Source: http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic&f=45&t=000457&go=newer
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:50:06+00:00

Document:
with rights in the minds of many people.
genuine discussion about these challenges needs to take place within the movement."
growth, we might come to a different conclusion about what "pro-life" really means.
Very, very interesting Jerry, thanks for bringing it forward, but I am unsure of just where this topic should be located. Though, I can see why you have located it where you have, perhaps the mods can discuss where it should be.
When I was younger, I read this futuristic novel called "The Bingo Year", it depicted global society as having to impliment strict birth control measures, the men were sterilized. People were chosen to become parents by a form of lottery. And the chosen women were artifically inseminated from a bank of stored sperm.
Anyhow, in this one particular year, someone book into the sperm bank, and dumped them all into the women's public baths where they stayed viable long enough to impregnate all the women who were ovulating. And pregnancy anarchy reigned.
Something to think about in regards to overpopulation, men and the right to self-determine what happens with one's own body, though.
Let's say there will be strict population control in the future and men are told they have to have a vasectomy. It would not make sense, of course, to sterilize women, so it would have to be men who were forced to stop spreading their seed.
George Monbiot has his ideas on what is the bigger problem.
In other words, if we accept the UN’s projection, the global population will grow by roughly 50% and then stop. This means it will become 50% harder to stop runaway climate change, 50% harder to feed the world, 50% harder to prevent the overuse of resources. But compare this rate of increase with the rate of economic growth.
Many economists predict that, occasional recessions notwithstanding, the global economy will grow by about 3% a year this century. Governments will do all they can to prove them right. A steady growth rate of 3% means a doubling of economic activity every 23 years. By 2100, in other words, global consumption will increase by about 1,600%. As the equations produced by Professor Roderick Smith of Imperial College have shown, this means that in the 21st century we will have used 16 times as many economic resources as human beings have consumed since we came down from the trees.
So economic growth this century could be 32 times as big an environmental issue as population growth. And if governments, banks and businesses have their way, it never stops. By 2115, the cumulative total rises to 3,200%, by 2138 to 6,400%. As resources are finite, this is of course impossible, but it is not hard to see that rising economic activity - not human numbers - is the immediate and overwhelming threat.
No time to dig into right now, but I suspect that rising economy and rising population are connected. We need to reduce consumption which means reducing economic activity.
Well, global consumption increasing at that rate is tied to increasing global population no? It would not increase at that rate if there were not increasing population numbers?
Is Wilson saying that the abortion rights movement has to move away from headlining the rights of women to autonomous control of their own bodies, towards more emphasis on abortion as an eco-friendly means of birth control?
Doesn't sound like a very promising strategy to me.
look at western Europe, its population is pretty well static and the economy keeps growing none the less.
No, I do not think you did, as that is how I read it as well, and I concur.
There is no need for a such a strategy, it is a matter of human rights, and the ability to self determine, in respect to everything to do with your own body, no matter the gender.
What areas keep on growing? exports to the developing world, trade deal exports, economic growth for weapons and war?
I suspect all that, plus the houses get bigger, the cars fancier, the holidays more extravagant, the food more processes, the hospitals more complex, the spas more visited, more electronics, more marketing/branding....you want me to go on?
You should read Kate Michelman's piece from the LA Times (as reprinted on truthout.org. It's very provocative. And, given Michelman's long history of fighting for choice, worth reading.
Yes, I read that because it was linked to in the article that was quoted in the OP.
Michelman and Kissling seem to have thrown in the towel on the primacy of women's reproductive freedom as the central thrust of the abortion rights movement in the US. They think that makes it impossible to keep the "moral high ground".
I'm not familiar enough with the current state of the abortion debate in the US to have a definitive position, but their position definitely has me scratching my head.
MSpector in the USA, women, do not have Charter Rights that protect their Freedom to be Self Determining. Or in otherwards, the state has supremacy over their body, unlike Canada, where the person has supremacy, not the state.
MSpector in the USA, women, do not have Charter Rights that protect their Freedom to be Self Determining. Or in otherwards, gives them supremacy over their own body, unlike Canada.
In the US, women and men have the Bill of Rights (the first ten ammendments of the Constitution) as well as other ammendments and constitutional provisions to protect their freedoms. The US Bill of Rights predates the Canadian Charter by 191 years. And the fourteenth ammendment -- which gave people the right to privacy cited in Roe v. Wade -- predates the Canadian Charter by 114 years.
I might note that no provision in either the Canadian Constitution nor the US Constitution explicitly guarantees women the right to abortion. I might also note that the US Bill of Rights, the other rights-enshrining ammendments of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are all human-made, and therefore imperfect, documents subject to revision.
I appreciate what you are saying Martha, but the truth is, we have NO abortion laws in Canada, a far more advanced human rights acknowlegement than Roe vs Wade.
The SCC determined that women have the right to own their own body and that the state has NO business making laws determining what they can, or cannot, do with them.
There is only one type of law and that is human made laws, unless ones speaks of scientific laws governing motion, energy and the Cosmos. Infering that there are other "non-human" laws, that are indeed perfect, is disengenuous, misleading and untrue, at least within this plane of existence.
One would hope that humans would not allow their state to change human rights acknowlegements. After all, the state is supposed to be of the citizens, for the citizens, and not an entity unto itself.
Actually, the Supreme Court's decision was not quite that sweeping. It struck down the law as it stood in 1988, but the decision did leave open the possibility of an abortion law as long as the new abortion law "could overcome the 'manifest unfairness' created the administrative procedure." (OK, I'm quoting Wikipedia here.) In fact, the House of Commons passed Bill C-43, an amendment to the Criminal Code that would prohibit abortion unless a doctor finds the pregnancy is a threat to the woman's physical, mental, or psychological health. This bill was defeated by the Senate in a tie vote. The Supreme Court's decision in Morgentaler v. Her Majest The Queen does not seem to have ruled out a bill like C-33.
Nothing I said implies that there is a perfect non-human law anywhere. I merely said that the Charter of Right and Freedoms and other similar documents are human-made, and therefore imperfect, and subject to revision. This does not imply that there's a perfect document out there waiting to be written.
Wilson J. wrote her own concurring opinion taking a significantly different approach. In it she decided that section 251 violates all three rights: life, liberty, and security of person. She emphasized how section 251 violated a woman's personal autonomy by preventing her from making decisions affecting her and her fetus' life. To Wilson, the women's decision to abort her fetus is one that is so profound on so many levels that goes beyond being a medical decision and becomes a social and ethical one as well. By removing the women's ability to make the decision and giving it to a committee would be a clear violation of their liberty and security of person. Wilson scathingly noted that the state is effectively taking control of a woman's capacity to reproduce.
Wilson goes on to agree with the other Justices that section 7 (prohibiting the performance of an abortion except under certain circumstances) is procedurally unfair, adding that the violation of section 7 also has the effect of violating section 2(a) of the Charter (freedom of conscience) in that the requirements for a woman to be permitted to obtain an abortion legally (or for a doctor to legally perform one) were in many cases so onerous or effectively impossible that they were "resulting in a failure to comply with the principles of fundamental justice." The decision to abort is primarily a moral one, she notes, and thus by preventing her from doing so violate a woman's right to conscientiously-held beliefs. With the abortion law, the government is supporting one conscientiously-held belief at the expense of another, and in effect, treats women as a means to an end, depriving them of their "essential humanity".
In her analysis of section 1, Wilson notes that the value placed on the fetus is proportional to its stage of gestation and the legislation must take that into account. However, here, the law cannot be justified as the law takes the decision-making power away from the woman absolutely, thus cannot pass the proportionality test....While the Morgentaler decisions failed to resolve the issue, in the later case of Daigle v. Tremblay (1989), it was found that the fetus is not legally a person in common law or in Quebec statutes.
The Daigle VS Tremblay SCC case, sealed the no need abortion laws fact, as women quite clearly have the right to the freedoms of: conscience, safety, and personal autonomy, and those rights have supremacy, as there are no legal fetal rights, and any potential father has no right to have their future progenity protected.
the issue of fetal rights would suffice to solve this particular dispute and prevent similar legal incidents in the future. The fetal rights were said to be anchored in the rights to life in the Canadian Charter, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Civil Code of Quebec. Moreover, it was argued Tremblay had a right to protect his "potential progeny." The Supreme Court considered and rejected all these arguments. As the Court noted, its role was to consider the fetus's legal status; it would not rule on its biological status, nor would it enter "philosophical and theological debates." As far as the Court could tell, there was no legal precedent for fetal rights under the Quebec Charter,..Regarding the Civil Code, the Court considered the argument that since the Code deals with fetuses as "juridical" persons, fetuses must legally be human beings. Human beings, under the Code, have rights. Once again, the Court expressed skepticism as to the nature of the term "human being", noting the linguistic nature of the argument. While the Code does give fetuses some similar treatment to legal persons, the Court replied that this does not necessarily imply other fetal rights exist. In the places where fetuses are recognized as juridical persons, the Court claimed this is a "fiction of the civil law".
The case next turned to Canadian law and common law... a fetus is not a person under common law...Some scholars have noted that along with Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) (1989), Tremblay v. Daigle "closed off litigation opportunities by pro-life opponents" of pro-choice Canadians. Another scholar notes that this case, along with the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal's Borowski decision and the Supreme Court case R. v. Sullivan (1991), all probably indicate the fetus is not a person under the Canadian Charter. A comparable result to Daigle occurred in 1999 in Dobson (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dobson.
In Daigle v. Tremblay, the Court only ruled on the question of whether a fetus has a right to life under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms or under the Civil Code of Quebec: an alleged fetal right to life allegedly in the Quebec Charter and Civil Code was the underpinning of the injunction Tremblay had won against Daigle from having an abortion. The Court ruled that the answer to the question at issue is no. The decision "closed off litigation opportunities by pro-life opponents of pro-choice Canadians": that is, it closed off the opportunity to get injunctions against so-and-so from having an abortion. It closed off litigation opportunities for opponents of pro-choice Canadians, but it did not close off all legislative opportunities. Most, but not all, legislative opportunities were closed off by Morgenataler v. Her Majesty The Queen.
The Wikipedia article you cite notes, "The Court also declined to address the question of fetal rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, noting that the Charter applies to government; it has no force in legal disputes between private citizens, which was the case in Tremblay v. Daigle."
In particular, Tremblay v. Daigle did not rule out the introduction of an abortion law similar to C-43: the law, cited above, introduced after Tremblay v. Daigle, and defeated legisltatively (in the Senate) and not in the court.
It seems to me that no Supreme Court decision so far rules out the introduction of a bill like C-43.
Presumably, if a bill like C-43 were ever introduced, it would be brought before the Supreme Court. Their past rulings might suggest that something like C-43 would be defeated, but they do not rule it out from the outset.
Does anyone have the right to destroy their society?
Either over or under population could do it. So, is there a moral obligation to prevent either if possible?
If truth be known, probably the best thing for this planet would be that the next species to disappear would be homo sapiens.
I believe the world can safely handle a much larger population, but it may take a revolution before it happens to the benefit of all - and only then under a Communist, Socialist or similarly "planned" system.
A system sustained by war or threat of war cannot be sustained.
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):The Court ruled that the answer to the question at issue is no. The decision "closed off litigation opportunities by pro-life opponents of pro-choice Canadians": that is, it closed off the opportunity to get injunctions against so-and-so from having an abortion. It closed off litigation opportunities for opponents of pro-choice Canadians, but it did not close off all legislative opportunities. Most, but not all, legislative opportunities were closed off by Morgenataler v. Her Majesty The Queen.
I disagree, as I perceive that R VS M and D vs T create the necessary framwork ensuring women's constitutional rights are upheld.
3. in the case of Ms. Daigle, the injunction effectively amounted to a prohibition, or an improper exercise of the federal criminal law power.
It should be noted that because of the way we have decided the question of "foetal rights," it was unnecessary to consider the second aspect of the "substantive rights" argument, i.e., the claim that even if foetal rights do exist, they could not justify compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term.
The argument referred to was based on "the long-standing legal principle that a person may not be compelled to use his or her body at the service of another person, even if the other person's life is in danger." This seems to be a separate argument from a pregnant woman's right to security of the person under the Charter, and it is one that could play a role in future decisions.
Almost as interesting as what the Court did decide was its phrasing of the issues it was not deciding.
So bascially, that states; if someone fights to have a fetus declared a human, and if that right is acheived and individual human rights are granted to a fetus, the fetuses right to life still cannot override the rights, both Charter and legal, of the host woman, as a woman cannot be compelled (by the state or anyone else) to have her body used in the service of another person, even if that other "persons" life is in danger.
As such, it would be extremely doubtful, if not impossible, that any legislative, or even human rights conveying to a fetus, action can overturn a woman's individual charter rights, nor indeed legal right to autonomy over her body. Women would have to be stripped of their rights as a human first, or some equally implausible action.
While reading this, I was reminded of the 'intense' stem cell research debate in the US and all them snowflake babies that Bush (in some fantasy world) wanted to give homes to.
Quit aborting the soldiers of God... Can't you see we have a crusade to win? For as much 'oh save a life!' angle that is spun, you know something like this rests closer to the true reason the 'Pro-Life' groups press as they do.
Safe for who? If we consider the other species on the planet, plant and animal, one could argue that the surplus of humans is making it very unsafe for many of them.
Social conservatives are quick to argue that the rash of pregnancy-friendly movies signals a real sea change in American culture, or at least in the depiction of such culture by the titans of Hollywood.
"It's reflective of a larger social change," contends Wanda Franz, president of the national Right to Life Committee. "People are finally beginning to realize that (abortion) isn't something natural or normal or easy to do. It's gratifying to see life being respected more, and babies being valued as human beings and not throwaway objects."
What a difference a few decades make, says Thompson, who notes that abortion was addressed much more forthrightly in the entertainment of previous generations. From the special two-part episode on "Maude" in the '70s, in which the title character chose to end her pregnancy, to shows such as "St. Elsewhere" and "Chicago Hope" in the '80s and '90s, abortion was addressed head-on. He points to 1982, when the comedy "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" was a hit.
"There's an incredibly casual abortion in that movie," he says. "In one scene, the main character tells her boyfriend she's going to have an abortion. In the next scene, she has it and that's it. That kind of thing today would bring a movie to a screeching halt. I've been teaching this movie since it came out, and when I play it to a class of 18- to 22-year-olds today, the silence is palpable."
I translated bliter's comments to mean safe for "white" people to have more children.
However, I agree with you, it is not safe for other species of plants and animals, and if it is not safe for them, it cannot be safe for homo sapiens, no matter their colour of skin, as everything is interconnected and interdependant.
Do you remember the movie Soylent Green?
I remember the movie Soylent Green. People laughed and made fun of that movie when it came out and now....it's looking like something like that could happen.
Well, maybe people laughed because C. Heston was the main character.
Please note, the legal principal bolded above that effectively states, even if a fetus is later found to have human rights at a certain stage of biological development a person may not be compelled to use his or her body at the service of another person, even if the other person's life is in danger.
Is it your aim to be deliberately offensive?
My post made no reference race or color.
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):Interesting. Thanks.
You're welcome, hope that helps you to understand why Canada has no abortion laws, and why our not having them is the correct realization, and why clearly, women are more protected in the areas of personal autonomy in Canada than the US women are.
My post should not be interpreted as shilling for anti-choice. I have never been against a woman's right to choose.
I was arguing for a saner system that could handle more population - a system without the built-in wastes and that met the basic human needs of shelter, food and health, before profits.
It was not that long ago that it was being predicted that we need work for others no more than two or three days weekly. Why has our technology not brought that about?
My post should not be interpreted as shilling for anti-choice. I have never against been against a woman's right to choose.
Is this a typo? As it stands, it could be read as though you have never been against being against a woman's Right to choose.
But anyway, I will accept that you were not shilling for anti-choice, and thank you for your clarification. I think I do anyway, at this point at least, depending upon your qualifying what you mean below.
As this thread IS about abortion and the earth, are you classifying abortion as being environmentally friendly, and thus insane, or abortion itself being insane, or the capitalist system being insane?
My post should not be interpreted as shilling for anti-choice.
I didn't see it that way either.
If we value bio-diversity and the state of the ecosphere that we had prior to the industrial revolution and the huge increase in population to three or more times what would be comfortable for that system, then the only way to achieve a system both saner and with a larger population would be to have a bigger planet.
I think Mark Twain and Marleen would be impressed - might even re-think those quotes.
Despite Canada's sparse population, a bigger planet?
GHGs aside, Canada is one of the few places on Earth that is living well within its environmental means, at least as far as sustainable ecology goes. The planet as a whole is not, however. As has been pointed out numerous times before, if the planet were to consume at a sustainable level and consumption were equalized globally, we would all be consuming the same amount as Jordanians or Uzbekis do currently.
Of course claiming sea bed for dry land does raise some problems for fish and mollusks and other marine flora and fauna, and terrestrial life forms that rely on it.
Wetlands and ocean conversion are just more examples of excessive consumption.
I get the feeling it was just another movie role for hawks like Heston. It makes you wonder how they do think. Henry Fonda did Grapes of Wrath, and it didn't affect his political views either apparently.
GHGs aside, Canada is one of the few places on Earth that is living well within its environmental means, at least as far as sustainable ecology goes. The planet as a whole is not, however.
? We're no where near living within our environmental means (including or excluding GHG's)... Especially if you include what the impact people producing our consumables in other nations has.
The attitude that we somehow are living within sustainable/environmental means is the same attitude thats allowed us to critisize the US while allowing our own emmision growth to eclipse there(IE... it's all someone elses fault, we're fine).
Canada is one of the few places on Earth that is living well within its environmental means, at least as far as sustainable ecology goes.
BTW, how's your forest industry doing out there? Your salmon fishery? Your grizzly bear hunt? Seen any marmots lately?
Sadly the opinion is too commonplace for him to be kidding... You'll see a large majority of Canadians have a similar 'We're fine, its the US and other nations that have the trouble' attitude (infact, you could say the previous Liberal majorities ruled using that as a mantra). It's about the same feeling that allows people in SUV's to whine about oilsand emissions.
Then again, what can we expect from a society founded on pillaging it's own resources for sale elsewhere?
Actually I got to visit the breeding program of the Vancouver Island Marmot, at the Metro Toronto Zoo, when I was looking after our little albino friend.
The colonies of albino marmots (groundhogs) that are fascinating here. The gene is in abundance and we would get reports of albino sightings from all over.
In terms of colour phase, Exeter has a colony of white squirrels, not true albinos - the squirrels have black eyes - but still an interesting observation of a specific biological population.
Don't discount the lowly wild agriculturally based marmot. When they do pit mining rehabilitation, when marmots move in, they declare the site 'finished' in terms of rehabilitation. They just go to a monitor stage.
Marmots are a keystone species (like frogs) and anything that affects them negatively is affecting the rest of the environment as well. They are an early warning sign of environmental issues.
BTW, how's your forest industry doing out there?
Bad, in 1998 there were around 60,000 people employed, last I read a couple of months back, there were around 24,000, and that was before Canfor and West Fraser did all their shutdowns and layoffs. Moreover, Gordo stopped any forest practise codes, and silviculture is just not happening in any significant amounts, and forest industry companies are deferring, if you can believe it, their planting of new trees. There are no reforestation investments being made now, for the future. But of course that was a planned thing.
Well, not right now at this time of the year, but come spring I will be seeing hundreds across the course of the spring and summer, unless they die off over the winter.
Prince George is feeling the impact of no tress picking up water, because they are dead. People have been evacuated from their homes for weeks now, I think 90 homes have been flooded, and still are, and 90 more are on alert, and businesses are under water, and the ice jam causing the flooding, has now reached 22km in length. The ice jam has occured of course because of abnormally high water levels because of the 400% above normal snowpack last year, and billions of dead trees not picking up water in the Nechako watershed.
There are now trying to pour hot water into the Nechako where it feeds into the Fraser trying to get it to flow out more and keeping it flowing in any amount they can. But now with -30 temps, it is difficult. This is just the beginning of the impact upon BC from all the dead forests.
The irony is that when the waters rise and we are all pushed to the 'pristine north', we are going to learn there is not much clean water there: It is all contaminated from industrial operations.
Take a look through them, Jerry West. You will see where Canada dumps its environmental toxins, and whose lives are affected.
Canada has no plan for sustainable environments. Canada's plan is "dump it, bury it and if we are lucky no one will complain ... before the next election"
We're no where near living within our environmental means (including or excluding GHG's)... Especially if you include what the impact people producing our consumables in other nations has.
Actually if we have a far greater amount of global hectares to support us sustainably than we are using. Canada has a biocapacity of 14.5gha per person and is only using 7.6. Without exporting we would have a huge reserve.
Living within our means, however, is not the same as living in an environmentally sound manner and does not mean that our environmental practices are good ones. It does not mean that we are fine. It only means that currently we have more than we need.
I would agree that we are squandering it.
The US is certainly helping us. They have a biocapacity of 4.7gha per person and are using 9.6. Canada and the US combined have an average capacity of 5.7gha and an average consumption of 9.4. Add Mexico and it gets worse. Their biocapacity is 1.7 while they actually consume 2.6.
Since we are using total averages for biocapacity that does not tell us that some sectors such as fisheries and forests are severely over exploited, nor does it tell us the future effect of current practices. But on an average we are within our means north of the border, even if we may be racing towards the limit.
If every country was required to reduce its consumption to match its biocapacity Canada's main concern would be developing better practices and models of exploitation. The US, and much of the world would be looking at considerable consumption reduction.
Since total consumption is a function of the number of consumers times their individual consumption reductions can be made in two ways, reducing individual consumption and reducing the number of individuals consuming.
Saga and others have made good points about what is wrong, and with which I agree. However they do not negate the fact that currently we in Canada have more available than we are using domestically. Even if we may be destroying it by the way that we use it.
Unfortunately the world on average has less available than it is using which leads us to the biggest and most important issue of our new century: how to achieve sustainability and social justice and a high standard of living altogether.
GHGs aside, Canada is one of the few places on Earth that is living well within its environmental means, at least as far as sustainable ecology goes.
If you think Canada is operating at anything near a sustainable ecological level, you are seriously deluded.
Just because we haven't yet cut down every tree, polluted every stream, wiped out every endangered species, and depleted every hectare of arable land doesn't mean we have a sustainable ecology.
I don't know what statements like "we have more available than we are using" are meant to imply, but they certainly are not useful for anyone who is interested in sustainable ecology. Your concentration on statistics about population and land area is fuddling your brain and blinding you to the reality of the crisis we are facing.
I don't think your calculations take into account how much of it is already dangerously contaminated, jerry.
That is land and water that cannot support human life.
You miss the point. We are consuming below our ability to replenish which means that we have enough resources to sustain us. That we are consuming foolishly and destroying our future ability to replenish is another issue.
If we had to rely only on our own resources we would do fine provided we did not squander them or increase our population to the point that we needed more than we could produce. Most of the world now, unlike Canada, can not sustainably support its consumption.
No hidden meaning there, they mean exactly what they say.
....they certainly are not useful for anyone who is interested in sustainable ecology.
They tell us that we have more of a cushion than most places when it comes to the effects of changing our system. They do not tell us that everything is fine.
No, because that is irrelevant to the point I was making. Per capita what we can produce now is less than we are consuming domestically. That we are consuming it unwisely and destroying our ability for future production may be true (is true in my mind) but is a different issue.
Also, keep in mind that my point was about all resources in aggregate . If we look at individual sectors, fisheries comes to mind, there is no debate on my part that we have become unsustainable given current practices.
Your concentration on statistics about population and land area is fuddling your brain and blinding you to the reality of the crisis we are facing.
Actually, I think it lends more perspective to actually how serious it is. Most of the world is consuming more than it can produce. If one ignores the relationship between consumption and the ability to produce one divorces the crisis from its causes.
Keep in mind that the ability to produce in a sustainable manner involves maintaining an intricate web of symbiotic relationships throughout the environment, and in a certain way if we wish to maintain the world in the historic state with which we are familiar.
Going back to the beginning of this thread, population control is part of preserving that web.
You're trying to present Canada as being in some kind of self-sufficient cocoon, which we're not. We are dependent on the whole world for much of our food and manufactured goods, and our fate is inextricably linked to the fate of the world.
It's completely meaningless to talk about Canada's having a "cushion" against global catastrophe. There is no cushion.
That kind of talk can only lead to smugness and inaction.
As for population control, Canada doesn't have a population control problem. Our birth rates are plenty low enough. Anybody who talks about population control in Canada is talking about restricting immigration.
You're trying to present Canada as being in some kind of self-sufficient cocoon, which we're not.
We have the ability to sustainably produce more than we consume, that fact speaks for itself.
We are dependent on the whole world for much of our food and manufactured goods, and our fate is inextricably linked to the fate of the world.
That state is optional, depending upon how we want to live. Unlike most other countries we do not have to depend upon the rest of the world.
It's completely meaningless to talk about Canada's having a "cushion" against global catastrophe.
And I didn't talk about it either. If you read what I said I said a cushion when it comes to changing our system. Ergo, it is easier for us to make changes because of the resources that we have.
I dispute the word only. It could lead to that if one were ignorant, but it doesn't have to.
As for population control, Canada doesn't have a population control problem.
Certainly not according to the statistics that I have presented. Of course if one sees Canada as not "operating at anything near a sustainable ecological level" then population might be part of the problem.
Resource depletion is a function of individual consumption and the number of consumers. Changing either number affects it. The trick is to establish a limit on the population that is sustainable given the individual average level of consumption that is desired.
For Canada in isolation this isn't too difficult, for the world as a whole it is a nightmare.
Resource depletion is a function of individual consumption and the number of consumers.
Resource depletion is a function of exploitation for private profit, using unsustainable methods.
Too much individual consumption and/or too many consumers is an unsustainable method of exploitation. Without consumption there would be no profit nor any reason for exploitation.
Profit is merely a form of consumption. Public profit as well as private profit could be destructive.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.