It appears Chris Alexander has been appointed the new Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism instead of David Suzuki in the latest cabinet shuffle. Too bad. Going by recent comments made by Suzuki he may have been the better choice for the post.
I am very dismissive of the environmental movement in Canada because it cowardly refuses to address mass immigration as a root problem of their concerns. Environmentalists will see progress in their cause if they bothered themselves to pressure the government to reduce Canada's already too high immigrant intake. They have the arguments and public opinion is on their side.
I can only suspect the reason for their silence is that the membership of the environmental movement is primarily made up of the same ilk who are more used to throwing around accusations of xenophobia, bigotry, and racism instead of receiving them. They therefore understand full well that were they to publicly question the immigration system - the number of immigrants the country admits, their quality, and the alleged benefits of the system overall - it will leave them open to counter-productive ad-hominem attacks by those who seek to challenge them which in turn means fewer diner party invitations from the establishment elite they so desperately want to be apart of.
What they fail to understand is it is not racist or xenophobic or bigoted to criticize the immigration system. Why should it be? Is it because the vast majority of immigrants to Canada now are non-white and Canada is currently a white majority country and therefore criticism of the immigration system is inherently racist? So does this mean we cannot criticize it until whites are a minority population? And even then can we still? What if all immigration to Canada was white? Are arguments against the immigration system still racist? When can we criticize the immigration system if at all?
The issue is more so about quality of life than race and if it is demonstrable that the immigration system is more detrimental than beneficial to the lives of Canadians then it is our right to oppose it, slamming the border shut if need be. If immigrants are to be lauded for seeking a better life in Canada then it goes Canadians are justified in demanding changes to the immigration system if it means a better life for them. A better life for immigrants should not be built on a worse life for Canadians.
As for David Suzuki's comments there is no point in repeating what has already been said elsewhere. What is interesting to note is how both the left and right in this country responded.
From the right it was mostly scoffing from the Sun News crowd. This is not surprising. They do not like the man anyway and jump on anything he says or does (and some of it is justified I should add). I must say I found myself disappointed they engaged in the same behaviour one encounters with the left when they attack opponents of the immigration system. Sad, really.
From the left, near dead silence. Not at all surprising here either. I did a search at the Toronto Star - a paper that has more than once delivered up its pages to be a pulpit from which David Suzuki can preach - and found no reference to his interview in L'Express. Indeed, they published another sermon of his some two days later. No mention is made in that article about immigration.
And so that is how it goes in Canada concerning the non-existent debate about immigration. The right is just as prone to grandstanding as the left to show they are more pro-immigration than their political counterparts. And when inconvenient truths are mentioned by one of their own the left play hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Just pretend he did not say it and he did not say it. Better that than acknowledge the points he raises.
Lost in all of this is the opportunity to have a much wanted national discussion about immigration. One is long overdue and the rabble is getting restless.