Richer - pronounced Ree-shay- Lapointe, has now proudly announced to one and all: "All my stocks, holdings, I've transferred up to my parents because from now on . . . I will settle in St. Catharines, I have . . . empathy for the people of St. Catharines. Until justice will be done, I'll be there in St. Catharines."

That, dear friends, is because Richer Lapointe - who I'd trust about as far as I could throw on a good day with one hand - is sly enough, shrewd enough, cynical enough, and huckster enough to realize one thing: No matter what the rest of Canada discovers about him, he will probably be admired and respected as a hero in the one city that most detests, most vehemently abhors its own most notorious native daughter, Karla Homolka.

St. Catharines is where she and former husband Paul Bernardo committed their grisly crimes. St. Catharines is where their victims lived and were brutally raped and murdered. St. Catharines is where their victims' families, friends, relatives still live. And still suffer.

What better sympathetic paradise could Richer Lapointe and his new, yet-to-arrive, Russian internet bride-to-be find to settle down, maybe open a business, make new friends, possibly even have a statue erected in his honor.

I always had a soft spot for "St. Kitts", especially when Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita were paying their dues there with the Teepees, and dreaming of being called up to the bigs by the Hawks in Chicago.

A beloved old friend, Ted Burgoyne, worked there for The Standard; his wife, Judy, at the hospital where they stitched up a lot of hockey wounds for Bobby and Stan.

Sitting smack in the middle of orchard country, it's called Canada's Garden City. Considering where I'm from, St. Kitts was always a nice, quiet, classy sort of place. And as far as I'm concerned, it still is.

Despite that city's deep, private, soul-wrenching guilt over what happened there, it would even be a more tragic crime if Richer Lapointe exploited it for his own ends.

Personally, since I first discovered Lapointe secretly tape recorded his in-store conversations with Karla, using a digital recorder hidden in an empty paint can, as well as covertly photographing her, my gut feelings told me he probably secretly videotaped her as well. Those tapes will, if they exist, be for His Eyes Only...if you get my drift.

Thanks, too, to Kim, who informs me it is NOT illegal in good old peace, order and good government-loving Canada for one person to secretly tape record a conversation with another person - but whether the tapes would be admissible in court is questionable.

She must be right. Gurmant Grewal wasn't charged. However, I'm disappointed that so much of what we consider to be completely unethical is actual completely legal.

If you believed last night's big TV news story about Canadians being among the world's worst whiners, then you got suckered, friend. Suckered - once again - by shoddy goddamn journalism.

For The Real Story you had to sift through about a dozen newspapers - not just the headlines - and unlike those TV airheads, you had to dig through the entire story.

The fact that Canada, as a nation, nailed fourth place among the world's worst complainers had dick all to do with whining; double-dick all to do with being complainers, grousers, grumblers, gripers.

Had those TV dorks actually read the whole story, and reported it accurately, it was actually about Canadians placing fourth among those in this screwed up world willing to complain, bitch, protest when their restaurant steak's not cooked properly, their new car breaks down, their new dress or suit doesn't fit right, their new hairdo looks like shit, their new roof leaks, their bloody waiter brings them cold soup, their....well, I hope like hell you're starting to get the picture.

The story was based on a poll of people in 30 countries, a poll taken in order to determine which nationality is more than ready and willing to LODGE A COMPLAINT when they figured they are getting screwed. It WAS NOT about people who habitually whine.

Yet that's how every TV news broadcast I watched last night played it - CTV NewsNet and Global National, especially. They were the best examples of the worst misinterpretation of the story I suffered through.

Dear God, will you please bring back CBC...I'll even start going to church...honest...otherwise we're doomed.

But what really, really pisses me off is the fact Canadians should have aced it, should have been even more willing to complain, bitch and object than those who out-complained us and won - the Swedes.

Here 's the actually meat of the story. And trust me - the story is really about Freedom of Speech.

In all my (ahem) many years of asking, I have never received a satisfactory answer to the question: Why do we unceasingly allow immigration from other countries to Canada?

The typical response: our chronic labour shortages, an aging work force, a broader tax base or humanitarian reasons.

None of these reasons is compelling enough to be really convincing and I’m suspicious when I feel like I’m being bullshit. (That’s bullshit – the verb)

Every year there are 250,000 legal - and I would gestimate a like amount of illegal immigrants - who end up in this country. Did you catch that? That is EVERY year. Every year a city almost as big as Winnipeg or Regina is created in Canada, along with the attendant problems.

Toronto’s answer to its waste disposal dilemma is to truck it away as far as possible. (e.g. Michigan) Apparently they cannot deal with the vast quantity of refuse generated by a constantly expanding megalopolis. Talk about a Band-Aid at a knife fight.

Did this happen suddenly. Hell, no. It is and was as plain as the nose on your face. This situation has developed because greed and short-term thinking supplanted responsible, accurate accountability.

Crime is rampant, traffic is a nightmare, poverty is spiralling and the environment always takes a back seat to development. That IS Toronto. Too big for it’s own good and the unhealthy putrefaction that is characteristic of it is spreading all across this huge country.

What would happen IF we allowed zero immigration for a finite period of time? Would our problems increase or decrease? Would unemployment go up or down? Would crime statistics swell or lessen?

Certainly the waste disposal problem would stabilize and allow precious time for solutions. (And more than a few realtors would have to get a real job.) Instead of continually rising, costs for police, courts and jails would stabilize.

(By-the-way, combine this move with legalizing anything under an ounce of pot and we’ll save some real dough.) We’ll have the Police Unions screaming blue murder because of lay-offs. (Like the police should even have a union) But I digress.

Consider the ramifications in mathematical terms. e.g. the extreme limits or worst-case scenario of continued immigration. The ultimate end result is a proliferation of cities and a scarcity of wetlands and agricultural areas compounding our present day problems. Admittedly not in our lifetime, but that is the point. If not us, then who steps up and accepts the responsibility? Will the citizens of the future curse our lack of vision? Is there any other possible scenario to more and more people occupying the same amount of land?

Our declining birth rate and aging population are often used as justification for increasing immigration. It is irresponsible to not consider alternative strategies.

The domestic birth rate can be manipulated with the proper tax incentives. Make it more affordable to raise healthy, educated children. Offer free tuitions; give generous tax breaks to two-parent families to have children. Fund a stay-at-home parent for five years. (Which co-incidentally would tend to strengthen the family unit; a significant factor in the reduction of crime) Fund re-training programs for the un or under employed so they gain full-time employment.

These are things that will provide hope and vigour.