Ever wonder why the Sierra Club is Canada’s flag ship Greenie group while the others are comparative wallflowers that never get asked to the dance floor? Why isn’t it a spokesman for the David Suzuki Foundation, the Sea Sheppard Conservation Society or even Greenpeace anymore the one you see on a TV panel being interviewed for their reaction to a government announcement on the environment? Why it is now almost invariably a spokesman for the Sierra Club who is asked to speak on behalf of all that is just and true and good in the world?
The answer is obvious. The Sierra Club has got the dough and the other beggars don’t. They have pulled far ahead of the pack. Now how far ahead we can’t tell. For here is an interesting, and for me, a telling fact about the Sierra Club.
They are allegedly a democratic organization operating in a democratic society, but they won’t divulge who their largest benefactors are and how much they receive from them. The kind of information that Canadians expect to know about their political advocates and parties. Who is paying the piper?
The answer is a relevant one for shedding light on Sierra Club Canada’s rationale for refusing to comment on Canada’s runaway population growth. For example, when the census report of March 29\2007 came out revealing that Canada suffered the highest population growth rate of all G8 countries, with all of the obvious environmental consequences that has, including the annual loss of 60,000 acres of prime farmland in Ontario, the emission of 7.5 million metric tonnes of Green House gases and losses of untold number of species to development----the Sierra Club was silent. Does somebody buy their silence on immigration when it so obviously a crucial ingredient of environmental degradation? When it it so crucially an ingredient of corporate profits, of increasing the labour pool to drive down wages and fuel the consumer economy?
In America billionaire David Gelbaum paid the ruling clique of the Sierra Club $100 million of his hush money to keep immigration out of their policy books and since then they have had demographic lockjaw. Canada’s Sierra Club director of the time Elizabeth May declared that if immigration control was restored to the American Sierra Club policy book as it had historically been , she would change the name of her Canadian clone. No need. Once an ostrich to growth, always an ostrich. Neither of the bobsy twins budged.The Sierra Club of Canada is a fully paid up member of the Growth Management Industry whose slogan is : “Keep it coming, we’ll ‘manage it’ with proper planning.”
So just how does the Sierra Club do it? Bay Street money? Billionaire benefactors like Gelbaum? Possibly. They did turn a blind eye to Harper’s program of mass immigration and that alone should qualify them from for a massive reward. The more mundane answer however is provided by the current Executive Director himself, Mr. Steven Hazell, while he bragged to his members in this post-election statement of early November 2008:
“We can be active during a federal election in ways that so many other environmental organizations cannot. Our non-charitable status allows us to advocate political action by government and Parliament while charitable work funded by the Sierra Club Canada Foundation allows us to inform Canadians about the dangers of climate change. That’s what allows us to be so effective.”
So there you have it. The Sierra Club is running a kind of reverse money laundering operation whereby a parallel surrogate front group can present a face of non-partisanship to the Canada Revenue Agency. That group then acts as a bagman for the very partisan adversarial group that allegedly takes on the corporate agenda of Stephen Harper. But in fact, as has been argued, the Sierra Club of Canada is the pied piper of Canadian environmentalism, decoying sincere innocents toward the relatively inconsequential projects of “conserve, recycle and reduce”capita consumption rather than reduce total consumption. On this basis it is able to attract money and support to its “charitable” wing because its members are reimbursed with a substantial portion of their donation.
It surely would stretch the credulity of a two year old to believe that their charity funds sit secure behind a Chinese Wall while anything of political importance that was said or done by Club activists would be left to starve without tapping into those charity funds if not indirectly. How else would one explain Sierra Club political muscle, unless they will admit corporate backing as a quid pro quo for their tacit approval of mass immigration and the cheap labour agenda? Are not Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde one and the same entity sharing the same body? Living under the same roof? I am not buying their Capone “I am just a businessman” act. Neither should Canada Revenue. Look into it. Charity Number BN 1194 9789 Canadian taxpayers should not be subsidizing their partisan activities. Does the SPCA use your donations to promote the Green Party or issue glowing report cards on their positions?Your church?The Hospice Society? The Canadian Cancer Society? The Union Gospel Mission? The hundreds of other charities that are honest about what they do?
Write your MP. Tell him or her that we want our money back. Better still. Make the Sierra Club send it to the charities that should have got it in the first place. And if they haven't got the money, make them work it off in prison.
Better yet. Make fat cat Sierra Directors--they never reveal their salaries---volunteer for meaningful environmental work as assistants to Canada Border Security agents rounding up, expelling and keeping out illegal immigrants. That is, for once in their lives working on the "P" in Erhlich's IPAT equation. That would indeed make my day.