This bulletin reports on two interviews with David Suzuki. In the first, Suzuki states that "...immigration, which makes up 66% of the population growth (in both Canada and the U.S.)"... "should be decreased". "A growing population makes every environmental problem worse." In the second, Suzuki says, "We're way overpopulated.... Even if you only look at industrialised countries, there are way too many of us."Read the whole bulletin.
The big question many Canadians ask is this: Why has Suzuki not made his criticism of immigration a much more public issue?
Suzuki's leadership status both in and out of Canada would provide the weight to make immigration reduction the major issue it deserves to be.
Is it possible that The David Suzuki Foundation (DSF) refuses to criticize immigration because it takes sizeable donations from the Royal Bank and other corporations which want to maintain high immigration levels or increase them? If this is so, is the DSF not undermining its good work on other fronts?
If the DSF is taking money from immigration promoters, then what is the difference between the DSF and the American Sierra Club which adopted a notorious policy of not criticizing immigration in order to continue getting very large donations (over $100 Million) from David Gelbaum, an American philanthropist?
Thou shalt not criticize immigration even if you are trying to protect the environment
Developer resists provincial greenbelt plan
Daniel Stoffman on the consequences of unchecked immigration