AUSTRALIA – Population 22 Million
CANADA – Population 35 Million
“Up for grabs” — an English idiom meaning something tossed up in the air for anyone to freely grab for themselves.
By Don Murray
Immigration Watch Canada
Ms. Goldie uses the term “Big Australia” to refer to an Australia with a much larger population. We use the term “Big Canada” in the same way.
The points the author makes are extremely relevant to statements made in Canada.
For example, Canadians have recently heard a University of Toronto academic advocate that Canada increase its population to 100 million.
Less audible was a statement made by a Tamil (FOREIGNER) who was protesting the detention of the 490 Tamils that arrived here by ship in August. In an attempt to trivialize the effect of those Tamils on Canada, and to promote the acceptance of even more (of his) boat people, as well as of more immigration to Canada, he declared (!?) that Canada’s large amount of land should be able to take 500 million people.
Similarly, former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had advocated that Australia increase its population to 35 million by 2050 from its current population of 22 million. It is generally believed that Rudd’s “Big Australia” policy (as well as others) caused him to lose the leadership of Australia’s Labor Party to the current (now former) Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
All of these statements are particularly important today for the following reasons:
1. The advocates of larger populations completely ignore the environmental consequences of adding large numbers of people to either country. As the Australian writer says, “Space is one resource but it is by no means the only resource necessary for supporting a larger human population.” In particular, higher population advocates pay no attention to the possibility that both Canada and Australia may be severely affected by climate change. Although both countries are food exporters now, it is possible that they may not in the future be able to feed their own people. In the event that climate change does not have as negative effect as that, they pay no attention to the fact that huge amounts of Canada’s Class 1 farmland in Southern Ontario have been lost just since 1990 to housing subdivisions that were built to accommodate the 2.5 million immigrants who have settled there (as a result of senseless high immigration).
As Canada’s non-partisan Privy Council stated in 1991, a number of areas on this planet are already “environmental disasters“. The question that should be asked is this :
Do Canada and Australia have an obligation to accept unlimited numbers of people from those areas and also turn themselves into “environmental disasters”? (China, India, Pakistan, Nigeria – anyone??) It is clear that if high immigration continues … this will happen.
What good will this do for Canada and the rest of the world, other than to inflate the egos of the great “humanitarians” who see no limits to their “generosity” just as they see no environmental limits to Canada?
As we have said before, they and all Canadians should remember that in 1976, Canada’s most eminent scientists (The Science Council of Canada) advised Canada’s federal government that if Canada really wanted to be “humanitarian“, it should restrict immigration, protect its agricultural land, stabilize its population and concentrate on a future in which it did all it could to supply whatever excess food it had to other parts of the world. These food exports could go a long way to help Canada with its balance of payments.
2. The advocates of large populations also ignore the economic consequences of increasing a country’s population. As long ago as the late 1980’s, Canada’s own Department of Health and Welfare stated that Canada’s resources were limited.
If Canada continued to increase its population, the share that each Canadian would have of the country’s economic pie would decline proportionately. A significant number of Canadians, including the academic in question, continue to believe that Canada is “a rich country“, that “Canada’s resources are unlimited“, and that the current high immigration intake of 250,000 per year has had and will have no negative economic effects on Canada. This attitude persists despite the clear evidence that most Canadians are not “rich”.
In fact, hundreds of thousands of Canadians have lost their livelihoods in the recent recession (and more in the previous 2 since 1990). All have been negatively affected by the failure of all 3 levels of government to demand that immigration be lowered to protect them from competition from unnecessary immigration.
Incredible as it may sound, Canadians continue to hear from all levels of government that the aspirations of recent immigrants for recognition of their credentials and Canada’s supposed “need” for diversity should be given priority over the interests of the people already here.
In effect, all 3 levels of government have abandoned any sympathy for economically-distressed mainstream Canadians and transferred that sympathy to about 5 million immigrants, most of whom Canada never needed. Even harder to believe is that many people at all 3 levels of government seriously believe they should be given awards for having done this.
3. The advocates of higher populations in both countries also ignore that a “Big Canada” and a “Big Australia”, but particularly a “Big Canada” , will be achieved largely by immigration. The cultural effects of unnecessary high immigration are already evident in Canada’s larger centres.
Many Canadians feel like Tibetans!
When, they ask, did Canada’s elected officials ever ask Canadians if they wanted to be culturally overwhelmed? To turn this situation around for the benefit of those who cannot understand this message, how would China, India or the Philippines, who now send Canada most of its immigrants, have reacted if large numbers of mainstream Canadians arrived on their doorsteps and proclaimed, “We’ve come to make you diverse!!”
Undoubtedly, all these countries would have been enraged and thrown these people out !! Yet, here in Canada, most elected officials at all 3 levels of government have grovelled and fawned and told their mainstream Canadian electorate to “Celebrate Diversity”, “Recognize credentials” (of people Canada did not need), and “Repent” for so-called “past wrongs” by delivering the most sycophantic of apologies (See the one delivered in New Westminster, B.C. recently) and by continuing to take people who are culturally overwhelming Canada. And, hard as it is to believe, many of Canada’s elected officials at all 3 levels have managed to get away with this nonsense for 20 years.
Many Canadians would say that these people are long overdue to receive their “just award”. —Source—
(For emphasis, bolded, underlined, italicized, (parenthesis) words, and added links/photos by ELN Editor)
- Immigration driving Canada’s population growth: StatsCan (nationalpost.com)