Companions Of The Odour Of Canada


Recent comments and actions at different levels of government demonstrate that Canada should institute two special categories of public recognition. One of the new categories should include all those who have consciously refused to inform themselves about mass immigration's negative impact on Canada. We suggest that it be called “The Odour of Canada”. For those in government who have courageously tried to inform themselves about the effects of mass immigration, we suggest another category, the title of which we leave to fellow Canadians.

Canada's federal Minister of Labour, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, is one of a host of potential recent nominees to “The Odour of Canada”. Mr. Blackburn has been on a national tour to promote “employment equity” in the private sector. The problem with what Mr. Blackburn is doing is that critics showed clearly many years ago that the purported “evidence” to introduce Canada's Employment Equity Act was flawed and that the Act should never have been introduced. He does not seem to be even aware of this.

Over the past 20 years, news stories have repeatedly noted the more notorious effects of this legislation.But the stories have told of only a few of the accounts of untold thousands of Canadians, particularly white males born here, who have been discriminated against in their job searches. Most Canadians support fair treatment for all races here.However, the Canada Employment Equity Act, despite the politically-intended implications of its name, has not created equity. Canada's mass immigration policy provides an ongoing number of litigants for this Act.

If Mr. Blackburn is to do anything, he should look seiously at repealing this federal legislation which has institutionized discrimination against many members of Canada's host population.

Mr. Blackburn is not the only one who doesn't seem to have a grip on knowledge about mass immigration. Criticism of Canada's Employment Equity Act has not filtered down to many people at the municipal level. For example, at Vancouver City Hall, officials recently went out of their way to curry favour with Mr. Blackburn during his visit. An unknown bureaucrat ordered that visible minority employees, who ordinarily worked in “less visible” backroom positions, be moved to “much more visible” front of the office jobs for the day, to show the touring Mr. Blackburn how well Vancouver was complying with federal legislation. And, in subsequent news stories about this incident, both union and management spokespeople tried to demonstrate how well-informed and “free-thinking” they were about mass immigration by proclaiming how “diverse” and “multicultural” their workplace and city were. What they really demonstrated was that Mr. Blackburn should not be alone when given his title.

More recently, the Greater Vancouver Regional District has been looking at 23 potential sites to which it can send its excess garbage. Among the places it is considering are sites near the Washington-Oregon border, as well as locations in Alberta and northern B.C. Marvin Hunt, the Chair of the region's waste management committee, recently said that from a political standpoint, local politicians will probably favour proposals for facilities in the Vancouver region. “The general political climate, almost through(out) North America, is that you (should)take care of your own survival, your waste, your environmental footprint, all those sorts of things.”

In our estimation, Mr. Hunt should be in line for a positive award for his courageous and straight words. In fact, we believe Mr. Hunt should say those words again many times–maybe 1000 times more loudly. We sincerely hope he and his fellow elected officials will put into action what he has said. (As we have said, we will wait for suggestions for a proper name for this award.)

In 1997, the Principal Investigator of UBC's “Prospects For Sustainability”, said much the same thing as Mr. Hunt. At that time, the ecological footprint of the Lower Fraser Basin (the area that Greater Vancouver is a part of), “that is the total area of land and water needed to provide the raw materials and energy required to maintain the lifestyle of basin residents (was) at least 25 times the land area of the basin”.

In 2006, the area's ecological footprint is much greater. In other words, those people proclaiming the wonders of such trivialities as “diversity” and “multiculturalism” need to acquire a firm grip on the effects of mass immigration on the life of the area and the planet. The reality is that Vancouver and all other large cities are enormous ecological parasites. As Mr. Hunt has implied, all these places have to mature and look after themselves.

The idea that an area should look after itself and be responsible for its uncheckedpopulation growth will be revolutionary to a number of federal, provincial and municipal politicians—particularly those of the “global” mentality. These are the people who seem to think that Mother or Father Earth will forgive all of their ecological insolence and continue to care for them. For years, whenever critics of immigration policy have told federal politicians to speak out against exponential and unnecessary population growth, most of them have done nothing. Those that have felt concern have been silenced by party discipline into doing nothing.

A number of provincial and municipal politicians have expressed serious concern about mass immigration's impact and are to be congratulated for standing up. But unfortunately too many have uttered the usual “We don't have any control over the immigration issue”. Translated, this means “We're helpless (that is, this issue is out of our jurisdiction, so please don't ask us to say or do anything.”) On many previous occasions, in other areas of federal public policy, municipal and provincial politicians have succeeded in altering federal policy. Why not on mass immigration? If they choose to do nothing, then do we have more companions for The Odour of Canada?

The idea that huge numbers of additional, un-needed people (the result of Canada's mass immigration policy) create huge amounts of urine, excrement, garbage, fossil fuel waste and space pollution (just as the host population does) has never been conceded by many politicians. In this large country, the idea that total world population is far in excess of what it should be has been considered as irrelevant. Ideas such as working towards population stabilization or population decline in regions where one has control are considered heresy. (Looking after one's own wastes, and one's own survival, as Mr. Hunt has courageously and sensibly stated for the Greater Vancouver area, are ignored.)

Much the same thing can be said about those looking at the issue of pressure on farmland. A year ago when the Ontario Environment Commissioner said that southern Ontario could not accomodate the inflow of people that Citizenship and Immigration was planning to offload there, he had insults heaped on his head. Canadians have to ask this question: Doesn't this show that the Commissioner's abusers and their masters at C and I also don't have much of a grip on the ecological effects of mass immigration? Do we have amongst them more nominees for The Odour of Canada?

In late August, the University of Victoria's Environmental Law Clinic accused B.C.'s Agricultural Land Commission of failing to protect farm land from development. One very alarming point it made was that 70.5% of the land which developers had applied to exclude was actually approved for exclusion from 2002 to 2005. Greed will always motivate some developers to do this—even if Canada had a stabilized population. But neither the Law Clinic nor the Land Commission seems to be aware (or has mentioned) that mass immigration has created most of the pressure to convert irreplaceable farmland into housing.

These people and all Canadians have to inform themselves about Canada's mass immigration policy and take the logical stand that follows. The food security of different areas of Canada as well as the ecological health of those areas and of the entire country depend on it.