often made that ridiculous claim but never provided the evidence to support it. In fact, over the past few years, we and others have found evidence which proves that the immigration lobby’s claim is outright fraud. Furthermore, in the past year, two of Canada’s major banks (TD and BMO) have done major studies and concluded that Canada does not have a labour shortage in almost all occupations. In other words, Canada does not have to “compete fiercely” for skilled labour because it needs very little of it. The banks, who profit from lending mortgage money to immigrants, are the very sources one would expect to be repeating the immigration lobby’s propaganda. But they are contradicting the immigration lobby. So the last thing that Canadian textbooks should be doing is parroting the lobby’s fraudulent claims. This is like convincing students to slash their own throats—with a smile.
(1) The immigration lobby’s propaganda and political party corruption have infiltrated Canadian textbooks and our schools. In the past, lobbyists and political parties burned books. In the present, lobbyists and political parties burn the truth and publish the books. Enormous damage is done to the truth every year. Hundreds of thousands of students in British Columbia have been deceived. The truth needs to be restored. If it is not, students will accept their own destruction and national suicide as natural, good and inevitable things.
(2) This is the situation in the province of British Columbia. The situation in other provinces is probably very similar. This is a pan-Canadian issue and requires a pan-Canadian solution.
Part 1 and 2 in this series are at these links :