Canadians Never Wanted To Change The Character of Their Country—Part 2 of “Immigration : The Destruction of English Canada”
A number of Canadians continue to think that there is some sense to Canada’s intake of 250,000 immigrants per year. However, if they were to look at even one chapter of “Immigration : The Destruction of English Canada” by journalist Doug Collins, they would be quickly cured of that illusion.
Collins’ book is an excellent account of events from 1967 to 1979 that resulted in a fundamental transformation of Canada. Most Canadians would be shocked to read about all of the underhanded work done by the Liberal Party which plotted to change not only the character of Canada’s population, but also to do it with absolutely no consultation with Canadians. The Progressive Conservatives could have objected to this arrogance, but they said nothing. So, along with the NDP, they colluded with the Liberals in producing the immigration disaster which continues to unfold today.
A major point that Collins makes is that most Canadians would not object to a small number of immigrants from non-traditional source countries. However, most do object to the disrespect that immigration policy has shown to Canada’s well-developed European-based society and its institutions. Like the people in all countries, Canadians have no desire to be made a minority in their own country. And they have no desire for their country to be naively socially engineered into a mini-United Nations—-especially when anthropologists recognize that great differences between groups in a country are a predictor of social conflict.
To stir up debate, Collins says that he played a part in getting Americans from the NBC program called “Weekend” to go to Toronto to do a 20 minute section. The section would focus on the anger Canadians felt about the change in the source countries of Canada’s immigrants. The segment was shown on Jan 1, 1977 and created an instant uproar in Canada. Canada’s Immigration Minister, the Mayor of Toronto and many others denounced the program in spite of the fact that most of them had never seen it. Their reactions were typical of many in the cowardly world of Canadian politics.
In contrast, in an act of courage unknown among Canadian politicians, Vancouver Mayor Art Phillips called for immigration restrictions. So did Alan Kelly, Chair of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, who stated that “the country simply couldn’t afford large-scale immigration”. “In 1975, the Vancouver area had a growth rate of 40%” and that the federal gov’t had “resisted all suggestions from the municipalities” that immigration be stopped.
These public statements will shock many Canadians who have grown accustomed to hearing many municipal politicians tell them that immigration is beyond their jurisdiction can do nothing but fix potholes. Phillips and Kelly were actually saying what should have been said by all politicians. Their area of jurisdiction could not take infinite numbers of people.
Vancouver Mayor Phillips was reacting to many incidents of gov’t ordered “integration” of Canadians with new immigrants from Third World countries. Immigration-caused incidents in Vancouver were repeated hundreds of times across Canada, particularly in places such as Toronto and Montreal which took large numbers of immigrants. But places like Calgary were also not immune. It recorded huge brawls between East Indian and white workers at its rail yards.
Other predictables soon happened. Ethnic groups began demanding changes. For example, the South Asia Origins Committee of the Toronto Board of Education stated that “Fourteen textbooks about India used in Toronto secondary schools are negative and prejudicial to Asians.” They wanted the books removed. This committee also asked the Ontario Ministry of Education to review their social science texts for evidence of similar bias….”
A Letter To The Vancouver Sun, May 15, 1975 expressed the feelings of many Canadians : “The future of Canada should not be decided by a handful of internationalists (like Trudeau), but by the Canadian people as a whole. The only valid and democratic way this can be done is to put the immigration issue to a vote.”
Collins says that “Ottawa, however, had no intention of changing its ways. On the contrary, its effrontery swelled.” To illustrate, Collins quotes Immigration Minister Bud Cullen who stated that “we” —-meaning Canadians in general—have invited “these people ” to Canada. Therefore, “we” as individuals had a responsibility to cope with any difficulties that arise.
Collins adds this crucial point : “But of course, “we” had done no inviting at all. The inviting had been done by him, his predecessors, and Trudeau.”
In July, 1978, a second series of federal immigration ads appeared in Canadian newspapers. A four-page supplement told the world all about Canada’s new immigration law. Canada’s new immigration act combined “humanity, justice, international responsibility and adaptability in a way that no other country’s law ever has”. Ottawa was proud of its work.
Collins adds “No doubt (it was proud) about the harm it was doing too”. The ad was clearly deceptive : the pictures were all of people who looked white. The fact that the opposite was true about most of Canada’s new immigrants was something Ottawa wanted to hide. Cabinet ministers never pointed out the change in immigration in their election speeches. Immigration stats made no reference to race. And when Progressive Conservative Leader Robert Stanfield questioned Prime Minister Trudeau about immigration in 1976, Trudeau told him that the gov’t would not change its immigration policy.
Collins implies that the government felt it knew what was good for Canada. Its view was that Canadians should take their medicine and shut up.
At one point, Ottawa claimed that it was taking so many immigrants from non-traditional source countries because there was a shortage of potential European immigrants. However, the fact that Australia and the U.S. were getting many European applicants proved that Ottawa was lying. It had made a decision to undermine English Canada.
To support this contention, Collins quotes Prime Minister Trudeau who on another occasion stated : “Replacing the dominant culturalism with multiculturalism requires new attitudes on the part of dominant groups in our society.”
And if the Canadian rabble didn’t like this and caused problems, Trudeau implied, Liberal police forces would see to it that order prevailed. Not long after, a number of these police forces began appearing. Among them were Human Rights commissions; Urban Alliances on Race Relations; punitive control measures introduced in the school systems especially in Ontario; and “Affirmative Action”, institutionalized racial discrimination against whites. In addition, large sums would be poured into Special Projects by the Secretary of State’s Department to put Canadians in their place.
Collins says “In Liberal thought, racial discrimination is not at all a bad thing—provided the right folks are doing the discriminating.”
In implementing affirmative action measures, Ottawa’s social engineers followed the example set in the United States. Eighteen Consultants were to work across Canada to convince private industry to hire women, native people, and physically handicapped persons. Ottawa could twist arms by denying contracts to non-complying firms. The strategy was full of deceit. It really meant : “Pretend that the Affirmative Action programs were for women, handicapped and others. No one would object to that.” But the real intent was to provide jobs for the visible minorities the Liberals had just imported.
Collins is not too kind to his media colleagues. To him, the media have done as poor a job as the politicians In exposing gov’t deception and arrogance. “A generous observer might say they (the media) were misguided or confused, and an ungenerous one might say they were gutless.”
In 1976, The Science Council of Canada reported that “Canada could not help the world by taking more immigrants, and could only destroy its own way of life in attempting to do so.” “…it would have to reduce immigration”. Their report was attacked as a racist plan to curb Canada’s non-white population. Prominent in the assault was Bromley Armstrong of the Ontario Human Rights commission and one of Toronto’s leading liberal policemen. Presumably, he would see nothing wrong with Canada destroying its way of life. In 1958, eight of ten Torontonians were of Anglo-Saxon background. By 1978, the figure was four of ten.
Collins repeats the point that Canada’s Progressive conservatives could have made immigration an election issue or could have put heat on the Liberals to stop their policy. Instead, they continued to be silent and therefore to be as guilty.
Collins describes the unique arrangement that Quebec negotiated with Ottawa from 1968 to 1978, by which its gov’t achieved control of immigration to Quebec. He asks this important question : If it was good for Ottawa to allow Quebec to protect French-Canadian culture, why did Ottawa not allow Ontario, which was host to half of Canada’s annual immigration intake and which was the most populous province in Canada, to do the same? In other words, why did Ottawa not allow Ontario to protect the Anglo-Saxon culture of Ontario’s majority population by choosing what immigrants it would take?
Constitutionally, through Article 95 of the British North America Act, Ontario and all other provinces can pass immigration laws. and set up their own Department of Immigration—although Ottawa has primacy, If Ontario had used its power, it would have demonstrated resistance to Ottawa’s arrogance and deception and might have changed Canadian history. But neither it nor any other of the English-speaking provinces acted.
As for the discussion of the immigration issue everywhere in Canada, Collins observed what has now become common : Name-calling on the immigration issue has become as common as it was in the McCarthy era.
In the final chapter of his book, Collins re-states his main points :
1. With no public demand behind it, nor any public desire for change, the Liberal gov’t of 1967 imposed its own immigration philosophy on the country. It was one of the most elitist acts in Canadian history, and whether or not it was a deliberate plan to weaken English Canada, it has had precisely that effect.
2. With the advent of Trudeau to the prime ministry in 1968, the policy of universal immigration was pursued with reckless abandon. In the face of considerable social upheaval, and massive evidence of public discontent, no attempt has been made to change the policy. On the contrary, it was confirmed in the Immigration Act of 1978.
3. French Canada’s ethnic identity has been guaranteed, while that of English Canada has not only been ignored, but treated with contempt.
4. European and British immigration has taken second place to Asiatic and other. Given existing policies, it will continue to do so, and as time goes on the balance will be tipped in favor of the latter.
5. Time after time, Liberal cabinets have failed to heed warnings of senior administrators about the consequences of their policies. For five disastrous years, they deliberately overlooked the collapse of controlled immigration. Only when they were in a minority position did they eliminate some of the worst excesses.
6. Canadian immigration, regardless of whether it is traditional or non-traditional, is too large. It is disproportionate to the population.
7. For fear of losing ethnic votes, no effective action has been taken against illegal immigration.
In 1976, the Liberals introduced a three year waiting period for citizenship, down from five. Some called this “Instant citizenship”. Or “send-in-two-box-tops-for-citizenship”. It was one more pitch to the ethnic vote. In addition, it would ensure that the masses of immigrants who had arrived before 1975 would be entitled to vote before the next election—-a point that was widely advertised in the ethnic press.”
Collins ends with these words :
“The Canadian public can be forgiven for being perplexed. It is almost as if people were not living in a democracy at all.
“(Former Prime Minister) Mackenzie King knew that Canadians did not wish, by means of mass immigration, to change the character of their country. They didn’t then and they don’t now.”