Tim Murray

"Canada introduces ban on foreigners buying property, allows exceptions for refugees and permanent residents - ABC News" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-02/canada-bans-foreigners-from-buyin

You’re the culprit. Unfolding collapse is down to you.  Forget population overshoot. You’re consuming too much. Own it!

Nobel Peace Prize winning economist Milton Friedman once said that you can have mass immigration or you can have the welfare state. But you can't have both.

Hallway medicine is a reality in many Canadian hospitals

Aged hospitals, atrocious wait times, fewer cutting edge treatments, fewer new drugs, a shortage of doctors, a paucity of acute care hospital beds, unfunded liabilities that constitute 46% of the national economy, a middling performance about among countries with universal medical access----yes, the truth is out about Canada’s acclaimed health care system.

You know, the one that American progressives love so much from afar. The one that Canadians ardently loved too---until the 1990s. Then two things happened.

One was a dramatic shift in immigration policy taken by the then Brian Mulroney government at the end of the 1991, when it was announced that annual immigration intakes would virtually double. The second thing to happen was that wait times for necessary surgical procedures grew longer. And longer---until today, the median wait time today of over 21 weeks is twice as long as it was then.

Coincidence? It would stretch credulity to the extreme to deny a connection. The greater the number of patients, the greater demand that is placed on the system, and immigration-driven population growth has added more than 7 million medical consumers to the queue since the departure of “Lyin’ Brian”.

Last year, Canadian taxpayers spent roughly $250 billion on health care, an expenditure equivalent to ll.5% of Canada’s GDP. That works out to over $6,600 per person. Now, one would think that that would be enough to provide us with the comprehensive care we crave. But it’s not. Ours is not an integrated system. Unlike the British National Health Service for example, physiotherapy, dental care and vision care are not covered. Neither are ambulance rides, plus a host of other out-of-pocket expenditures, including, for most of us, the crippling cost of drugs. If the Trudeau government delivers on the promise of a national pharmacare program, you can add another thousand bucks to the $6,600. A figure that’s been growing 4% a year of late.

That $6,600, however, is just an average. What of elderly parents sponsored by adult children under the rubric of ‘family reunification”? What of the unskilled migrants from “non-traditional” sources who don’t earn enough income to offset the cost of the social services provided to them? Migrants who impose a net fiscal burden of approximately $35 billion a year on Canadian taxpayers? And what about the many tens of thousands of refugee claimants whose settlement costs anywhere from $12,000 to $20,000 a pop? It would be reasonable to assume migrants from Less Developed Countries come with a backlog of unattended medical problems.

Already the big ticket item in every Provincial budget---accounting almost half of all program expenditures----health care spending in this country is on an unsustainable trajectory. The reasons are many. Rising drug costs, the price of new medical technology, over-centralization, the lack of community health clinics, a failure to shift toward preventive and holistic medicine, a failure to implement economies, the under-funding of home care and the refusal of many Canadians to take responsibility for their own health---all factor into the conversation. But the elephant in the hospital room, immigration policy, is a no go zone.

This is not just an issue of financial impositions. There is a human cost as well. The cost born by Canadians who must endure acute pain while waiting in a long line up to get a CT scan or see a specialist, only to join another long line up to have the actual operation. If you want to gauge their suffering think not in terms of faceless millions, but of individuals you may know who suffer in silence or turn to pain killers to get them through the night, and the many months ahead. When I do that, I think of my late mother and the hardship she endured in her final years. I think of the evening when, at age 86, had a medical event in a Vancouver suburb.

Mom was rushed to hospital only to have to spend the night lying in a gurney in the hallway. All beds were taken. According to protocol, the paramedics who carried her in from the ambulance had to stand around until she was admitted to the emergency ward. They had a long evening. So did I. When morning broke when all knew each other's life stories.

There was a lot of talking done that night, and at least half of it was in languages other than English. The signs posted near the waiting room and receptions were multilingual. English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and another from the Indian subcontinent. Our other official language---French---was not on the menu. Quite telling that. At times the scene was chaotic because staff were running around trying to make themselves understood.

That's a common problem in Lower Mainland hospitals. Hallway medicine, stressed out nurses, and very long surgery waits---that's the reality of our much vaunted health care system, a system that was not designed to cope with the crushing demands now made upon it, never mind the demands which the immigration and refugee lobby would further add. It is confounding that many of the people who grumble about having to wait 6 months to see a specialist or 8 months to get a hip replacement are the same people who favour open borders policies. They don't connect the dots.

Thankfully, my mother survived the night, but her lifelong socialist convictions did not.

My parents were among the founding members of Canada's democratic socialist party in 1933, the CCF, re-branded as the NDP in 1961. They fought for the establishment of a welfare state -- a 40 hour week, unemployment insurance, government auto insurance...and of course socialized medicine. When the NDP finally formed the government in British Columbia in 1972, they were elated, like most working class people of their generation. Having met the brutal challenges of the Depression and the War, it seemed then that their sacrifices would be rewarded with a worry free future. They would never have to worry about getting the kind of care they would require in their golden years.

But like the loyal working class supporters of labour and social democratic parties in Britain, Europe and Australia, they were betrayed by the politicians who claimed to be their advocates. They worked hard and paid their taxes, only to see people who had never put a nickel into the system bumped to the head of the queue. It was sad to see their bodies fail, but it was heartbreaking to witness their disillusionment. Their God had failed them.

Mom and Dad never left the NDP. The NDP left them.

Nobel Peace Prize winning economist Milton Friedman once said that you can have mass immigration or you can have the welfare state. But you can't have both. The NDP chose mass immigration.

Tim Murray

July 30, 2018

A picture tells a thousand words

In case you haven’t heard, Canada has a border crisis on its hands. To all but the wilfully blind, the deceitful deniers and the dangerously delusional, it is blatantly evident that growing numbers of migrants are deliberately and flagrantly in contravention of Canadian border law and international treaties.

It is clear that where Roxham Road in Champlain, NY meets Quebec, our laws are not being enforced, our generosity is being abused and our border is wide open to anyone who wants to walk in and avail themselves of the friendly assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Bellhop Police. It is also obvious that the offending migrants knew the drill coming in.. They knew that if they crossed the border in defiance of explicit do-not-enter signs, they would be arrested and detained, but by mere virtue of declaring refugee status on Canadian soil, they would also be given a hearing, something that under the terms of the Safe Third Country agreement, they wouldn’t get had they chosen an official port of entry. Last year, most Roxham Road refugee claimants were Haitian residents who feared deportation after the protected status they enjoyed in the United States following the 2010 earthquake expired. But this year, most were Nigerians who had been granted a visa to enter the United States with the dishonest intention of using it to travel to an unguarded section of the Canadian border. For them, the United States was just a transit point, a stepping stone to the hospitable welfare state to the north.

Numbers and facts can tell the story concisely. Consider this:

• More asylum claims were made last year than at any time in modern Canadian history. The total number of RCMP-intercepted asylum claimants (i.e., “irregulars”) in 2017 was 20,593, and the total number through air, land, and marine ports of entry and inland offices was 22,185, so that total of irregular and “regular” entries was 42,778. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims-2017.html
• The RCMP intercepted 1,890 illegal border crossers in the first three months of 2017. In the same period this year (2018), that number soared to 5,052, compared to the 4,475 people who filed claims at legal ports of entry.
• Since the beginning of 2017, more asylum-seekers have crossed the border than the 25,000 Syrian refugees who were accepted in 2016. There were 18,644 refugee claimants in the queue at the start of 2017, but as of the end of March this year, there some 48,974---more than a doubling in 15 months.
• Understandably, this has placed an unsustainable strain on the refugee system. When Canada rejects an immigrant, the decision is final. For refugee claimants in Canada, however, rejections are subject to lengthy appeals, removal orders, and in some cases, Canada-wide-arrest warrants. Since the Immigration and Refugee Board can only process 1,000 to 2,000 claims per month, they can’t keep pace with the flood. In March, the board was able to complete a record 2,587 claims, but 4,078 new refugee claims came through in the same month. The backlog is out of control.
• As the backlog grows, it is taking longer and longer to process claims. Last October the wait time was 16 months. If border crossings continue at the current rate, the wait time could be 11 years by 2021. Thus, a 19 year old illegal border crosser could be a 30 year old father with three kids in Canada by the time his case was heard. Time enough to put down roots that would be very hard to pull up. These delays will amount to de-facto amnesty, and serve as incentive for more potential claimants to make an illegal crossing. Not to worry. The Trudeau government has injected an extra $173 million on processing illegal immigration. But speeding up “processing” does not add up to border security.
• 96% of asylum-seekers have come via Quebec, which operates only four shelters for asylum-seekers, 1,850 spots in total. In Toronto in 2016, asylum-seekers accounted for 11.2% of the people using shelters. Today that number stands at 37%. The Mayor estimates that at current arrival rates the city will be housing 4,485 asylum seekers by November, occupying 53% of shelter beds when the system is already in an emergency state. Quebec and the City of Toronto are crying “uncle”. Quebec is demanding that federal government fork over $146 million, while Toronto is calling for $64.5 million.
• Each asylum seeker costs federal taxpayers between $10,000 and 20,000 per year in entitlements. In addition to the housing, social welfare, education and health care which they gain access to, under the Interim Federal Health Program asylum seekers are covered by dental and pharmaceutical care that provincial health care plans do not provide for Canadians. This in a country where “hallway medicine” and long surgery wait times are a fact of life in all jurisdictions.
• Both RCMP and Canadian Border Security Agency officials have been muzzled by the Trudeau government, and explicitly told not to speak to the media about the shocking surge in illegal migration. Oddly, Trudeau supporters who reacted with righteous rage against Conservative Prime Minister Harper’s muzzling of scientists are strangely silent about this gag order.

These facts and stats are by no means exhaustive, but I think you get the picture. We have a massive problem, and the Trudeau government shows no signs of solving it. Some cynics would argue that they have no intention of doing so. But that is not the case. Liberals are getting nervous, and even Trudeau has been moved to back pedal. There is now an understanding that the government risks alienating Liberal voters who couple their naivety about welcoming migrants with a sincere belief that there have to be rules and these rules must be preserved and respected. It’s all about optics and partisan positioning. Liberal strategists are playing catch-up, as they try to shift to the right to adjust to the changing public mood and thwart the Conservative surge registered by recent polls.

The outrageous spectacle of brazen law-breaking at the border is highly combustible fuel for a popular rebellion, which so far only manifests itself in relatively modest demonstrations at Roxham Road and the angry, bitter comments that follow pro-immigration online newspaper articles. One senses that there is a subterranean rage out there in search of a leader. Therein lies the danger for nationalists. So desperate is our need for a parliamentary voice that we are prone to vest unwarranted hope in the proven liars and opportunists of establishment parties, determined to ignore their past betrayals and globalist inclinations.

We don't seem to understand that astute conservative politicians like Australia's Malcolm Turnbull or John Howard before him, or our very own (Immigration critic) Michelle Rempel--- take a hard line position against lax border control precisely because they are rabidly pro-immigration. They rightly fear that the violation of borders undermines public support for their sky high immigration agenda. They realize that angry people often conflate refugees with immigrants. They notice that for some reason, voters are more exercised by a few hundred migrants who arrive by boat than the tens of thousands who arrive from camps. They observe that voters develop an intense hostility to "queue jumpers" (and “border jumpers”) and that this hostility often boils over to include animus toward migrant applicants who jump through all the proper hoops. That is exactly what they want to prevent. They want to appear "tough" on asylum seekers and illegal border crosses to appease public anger and lead it. By manipulating and exploiting popular anti-refugee sentiments, they can not only win elections, but out-flank opponents in their own parties. As noted in the Sydney Morning Herald (April 24/2018)

"Turnbull understands the necessity of tough border protection…. a firm and controlled process of entry selection acts as a declaration that the nation state is in charge of its destiny. Tough border protection boosts public confidence in a non-discriminatory migration program, which includes an orderly, humanitarian refugee intake. It benefits immigrants and asylum seekers who go to a nation fairly and legally. It helps avoid the kind of chaos that lax border controls deliver. And it helps dampen down anti-immigrant prejudice."

Smart Conservatives like Howard, Turnbull and Rempel make a clever calculation. If they fan the flames of public outrage against asylum-seekers---whose numbers are but a fraction of our total migrant intake---they can turn the illegal border crossings into a lightening rod, and thereby decoy the angry mob away from what is most important: continual hyper immigration. Refugee-bashing is a small price to pay to ensure that the real invasion continues on an epic scale. Burka bans and references to “barbaric practices” and unwillingness to “integrate” serve the same purpose: Make mass immigration palatable by pretending that everything will be hunky-dory if only migrants check their tribal values at the door and embrace ours. Population overshoot is fine if everyone is “assimilated” and English signage can co-exist with Chinese.

As is the case with Australia, the number of refugee claimants who enter Canada is peanuts compared to our annual immigration intake. So far, in 2018, the number of asylum-seekers who walk across our southern borders each day is but 10% of the number who stream through our airports. If, as informed sources fear, 400 illegals will be coming across the border every day during the summer, this would still constitute less than half the number of migrants than come through legally at official ports of entry. If reporter Faith Goldy’s worst case scenario of 219,000 illegal border crossers came to pass, it would still constitute only half of the roughly 400,000 immigrants and ‘temporary’ visa holders who arrive here legally. Perspective people. Put things into perspective.

We are running out of time. Our window of opportunity is closing. Changing demographics promise to erode our cultural and natural heritage beyond recovery if we don’t soon mount strong political opposition. Unabated mass immigration will bury us.

If we are to see an abrupt uprising against the government's bipartisan immigration agenda, we should hope that Canadians see the images of not 400 but 4000 Nigerians and Somalis streaming through Roxham Road each day. We should hope that TV viewers will be seized by panic, not by relative complacency--- as is the case now---- notwithstanding the still token number of brave, patriotic demonstrators that make their way to the border.

The very worst thing that could happen, at this point, would be for the Liberal government to yield to Rempel's crusade and do as she demands. Declare the entire border as an official port of entry. We shouldn't want the Liberal government to get a handle on things. We should pray that they completely loose the handle, as they show signs of doing.

According to Rempel, our refugee/immigration system is "broken", and that she wants to "fix it." We don't want to "fix" it, we want to demolish it. Notice as well that Rempel is positioning herself as a "Compassionate Conservative", so as to undercut the Trudeau Liberals self-depiction as 'caring', 'welcoming' governors. As she has clearly stated, it is not about volume but "processing". She does not want to cut back in-migration. On the contrary. She just wants to properly “manage” it. Managed national suicide. That pretty well sums up the Conservative project. A project fully embraced by Rempel, as evidenced by this bold confession:

“Most Canadians are like me. We want immigration. I want high levels of immigration. Our previous Conservative government had high levels of immigration. What we are seeing today is just a complete breakdown of immigration such that legal immigration is…. 7 ½ years to come to Canada as a privately sponsored refugee from Djiboute. That’s unconscionable. I want to go back to having a debate about how we process people. How we support them when they come to Canada. Plans for that. We shouldn’t be talking about whether we have a border along the Quebec-US side.” Michelle Rempel CTV News clip May 24/2018

In our desperation to look for champions, I fear that many of us are following her banner with the same enthusiasm that we rallied behind Conservative Party leadership candidate Kellie Leitch. We don't want to face the fact that these people have a different end game than ours. They want to re-capture office. That's it. And to do that, they will even throw some of their own under the bus just to get the liberal media hounds off their tail. Lynn Belak a case in point.
To Canadian nationalists I say this. Beware of the Pied Pipers of Fake Populism. Beware of tough talking Conservatives who mask their globalist goals with the rhetoric of patriotism. Take in the big picture. And make them understand that we don’t really have a border crisis as much as we have an immigration crisis. Tell them that ‘fixing’ illegal immigration doesn’t cut it. Tell them that if they won’t commit to substantial immigration reduction, we will not commit to them.
Don’t be played.
Tim Murray
June 7, 2018

After fruitless and protracted negotiations between the Human Social Justice Union and Mother Nature, U.N. mediator Hoo R.U. Kiddun has booked off. His decision came after the HSJU reps and Mother Nature failed to hammer out a deal in the latest of enumerable all-night bargaining sessions. “The parties are just too far apart”, Kiddun remarked, “To come to an agreement, there has to be some give and take on both sides, but it seems that for 250 years Union members have been doing all the taking and Management refuses to continue giving.”

Social Justice Negotiators Fail to Gain Concessions from Mother Nature

CBCnews.ca November 16, 2016

After fruitless and protracted negotiations between the Human Social Justice Union and Mother Nature, U.N. mediator Hoo R.U. Kiddun has booked off. His decision came after the HSJU reps and Mother Nature failed to hammer out a deal in the latest of enumerable all-night bargaining sessions. “The parties are just too far apart”, Kiddun remarked, “To come to an agreement, there has to be some give and take on both sides, but it seems that for 250 years Union members have been doing all the taking and Management refuses to continue giving.”

After humanity had reduced the global wildlife population by 40% since the first Earth Day in 1970, and raised global temperatures by 1.03 C since 1750 when the industrial revolution began, Mother Nature has threatened to lay off 7.5 billion people unless the Union agrees to major reductions in wages and benefits, including medical, dental, and vision care, and carbon emissions. In fact, it appears that human civilization itself is on the chopping block, but apparently the Union is cool with that as long as the social safety net remains intact.

The Union in fact, for its part, refuses to believe Nature’s claim that there are no more cookies in the cookie jar, or at least, not enough to satisfy the growing appetites of a rapidly growing union membership. “Let her show us the books---what is she hiding?”, asked chief negotiator J. Simon. “She is sitting on a cornucopia of natural capital while crying poor. If indeed there isn’t enough to go around, she should call on us for help before wielding the axe. There is a lot of intellectual capital on our side of the table---all she has to do is plug into it. We are ideas people and there are no limits to our ingenuity.” When questioned about whether boundless human ingenuity will be able to resurrect the millions of species that his members have extinguished, Mr. Simon refused comment---or place a bet.

But Kiddun reported that Mother Nature is intransigent, and refuses to move on any of its demands for voluntary cutbacks, or modify its biophysical laws. Her chief negotiator, I. Asimov, said that the Union could demand anything it wanted. “It can demand that every human being has a right to have his or her basic needs satisfied. It can demand that everyone has a right to access the bathroom in their apartment at any time day they want to—free of charge. They even can put it in the Union Constitution. But our problem is that we can only provide one bathroom and there are 7.5 billion tenants in the apartment. “

One Union negotiator, Bernie Sandpaper, rejected Asimov’s contention as absurd. “As a socialist”, Sandpaper said, “ I have to believe that if resources are fairly and equally distributed, there is enough to go around. All tenants in our national apartment can have free and universal access to quality bathroom care if we tax the rich and double our national debt to $38 trillion. Moreover, we can accommodate any and all the tenants from other apartments in the building who aspire to move to ours.”

Green HSJU negotiator Jill Stoner concurred. “All we need to do is reduce our footprint, move over and squeeze tighter for more and more incoming migrants ad infinitum. Migrants have rights too, and their rights and needs trump ours--no pun intended.” Another outgoing member of the team, Billary Winer, added, “We need to build bridges, not walls. Instead turning people away, we need to extend the table…ours is a vision of inclusivity, not exclusivity.” Ms. Winer is even rumored to have told a banker she wants to allow uninhibited traffic between all apartment suites, even to the point of tearing down bearing walls. “I want man-servants who will cook and clean for substandard wages,” a leaked email had her saying, “and if deplorables lose their jobs I am going to call them racists.”

Upon receipt of her comment, Asimov was reported to have said that Winer could extend the table all she wants, but there is not enough food in the kitchen to feed all the diners she wants to invite, nor enough energy to run the ovens or the stoves. “And we anticipate that energy costs will skyrocket to the point that customers are going to go home hungry……I expect fights to break out”, he added.
“Some may even burn down the restaurant.”

Kiddun, reflecting upon the impasse, sadly concluded that the fundamental problem was that the Social Justice negotiators just can ‘t rap their heads around the reality of scarcity. “And they don’t acknowledge that there are limits to growth….

“Once more”, Kiddun continued, “their Green wing doesn’t understand that it doesn’t make any sense for their union members to cut their consumption in half, only to turn around and double the number of members.” “They can argue until they are blue in the face, but Mother Nature won’t give. She doesn’t care about per capitas. Per capita energy consumption, per capita waste, or per capita carbon emissions. She only cares about TOTAL energy consumption, waste and C02 emissions. In other words, the number of members times their average consumption ….

“What we have here is a failure to communicate…. Mother Nature’s books are open, but the Union just doesn’t seem willing to read them …..

“I suspect that their brains just don’t do reality. They can’t cope with it. Reality is so ugly that denial is an essential coping mechanism. It is a part of their nature. They can deal with the short term, but aren’t interested in the long term”, Kiddun remarked, “They are neurologically f***ed.”

The consensus among seasoned observers is that massive layoffs are now inevitable.

Tim Murray
CBC Bullschiesse News
November 17, 2016.

A year ago, like a herd of buffalo being stampeded toward a cliff, people in my neck of the woods were convinced that "we must get rid of Harper" in order to "save the environment." When I asked such people what it was that Harper was doing that was so damaging to the environment, they all spewed the party line. "He's stripped the country of all environmental regulations." It came out like a programmed response. However, when I asked them to give me a specific example, without exception, no one could tell me. No one could name a single one of those environmental "regulations".

Of course, Harper did remove several regulations, and worse than that, muzzled scientists in Environment Canada who might spill the beans as to what was happening in the Canadian north. Canadian scientists were understandably enraged. OK. But the point here is that herd animals are not driven by any intimate knowledge of the issues that animate them, but by the instinct to follow their leaders. In that respect, political parties resemble religious congregations, and their conventions are more like revival meetings than symposiums. None more than the NDP.

My next question went something like this. "Mulcair (leader of the Opposition NDP) vowed that he would, as he put it, "get the oil to market"---but only after the restoration of regulations that would ensure that it was extracted and delivered in an "environmentally responsible" way. But isn't what happens AFTER the oil reaches the market the major issue here? No one buys oil without the intention of BURNING it. So isn't this talk about environmental responsibility just so much Greenwash? Would it not be akin to Goering or Hitler assuring Londoners that V2 rockets would be assembled and delivered in an environmentally responsible manner in full compliance with tough environmental regulations?

Again, no NDP supporter I encountered could answer that question either. Then I tried to drive in another nail. "Thanks to the government's tri-partisan policy on immigration, we have 7 million more consumers today than we did when the Kyoto accord was signed. These extra people are emitting twice the amount of GHG emissions as the whole Alberta tar sands project. And BTW, this population growth has despoiled twice as much land as the tar sands project. We are not talking about boreal forest here, but some of the best farmland in the country."

That's when the conversation ended. It was a show-stopper. In one case, though, it spiralled out of control. On a dark damp October night two days before the federal election, a neighbour down the street yelled at me, "Immigration has nothing to do with it!", and stalked off down his long driveway. Another neighbour to the south, on the other hand, just turned away. She hasn't spoken to me since then, almost a year ago now. That's the more typical reaction. Silence and withdrawal.

Immigration is a no-go zone, and if you press the issue you are a no-go zone. Presenting arguments that they cannot refute only hardens their position. In essence, I have attacked their religious beliefs. There is no greater sin than that.

In fact, Prime Minister Trudeau is rumoured to introduce legislation patterned on Quebec's Bill 51, making criticism of Islam a criminal offence. In other words, he plans to re-establish good old-fashioned laws against 'blasphemy'. Like so many 'progressives', that is, regressives, he is of the view that ideas and ideologies should enjoy immunity from comments, criticisms or depictions that might hurt their adherents' feelings. To do so would be "divisive" and "non-inclusive, and that wouldn't do. Not in today's Canada. "Diversity" and "inclusivity" are central to the catechism of our State Religion. Better include those words on the protected list too.

So it should come as no surprise if any criticism of immigration policy may one day be subject to state punishment to complement the public shaming of blasphemers in social media and the employer sanctions that follow. Especially after Trump's defeat. Opinions that are perceived to be remotely "hurtful" will be excluded by nervous editors. The chilling effect will extend far beyond legal definitions of un-Canadian utterances.

To prepare the ground for this tight constriction of "anti-immigrant" speech, we are now witnessing a number of articles, op-eds and radio commentaries that argue for a spectacular increase in the government's annual immigration intake. It seems like a replay of a similar campaign conducted some 5 or 6 years ago when people like Irvin Studin and Steve Lafleur were given free rein by the CBC or other MSM outlets to promote their vision of a Big Canada. Only this time, we can expect that this "Second Wave" will be wider in scope and more strident in tone. It seems that a belief in open floodgates is destined to become one of those core Canadian “values” that Justin Trudeau talks about.

Thus, a number of pro hyper-immigration articles have been popping up of late. The Globe and Mail recently posted such an article by Tom Milroy, “Immigration: how a bigger Canada benefits us all” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/immigration-how-a-bigger-canada-benefits-us-all/article32302399 . But, as retired Canadian diplomat Martin Collacott noted,

"In the past week the Conference Board of Canada also proposed increasing our population to 100 million (see the attached Toronto Star article) – hardly surprising since the Conference Board is funded by corporations and promotes their interests. Immigration Minister John McCallum is mentioned in the article as wanting to “substantially” increase immigration – which indeed he announced some weeks ago was his objective, notwithstanding the admission that work had to be done to convince Canadians this was a good idea. As far back as April 2001, McCallum began touting the idea that we should increase the population to 100 million."

This from one of Justin Trudeau's frontline cabinet ministers. That's Justin Trudeau, the "pro-environment" politician and climate change warrior.

It is amazing what Justin can get away with these days. He can visit a mosque and appear in a Pride Day parade in the same week. He can argue for economic growth and lower GHG emissions and a "clean environment" in the same speech. He can shill for big corporations and at the same time enjoy the support of credulous dupes who regard him as Nature's advocate.

This guy is a better actor than was Ronald Reagan. Proof positive that the Liberal Backroom Boys knew what they were doing when they chose a high school drama teacher to channel the Bay Street agenda while dressing it up in the clothing of social justice, tolerance and environmental sustainability. An airhead who can cloak his ignorance with politically correct platitudes with complete confidence that his adoring flock will not take a look at what is under his glossy, flowing hair---the vacuous mind of a preening charlatan.

He can read the lines. That's enough

I am, together with a female I never met, excited to announce the non-birth of the son or daughter that was never conceived due to our proactive determination to ensure that outcome. This non-being was not born today on January 1, 2014, nor on any other day of our adult lives. Accordingly, nothing weighing 7 lbs. 14 ounces or any other weight issued from anyone's womb on that day or any other day on our account. And no grandfather, grandmother, uncle, aunt or sibling irrationally celebrated the arrival of a newborn simply because he or she shared their genes.

However, the planet shared our excitement. Since there are 152 more people born than die each minute---or 220,000 a day---more people than there are primates in the entire world----Gaia thanks us this and every other day for this joyous non-event---particularly since it occurred or did not occur in Canada , where each newborn on average will emit 23 metric tonnes of Green House Gasses each year, consume about 46,000 pounds of minerals annually and 3.6 million pounds of minerals, metals and fuels in his or her lifetime.

In the context of an ever diminishing base of affordably accessible non-renewable natural resources---which enable our industrial economy and underpin the sustenance of billions across the globe---every extra human pushes those of lesser means off the plate. In a world of 'continually less and less', all survivors will of necessity be party to manslaughter. To live they must eat someone else's lunch, and one day that someone will live in their nation or neighbourhood and not out of sight and out of mind in Africa or Asia.

It is my hope that one day non-birth announcements like this will fill the newspapers and childless people will be the object of public gratitude, along with those who adopt rather than conceive children---while those who have more than one child will suffer the same disapproval as thieves, murderers and drunk drivers who commit vehicular homicide. "Green" celebrity parents of large families, meanwhile, will be excoriated as the ignorant, selfish hypocrites that they are. Unlikely? Remember that once upon a time, not long ago, smoking in public places, driving without seat belts or inebriated were thought inalienable rights. It is amazing what a crisis can do to effect a sea-change in attitudes. Suddenly and hopefully not too late, the public will realize that we are in an emergency.

And perhaps one day a prize will be awarded to a couple who do not have the first baby of the New Year.

What's wrong with the Canadian Environmental Movement? Why don't Canadian environmental organisations protest about the huge impact of successive government's policies to promote mass immigration to Canada? The six million more people imported to Canada since 1991 would account for four times as much GHG emissions as the Alberta tar sands project. Overpopulation is the number one issue that multiplies every other impact. Why is this message of the original promoter of Earth Day forgotten today?

Questions for the environmental movement on Earth Day: Do you think adding these many people (250,000+) to Canada every year has no impact on the environment? Is that why you remain silent about it? Or is the money you get from corporations like RBC, TD Bank and the Van City mortgage empire (the latter two, donors to the BC Sierra Club)? More people, more home building, more loans, more cheap labour!

And the real influx is much higher than this, including those here on "temporary" visas who forget to leave. Real figure: somewhere between 4-500,000 per year. That is one Mississauga worth of consumers added to our numbers each year, year after year after year. Mind-boggling.

1991 - Kyoto and the start of Mulroney/McDougal mass immigration push

1991 was the year that the Kyoto accord was signed. It was also the year that Brian Mulroney and his Immigration Minister, Barbara McDougall, began the era of hyper-immigration so that, according to McDougall's reasoning, the Conservatives could lure ethnic voters away from the Liberal Party (Hey, it finally worked!). Since then, Canada has gained more than 6 million extra people that otherwise would not be here. Those six million people have been responsible for FOUR times as much GHG emissions as the Alberta tar sands project and FOUR times as much land despoilation. Not boreal forest, but largely prime Class 1 farmland. Mass immigration has been the biggest ecological disaster of the last twenty years of Canadian history. More than any pipeline, more than any mining project, and certainly more than our nuclear industry, the most inflated of all boogeymen on the landscape. Mass immigration is definitely not, as Elizabeth May said, a 'trivial' issue.

About Immigration, not Immigrants ...

This is about immigration, not immigrants. "While immigrants did not invent our profligate lifestyle, they nevertheless aspire to it, as our parents, grandparents or great grandparents once did in coming here. Improving one’s lot is, after all, is the major and fully understandable motive for those who choose to settle here. The point is not to blame immigrants but to cite immigration as the major driver of population growth, which, contrary to green perceptions, has a demonstrably negative impact on our environment. " http://candobetter.net/node/2254 Each of us are part of the problem, but increasing our numbers cannot be a solution. In fact, radically reducing our existing population level is essential to our survival. Ask the scientists. Ask Canadian scientists like Dr. Michael Healey, or Dr. David Schindler, or Dr. David Hughes of Cortes Island. We should aim for a national population level of half, or less than half, of what we presently have. We must return immigration intakes to sane levels, stop rewarding people for having children, encourage adoption and discourage IVF treatments. Instead, we are growing leaps and bounds while the environmental movement stands mute.

What's got the Canadian Environmental Movement's tongue?

A second question therefore arises. Why hasn't the environmental movement demanded an environmental review panel process for the policy of mass immigration? Why are there not people lined up at the microphone in hearings across the country demanding that an environmental assessment be done for a policy that has made Canada the leader in population growth among G8 countries? Why? Why? Why?

Is it political correctness? Cowardice? Wilful blindness? Stupidity? Or a mercenary quest to keep corporate funding, funding which Big Green Inc. is careful to try to hide from its grassroots membership? Why do the members of these corrupt behemoths lack the diligence and the integrity to scrutinize the books of their beloved green champions and ask the appropriate questions? Question like "Why is my organization accepting money from big corporations and big banks? What do we have do in return for that money? What does RBC, the TD Bank and Encana Corp, for example, want from Big Green? Why is the grass roots membership content to rely upon the filtered information of their trusted Club representatives rather than do their own research? How can they remain ignorant of the foundational formula of the environmental movement, the IPAT equation?

Tim Murray
April 22, 2013

Earth Day Founder Advocated That U.S. Dramatically Cut Immigration and Stabilize Its Population

We make eight key points about Earth Day, 2013 :

(1) Earth Day was founded by the late Gaylord Nelson in 1970. Nelson was a U.S. Democratic Senator and Wisconsin Governor.

(2) A giant among environmentalists, Nelson advocated that in order for the U.S. to protect its environment, it had to dramatically cut legal immigration, enforce its laws to stop illegal immigration, and stabilize the U.S. population.

(3) He was the author of the U.S. Wilderness Act, numerous other environmental bills, and an inspiration for many more. He was a forceful leader in attempting to convince environmental organizations that they could never achieve their long-term goals unless the US achieved population stabilization through immigration reduction.

(4) On Earth Day’s 30th anniversary in 2000, Nelson said : “Population, global warming and sustainability would be my suggestions for the three most urgent environmental challenges…. Stabilizing U.S. population is a challenge that could be resolved in a relatively short period resulting in significant economic and environmental benefits. At the current rate of population growth, the population of the US will (rise)… to some 530 million within the next 65 to 70 years. If that happens, the negative consequences will be substantial if not, indeed, disastrous. To stabilize our population would require a dramatic reduction in our immigration rate….

(5) “The hard fact is that while the population is booming here and round the world, the resource base that sustains the economy is rapidly dwindling. It is not just a problem in faraway lands, it is an urgent, indeed, a critical problem here at home right now. We are talking about deforestation, aquifer depletion, air pollution, water pollution, and depletion of fisheries, urbanization of farmland, soil erosion and much more…

(6) “The bigger the population gets, the more serious the problems become…. We have to address the population issue. The United Nations, with the US supporting it, took the position in Cairo in 1994 that every country was responsible for stabilizing its own population. It can be done. But in this country, it’s phony to say ‘I’m for the environment but not for limiting immigration.’ “

(7) To those economists whose only concern is maximizing GDP, thereby disregarding environmental concerns, Nelson would thunder that, “These people refuse to recognize that the economy is the wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.” If the environment collapses, so will the economy which depends on it.

(8) Gaylord Nelson's name is largely ignored and his message has been downplayed and betrayed by most environmental organizations, our media and our governments. To many of these people, environmentalism has been trivialized to recycling toilet paper rolls while the roof of the world falls on their heads.
Dan Murray
April 22, 2013

Johnny and Joanie were once the typical post-apocalyptic Stone Age couple. Each day was a tribulation. Minding the kids, fending off predators and raiders from adjacent tribes, hell, just putting food on the table were stressful enough. The versatile Tim Murray reaches out to new-agers everywhere in this article about personal adjustment in a time of advanced oil-depletion.

Our personal lives

Having marital difficulties?
Has the mindless pursuit of game and sustenance got you down?
Has the quest for more and more left you spiritually empty as the environment degrades around you?

Then you need to attend the Barney Rubble School of Sustainable Happiness (BRSSH)!

Johnny and Joanie were once the typical post-apocalyptic Stone Age couple. Each day was a tribulation. Minding the kids, fending off predators and raiders from adjacent tribes, hell, just putting food on the table were stressful enough. But worse was that feeling of spiritual vacuity that comes with the subconscious understanding that one's life in this dog-eat-dog stone-age world is simply not fulfilling. Like all couples in our society, Johnny and Joanie knew in their hearts that they were not happy, but they just couldn't put their finger on the reason. Some said it was "capitalism", some said it was the lack of renewable technology. But no answer seemed satisfactory. So naturally, they blamed each other. To Johnny, the reason that their marriage was falling apart was that Joanie was not "putting out". But for Joanie, it was always "our relationship". Johnny just never seemed to want to find the time to talk about, although, in his eyes it seemed that was ALL Joanie ever wanted to talk about.

At first they considered marriage counselling, but the shaman next door seemed like the very last person who you would want to confide in. The guy seemed like he lived a dream world. Always in delirium, going off in the wild for days of fasting, always seeking some hunger-induced vision, celibate, living alone----what the hell did he know about family dynamics?

Then they heard about “THE BARNEY RUBBLE SCHOOL OF SUSTAINABLE HAPPINESS”, and the workshops held by Mark Anielski. It seemed like an option that they couldn't pass up. So they enrolled, and boy were they glad they did! Now they live in connubial bliss as spiritual beings who just happen to live in material world----in it, but not “of” it. Who needs a GDP anyway?

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4948713428353107&pid=1.1

Johnny (to the left), a hunter-gatherer in what used to be Wisconsin (a member of the “Walker” kinship group) testifies as to how the Barney Rubble School of Sustainable Happiness changed his outlook on life.

"I use to measure my happiness on the basis of how many dead carcasses I could bring home each week to the family, or how many skulls I could crack in encounter with a rival tribe, but thanks to the BRSSH, I now know that what is most important in life is to live at a subsistence level and come to enjoy it, knowing that in so doing, I am reducing my footprint so that the hunter gatherers of other tribes have enough to sustain themselves too...voluntary simplicity is what it’s all about, man. You gotta embrace destitution and grab what life doesn’t offer while you can. Ask any self-righteous green: pointless self-sacrifice gives you a big-time dopamine hit---trust me! It’s not about results, it’s about feeling good about yourself.”

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4767624741126759&pid=1.1

Until she enrolled at BRSSH, Joanie (to the right) thought she could only be happy if she was grabbed by the hair and hauled away by a knuckle-dragger who would "bring home the bacon" and allow her to raise a big family in a big cave or hovel befitting her elevated status.

"Maybe it was just the time I was brought up in. As a stone age girl I was expected to fulfill the tribal dream. I was raised to believe that to be happy, I needed a brave man, I needed a caveman. After all, every red-blooded female hunter-gatherer wants someone she can always look up to. Someone who loves her of course, by letting her know that he's the boss. So before attending the Barney Rubble School of Sustainable Happiness, I wanted Johnny to get angry. I wanted Johnny to get mad. I wanted him to give me the biggest lecture I ever had."

But after graduation, she is brimming with sustainable happiness knowing that she her modest lifestyle is permitting other hunter-gatherers the ecological room they need to expand to push the limits and persist in equally miserable circumstances. "As the saying goes", Joanie explained, "if you can't change your situation---in my case, the situation of a living in a post-apocalyptic dead-end world that lacks the non-renewable resources to re-launch civilization---then change your attitude!"

"Before I went to the BRSSH I thought that suckling my kid while I was gathering berries and wood bugs for dinner, and wearing big necklaces of fake sabre tooth tiger teeth was the ticket to self-esteem and contentment. Now I realize that I can gain the same satisfaction by meditation and deep breathing exercises.....and I can do this without taxing the resources that future generations of no-hopers will depend on....people whom we must rely upon to carry the torch for a species that will never again create civilization or accomplish anything of significance....It is this vision of the future which gives me purpose in life."

Tim Murray, June 15, 2012

Painting: John Singleton Copley, Watson and the Shark (1777)

The nationally publicized assault of a 38 year old black man

The nationally publicized assault of a 38 year old black man in Courtenay, BC by three young white thugs was predictably amplified by a media eager to sound the siren of politically correct paranoia. There was racism under every bed! White racism that is. The other kind, of “black on white” assaults, which statistically is much the more common event in America, is not the subject of polite conversation. It is, after all, socially outrageous to speak the truth in Canada. Best to ban the publication of ethnic crime data to smother bigotry in its cradle. Then again, statistical profiling may very well do the opposite by revealing that crime is not the trademark of any ethnic community but only of a tiny and troubled minority within it. And that culture, not skin pigmentation, is a relevant factor, among many.

When the Mayor of Courtenay, Greg Phelps, failed to comply with a PC injunction to support a “feel good” anti-discrimination ‘protocol’ he found substantially meaningless, to address a problem too over-blown to warrant panic, an activist of self-righteous disgust raised the specter of rampant subterranean racism. You may not see it, but trust me, it’s here, there and everywhere! Courtenay may project the image of placid tolerance, but scratch the surface, and it’s a town in the Jim Crow South. “The mayor,” he said, was “just the tip of the iceberg. And it’s not about the three young white men either. There’s got to be a large peer group who shares their racist views. And don’t forget racism begins at home. These men obviously have parents. And these parents have peers too…” Implication? Let’s find them and root them out! I wonder if Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” is included by the school board in the canon of student texts, along with the slogans of intolerant tolerance that the Ministry of Education mandates.

How inconvenient it was then, when it was later learned that apparently, the three aggressors subsequently attacked a Caucasian man. One wonders would words they applied to taunt him. Was it “fatso”, “gimp”, “four eyes”, “baldy” or “fag”? If so, would it indicate that they were motivated by a hatred of obese, handicapped, bespectacled, hairless or gay people? Or would it reveal that their despicable aggression was more accurately the result of three young punks spoiling for a fight and looking for any handle or epithet to goad their victim and get under his skin?

Media alarmism and rent-a-crowd fury

This media alarmism and rent-a-crowd fury recalls the outrageous claim made by the then Minister for Multiculturalism, Hedy Fry, that racism had reached such a fever pitch that ‘they were burning crosses in Prince George (BC).” That too was a ridiculous hyperbole and a blatant lie. Prince George was no more a racist hotbed than Courtenay is today. Nevertheless, these kind of charges serve a purpose. And what purpose do they serve? They stoke up a hyper-sensitivity not only about racism, but issues about that are peripheral to it, but not necessarily connected.

The bogeyman of rampant white racism creates an atmosphere of social intimidation that already greets anyone who dares to criticize the state policies of mass immigration and official multiculturalism. And as we have seen here and elsewhere, racial vilification laws and the revision of history are the logical complement to it. The need to suppress and punish odious views is thought necessary to smother any nascent challenge to the corporate agenda of growing the economy by growing the population. Hysteria inflates the constituency for more restrictions on contrarian speech and the ethnic cleansing of textbooks. Since Canada’s immigration selection criteria, in tandem with the second highest per capita immigration intake in the world, ensures that the country will evolve as Courtenay is evolving, into “a growing community increasing in diversity”, ethnic harmony must come at any cost.

Given that imperative, free speech can no longer be regarded as the very condition and pre-requisite of all other rights, but in the classic Canadian light, of merely one right to be weighed against others in determining the public interest.

"Cultural diversity" a sweet-sounding syrup to coat the bitter pill of naked profit and greed

“Cultural diversity” is the clarion call of the liberal-left, but it is also the mask of the corporate elite, a sweet-sounding syrup to coat the bitter pill of naked profit and greed---and the environmental degradation that comes with it. Big banks, developers and cheap labour employers fly its banner as a smokescreen to obscure their efforts to widen the labour pool and recruit more homebuyers. Immigration is openly promoted as a life-preserver for the shipwrecked home mortgage and home building industry by the Royal Bank of Canada, Scotia Bank and other credit institutions. Cultural diversity is the flavour of the month for an agenda that has no sincere interest in ethnic folk dances and exotic cuisines, but only in the making of money, and the fragmentation of a once cohesive society so that united opposition to its aims become less and less likely as the process unfolds. It is a kind of diversity that comes at the cost of both biological diversity---the staggering loss of species from human population growth in Canada----and intellectual diversity. A nation where people of different origins and hues can co-exist only if they sing the same tune, and the old slogans of “white” nationalism are supplanted by the cant of fake “diversity”. It is the ideology of current convenience, like the “Manifest Destiny” or “White Australia” of times past, to camouflage and disguise the continuing quest to dispossess whom ever happens to be the native population of its share of the economic pie.

For good measure, school textbooks, and history itself, has been revised to advance the new state religion of “Multiculturalism”—Canada’s Ingsoc. The falsehoods of the past have been replaced with politically correct falsehoods of the present. The Chinese head tax and the Exclusion Act, together with the Komagata Maru incident, now form the centerpiece of White Guilt 101, which never looks at the historical context of these events, but assigns retroactive blame on working people and politicians whose main objective was simply to defend wages and living standards from cheap imported labour. No mention is made, for example, that “Chinese exclusion” did not apply to students, diplomats or Chinese business men and their families. Some kind of ‘racism’ that.

Don't play into the PC game-plan

But making the foregoing case plays right into the PC game-plan. That is, draw us into a verbal maelstrom on race, away from the critical issue of sustainability. Away from what should be our primary concern, which is not about how people in our lifeboat treat each other, where they are from or how they look, but how many damn passengers the boat can carry sustainably past the tumultuous storms of peak oil, peak water and peak everything that loom over the horizon. The relationship between humans is secondary to the relationship of humans to nature and the resources it provides. HMCS Canada is a lifeboat, not an aircraft carrier. It is not a vast and boundless land begging for more people to unlock a treasure trove of limitless resources, but a big “little’ land in ecological terms. A nation of frozen tundra, short growing seasons, mined out and marginal soil where 20% of its best farmland is paved over and the rest is under threat from continuing sprawl and the impending loss of oil-based fertilizers. A ship hurtling toward the iceberg of overshoot with politicians on the bridge who want to stop to pick up more passengers and encourage those already on board to have more children.

It is in this context that the crusade of “anti-racism” must be seen. It is the sand that is thrown in our face to get us off our game----stopping growth. And growth is no bogeyman. It is here and it is killing us.

Tim Murray
Quadra Island, BC
July 14/09