For Remembrance Day 2019 : Doug Collins’ “The Death of English Canada” – My Comments

(000228.79-:E-000157.73:N-:R-SU:C-30:V)   

[The French Canadians impressed me a lot. I like them. I wish the English would be as determined as the French in Canada. Except for Trudeau. He's a traitor. Jan]

Attention Fellow Canadian :

Immigration Watch Canada sends you its latest bulletin : “For Remembrance Day 2019 : Doug Collins’ “The Death of English Canada”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For Remembrance Day, Doug Collins’ “Immigration : The Destruction Of English Canada”

This is Part 1 of a summary of the book, “Immigration : The Destruction Of English Canada”. It was written by journalist Doug Collins in 1979. It is an incisive, well-documented account of a massive change in Canada’s immigration policy. The change began in 1968 when Pierre Trudeau and his Liberals were first elected. Up to that time, the UK and Europe were the main sources of the immigrants Canada accepted. Trudeau and his gov’t wanted to make the Third World the main source. Trudeau’s gov’t achieved this within a few years of taking power.

Collins shows blunder after blunder by immigration ministers who watched as their policy was taken advantage of. However, the ministers and their cabinet colleagues were afraid to correct their mistakes because they thought, even at that time, that they would lose the ethnic vote. So the mistakes continued.

Collins clearly demonstrates that the change in source countries has been a disaster. In his book, he focuses on the effects of Canadian immigration policy from 1967 to 1979 mainly on English Canada. His major point is that the changes in immigration intake were intended to destroy English Canada.

Collins begins by citing examples from 1976 of well-qualified immigrant candidates from Canada’s traditional source countries being denied entry. At the same time, unqualified people from the Third World were quickly accepted. Collins says that this was an indication of a policy change. But this change by the Trudeau gov’t was not announced to the Canadian public and, if it had been announced, the Trudeau gov’t would never have been elected in 1968 or any time thereafter. He cites polls taken over a number of years which showed that Canadians, as Prime Minister Mackenzie King had stated in 1947, did not wish, “as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental change in the character of (Canada’s) population”. He also provides hints that Trudeau gave in speeches. For example, eight years after taking power, Trudeau stated at the United Nations Conference on Housing in Vancouver in 1976 that Canada had a moral obligation to bring in immigrants from all over the world.

Very serious at most times, Collins also has a scathing sense of humour. For instance, he says “immigration ministers have boasted that this country’s immigration policies are the most liberal in the world. They are also the most stupid.”

To illustrate, he quotes Norman Cafik, the Minister for Multiculturalism who in a letter to the Toronto Sun in February 1979 wrote : “(Canada’s) multiculturalism policy rests firmly on the foundations that there are, in fact, no founding peoples.” If Canada’s gullible and naive wanted proof of what multicultural promoters really think and want for Canada, Cafik said it for them in that sentence.”

And Collins is also fair. “Trudeau has not been alone. The powerful small–l Liberal establishment has been busy too. Comprising much of the media, academics, and many of the churches, it holds as an article of faith that Canada has no right to a national identity.” “The federal Opposition has trotted sheeplike with the Liberals.” To support this point, Collins states that before Trudeau and Lester Pearson had been Prime ministers, PM John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative gov’t in 1962 had declared that independent immigrants and their immediate families from everywhere in the world would be admitted to Canada.

Collins says that the difference between the Tories and Liberals on what he calls “universal immigration” was that the Tories said all comers are welcome, but “the Liberals set up the machinery and went on a world-wide campaign to get them in”.

According to Collins, the central theme in gov’t actions was flagrant disregard of public opinion by a Lib/lib establishment intent on changing English Canada into a miniature UN. Polls between 1961 and 1976 overwhelmingly favoured strong immigration restrictions. Canadians told that to a joint Senate and House of Commons committee which conducted a Canadian Immigration and Population Study between 1973 and 1975. However, the Liberals paid no attention to it.

Collins says “…if English Canada …were to practise half the letter-writing that the visible minorities engage in at the drop of a hat, the politicians would backtrack at once. Forced with the prospect of not getting re-elected…they would undergo a conversion unequalled since that of Saul on the road to Damascus”. But that did not happen in Collins’ time—despite the seething cross-country anger that most Canadians felt at being betrayed.

Collins provides ample evidence to substantiate his statements. He cites an Immigration Department newspaper ad stating “Don’t believe what they tell you about immigration”. Its message was : Deportation would now be more difficult. This meant that Immigration Department efforts would be undermined. The gov’t would also say : “Money can’t buy your way into Canada.” But it soon courted entrepreneurs to come in for $150,000. “Toadying and gyrations became the norm.” As another piece of evidence, Collins says that in 1967, politicians quietly ordered the Immigration Department not to list “ethnic origin” as it had in the past. The new term would be “country of last residence”. This would conceal the fact that many third world immigrants had traveled to Canada’s traditional immigration source countries such as the UK and were then migrating to Canada.

The most damning evidence for the unannounced policy change came in a change in the location of new immigration offices. In 1962, there was only one office in the Middle East and there were only two offices in Asia (Hong Kong and New Delhi) . Four years later—well after the Tories moved to open the immigration door–there were still only two in the Middle East and four in Asia. This lack of change was an indication that the Tory move had had little effect. But by 1978, there were 22 offices in “un-traditional” areas…, with all of the former “un-traditional offices” working overtime, as a senior official said. Furthermore, as late as 1968 when the change to “un-traditional” source countries had just started, figures showed there were only 60 source countries or source areas for Canada’s immigrants, but by 1977, there were 193.

To send a warning about the future, Collins quotes Kingsley Davis, the prominent American sociologist and demographer, writing in The Scientific American in September, 1974 : “As a result of the displacement and mixing of races, there are more racial problems in the world today than at any time in the past. In nearly all immigrant countries, in the Americas, South East Asia and Southern Africa, race is one of the most important bases of political division….”

Collins says that some critics think that a plot was hatched long before 1968 to pump immigrants into Toronto, de-throne it as the Queen City and turn it into “an ethnic stew”. Collins says he does not subscribe to this theory, but that the Liberals soon realized that it became politically profitable to accelerate the creation of the stew, no matter what the public thought. The press and parliament were silent on the issue, with notable exceptions being PC MP Steve Paproski who questioned bringing immigrants from countries with climates and backgrounds that were so different from that in Canada. Paproski was soon ostracized. Liberal MP Perry Ryan also had serious misgivings about immigration policy, particularly about allowing visitors and tourists to file immigration applications here. Ryan later resigned from the Liberal Party. The concerns of these MP’s would soon be validated. The number of immigrants with skills steadily declined while the number who were sponsored as relatives increased.

Some Canadians would still say “So what?” So Collins provides a comment by a prominent East Indian immigrant to explain another big problem with a significant number of new arrivals. Chaitanya K. Kalevar, in “The Canadian India Times”, Aug 3, 1978 wrote : “The multicultural Canada, which is now more attractive than the English Canada, must be allowed to rise to the top by adequate constitutional provisions…Canada is a nation in transition.” Once again. the arrogance in those words should convince even the gullible that immigration to Canada had been transformed into re-colonization—- with a helping hand from Canada’s ethnic groups.

Collins says that after 1967, the Canadian immigration train sped quickly toward disaster, flew off the tracks, poured noxious gases over everyone, and was left there—–“its owners claiming everything was fine”. Visitors to Canada suddenly wanted to become immigrants, thereby evading overseas Immigration Department efforts to interview these people and to check their applications before they arrived in Canada. To worsen the situation, immigration appeal procedures were passed. These had the effect of frustrating the endeavors of Canada’s own Immigration Department and the police. Collins sums the situation up : “If pimps, thieves, swindlers and crooks could enter the country laughing, where did that leave the law and security forces. The 1967-1972 period is a classic example of how—-if it has a spineless Opposition—-a gov’t will not move from an impossible position even though public opinion is against it. The Liberal party sold itself for the ethnic vote. The years 1967—72 were when the sell-out was most blatant. Such dependence automatically wedded the Liberals to the ethnic vote but at the same time persuaded the Tories to keep quiet.”

In response to the tens of thousands of “visitors” who arrived after 1967, Ottawa had to declare six different “amnesties” to take care of the backlog. This was not a good signal to other cheaters.

In fact, Ottawa’s reluctance to support immigration police work became a constantly recurring theme. Social Insurance Numbers and the possession of a SIN card conveyed the impression that the holder was legitimately in Canada, but SIN numbers were easy to obtain. Many illegals had more than one. One had 50. A Toronto lawyer tested the system by applying for a SIN number for his dog and got one. Widespread fraud was still occurring even after the supposed backlog had been cleaned up. Illegals were taking jobs from legals in times of high unemployment, and collecting welfare and UI. Tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people continued to remain and work in Canada with small prospect of detection.

Slave rackets, in which immigrants are indentured for years to the agent who brings them in, are operated in Canada by people from the Indian sub-continent. Marriages of convenience are common. Immigration officers at the Toronto airport said they could triple the numbers of people denied entry if they had the staff.

Collins states “…not only have hundreds of thousands come from countries with totally different cultural and ethical backgrounds but they have come as distant relatives, as “nominated” persons, as proteges of racketeers. Not only have they come illegally and found ways to stay illegally, but time after time, Ottawa has found ways to accommodate them—-when its prime duty is to uphold the law. (!!!!!!!)