Trump was right---In fact, Canada called its source countries of immigrants equally strong names

Recently, U.S. President Trump described the source countries of some immigrants to the U.S. as “shit-holes”. The media and political opponents have viciously attacked Trump for his statement. However, as we pointed out in a previous bulletin, Canada’s Intelligence Advisory Committee used similar words in 1991 to describe environmental conditions in both China and India, the source countries of a large number of Canada’s immigrants.

Our first bulletin on this subject used quotes from the IAC report which detailed why it had described China as an “environmental catastrophe”. This bulletin uses quotes from the IAC report which described India as an “environmental disaster”. As readers will see from the quotes, the description is appropriate.

As we pointed out with China, the 1991 environmental situation in China has not improved much and probably is much worse. http://immigrationwatchcanada.org/2011/09/25/september-22-2011-when-a-billion-chinese-jump-part-1/ The same applies to India.

If readers are asking what the environmental situation has to do with the immigration issue, the last quotes in this bulletin will provide one hint : In 1987-88, Canada’s International Development Agency (CIDA) gave the Indian subcontinent $576 million. For subsequent Canadian gifts to India, stay tuned.

Meanwhile, readers should note that Canada has accepted hundreds of thousands of immigrants from India, particularly India’s Punjab. That group is absorbing a significant amount of the $35 billion that Canada’s doles out to immigrants every year in social benefits. In other words, East Indians have drained two Canadian teats : (1) the Canadian International Development Agency teat and (2) Canada’s department of immigration teat when they arrive in Canada as immigrants. The total that is drained from both teats has probably been astounding.

Is anybody in Ottawa awake?

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

​​​​​INDIAN SUBCONTINENT : ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE FACE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER

A large and rapidly growing population is at the heart of the Indian subcontinent’s environmental crisis. The population of approximately one billion people includes hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people. Since independence in 1947, Indian government efforts to raise standards of living have focused on large-scale agricultural and industrial development projects and failed to integrate conservation with development. The result : these projects have caused or compounded serious and widespread environmental problems such as severe deforestation, soil degradation and urban pollution. (P.45)

As of 1991, per capita income remains below US $300 per annum. Only about one-third of the sub-continent’s population is literate. Without population control, much of the assistance the region receives provides only temporary relief. Governments have attempted to insulate agricultural production from weather extremes, but the success or failure of the annual monsoon is still an important factor in how the economy performs. Failed agricultural production results in lower consumer spending, GNP, industrial production and foreign exchange earnings. (P.45)

Deforestation is a serious problem. The area loses 300,000+ hectares per year of forest. This has led to erosion and sedimentation and exacerbated flooding. Sedimentation is blocking up hydroelectric dams, thereby reducing the lifespan of dams. Desertification has increased because of land clearing for agriculture, dams, reservoirs, road building, timber industries, residential and commercial construction, firewood collection and forest fires.

In Pakistan, the fuelwood and rangeland needs of three million Afghan refugees compound the problem. Land area under forest cover varies from less than 33% in Nepal to less than 6% in Pakistan. Deforestation may even have had an effect on the amount and timing of annual rainfall. An unprecedented series of droughts and floods hit the area in the 1980’s. (P46)

Agriculture accounts for as much as one-half of all deforestation that has occurred on the subcontinent. Demand for foodgrains has spread agriculture to land that is marginally productive. Approximately 70% of South Asia’s total productive drylands now suffer from desertification. The Green Revolution resulted in the introduction of High yielding seed varieties and new farming techniques, but these varieties require irrigation, chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The amount of pollution has increased. Land reform measures have failed and have increased the numbers of transient farmers and urban poor. (P.47)

The subcontinent’s urban population doubled to 250 million between 1960 and 1980, but the countries did not invest in infrastructure. The result : the open dumping of domestic waste, disease and agricultural productivity losses. By 2000, the urban population was expected to double again to 500 million, —putting more pressure on government. (P.48)

None of the Subcontinent countries has signed international environmental treaties (1985 Vienna Agreement or 1987 Montreal Protocol). India has openly resisted. As global warming continues, sea levels will rise, millions of people who live in coastal areas will be dislocated and coastal infrastructure will be damaged. Hydro projects in the Himalayas are vulnerable to earthquakes. The problems seem too numerous to solve. (P.48)

It is often easier for countries to choose large-scale projects. The push for economic growth and development takes priority over environmental protection. Most of the countries in the subcontinent have adopted some environmental legislation, but monitoring is weak. India is planning to institutionalize environmental impact assessments for all industrial projects. Smaller pilot projects are being tried.

Regional co-operation to develop solutions to environmental problems does not exist. The primary reason is India’s refusal to negotiate on a multilateral basis. India bullies other subcontinent countries and vetoes their suggestions. Most countries want to protect their sovereignty. The prospects for co-operation appear dim. With a population expected to surpass 1.5 billion by 2030, the subcontinent will have an increasingly difficult time feeding itself. (P.50)

As of 1991, India felt that the UN should seek to rectify the asymmetry with respect to the primary cause of pollution in LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES and DEVELOPED COUNTRIES. (P.61)

As of 1991, the Indian subcontinent was the largest recipient of Canadian assistance. In 1987-88, Canada gave $576.9 million to subcontinent countries. Bangladesh, India and Pakistan were the three largest recipients. Canadian assistance…is highly focused on environmental issues, and a large percentage is allocated to reforestation, reclamation of degraded soils, and water and energy management. (P.61)

As of 1991, “CIDA (The Canadian International Development Agency) is moving away from large-scale projects and is now attempting to assist in the setting up of institutional frameworks that will allow the countries in the region to plan, implement and operate their own programs. The success of this new strategy is contingent upon the commitment of local leadership, a commitment which we judge to be questionable.” (P.61)