Support Suzuki’s Immigration Statement


In a recent interview with France’s  “L’ Express”, Canada’s most prominent environmentalist, David Suzuki, stated that Canada was full and that Canada’s immigration policies, particularly that of plundering Third World countries of skilled people that the Third World needed, were “crazy”. Suzuki made similar statements a few years ago in Australia. 

We support Suzuki’s statements for the following environmental, economic and cultural reasons.

(1) Environmental : As a result of unnecessary mass immigration, many of Canada’s cities have become environmental disasters-in-progress. Metro Toronto (Population : now over  5.6 million) is the worst in Canada. Most of the leaders of Canada’s municipalities such as Surrey, B.C. Mayor Diane Watts (Surrey population : about 500,000) continue to promote population growth, seemingly thinking that their cities can grow forever. Some such as Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson (Vancouver City population: about 650,000) even try to portray their cities as Green models for the country and the world to imitate.

Many of us ask : Why would any sensible city want to turn itself into an environmental disaster? The leaders  seem unaware that, in 1976, The Science Council of Canada, which consisted of this country’s most eminent scientists, told Ottawa that Canada did not have an infinite number of resources.  In order to maintain Canada’s standard of living, it had to conserve those resources. The best way to do that was to abandon the idea that Canada could have a constantly increasing population and an open-door immigration policy. In fact, Canada had to stabilize its population and restrict immigration. It would be foolish to do anything different.  Suzuki’s comments echo the conclusions of Canada’s Science Council. Ottawa has ignored the conclusion of this very important study.  

(2) Economic : Suzuki’s main interest is an environmental one. And, as with a number of Canadians, his primary economic concern seems to be for the needs of non-Canadians. He says that Canada should not be plundering the skilled workers of Third World countries. He says this because those countries have spent scarce resources to train these workers.  He is correct in saying that Canada has ignored this in its yearly intake which has averaged 250,000+ since 1991.  It would have been helpful if Suzuki had said that Ottawa has never provided a single reason to justify this immigration intake. It also would have been helpful if he had said that none of our federal political parties, including the supposedly environmental Greens which he probably supports, has  objected to it.  In fact, several parties have advocated an even higher inflow. All of them have done this at a time when between 1 and 2 million Canadians are unemployed and many more hundreds of thousands are under-employed.  Do these people have to grovel publicly to have their plight dealt with?

Even PM Pierre Trudeau, the initiator of Canada’s foolish multiculturalism policy, recognized in the early 1980’s that the economic needs of Canadians had to be protected. He did that by lowering immigration levels to around 85,000 per year. He is the last Prime Minister to reduce immigration in a recession.  At the time he took that action, Trudeau did not say that the job opportunities of Canadians had to take priority over multi-cultural nonsense, but  his action had that effect.

All subsequent Canadian Prime Ministers have been so afraid of losing the immigrant vote that they have treated  Canada’s mainstream population as disposables. Their actions have destroyed the lives of many Canadians. It is no exaggeration to say they and their supporters all have blood on their hands. What do our laws do with people who destroy the lives of others? Do we put them in the country’s highest positions and reward them with the Order of Canada? All of these people have to be held to the same accounting as Canada’s own criminals. In fact, they should be held to an even more severe accounting because the results of mass immigration  policies have been massive—in fact,  far in excess of the damage done by our criminals.

(3) Cultural : Suzuki does not mention the cultural issue, but he could have easily done so. The massive immigration inflow of the type Canada has experienced has caused many Canadians to express cultural concerns. Many now feel like strangers in their own country.  Unlike their governments, they feel that no country should allow its mainstream population to become a minority. This should be the most basic of all principles that all countries abide by.  To many Canadians, Ottawa’s mass immigration inflow of 250,000+ since 1991 amounts to a legalized attack on its mainstream population. Ottawa has tried to justify this inflow by proclaiming such slogans as “We are all immigrants”. The word “immigrant” implies “recent arrival”. Most Canadians are not ‘recent arrivals”.  In fact, those “not-so-recent arrivals” helped Canada to develop distinctly European institutions in the past 400 years. Today, the ancestors of those very early Canadians deeply resent the erasing of that European heritage. Since 1991, many people have come here because Canada is much different from and better than the societies of their countries of origin.  Yet, many of these new arrivals want to re-create their societies here.

The post-1990 inflow is an abnormality in Canada’s immigration history, yet it is treated as if it were normal.

Salim Mansur, a Professor of Political Science at The University of Western Ontario, and an immigrant, summarized the cultural threat to Canada in this way :

“There is a limit to reasonable accommodation, just as there is limit to how much water may be poured into a glass of wine before the wine loses its properties. A liberal society based on individual rights and the rule of law cannot indefinitely accommodate demands from non-liberal cultural groups without subverting its own identity.

“In defending its cultural integrity, the Quebec majority, ironically, has become the proverbial canary in the coal-mine of Canadian multiculturalism. The turban issue is a gnat when compared to the elephant in the room few want to discuss. The bigger and more pressing question is how elastic Canadian liberal democracy can be in accommodating Sharia-based Muslim cultures from non-liberal societies before it snaps.

“The rest of Canada needs to think carefully about Quebec’s dilemma. A host culture has the moral right to draw the line on reasonable accommodation in preserving its identity; it should not delay, under pressure from the misbegotten ideology of multiculturalism, until it is too late. “


To vote on whether Suzuki was “irresponsible” (Immigration Minister Kenney has accused Suzuki of being “irresponsible”) to comment on the immigration issue, click on the following :

To read the original L’Express interview with Suzuki, click on the following :