“When I would speak at the United Nations on anything that had to do with human rights or human security,” recalled one experienced Canadian diplomat, “I (always) got a very respectful hearing.” Why? The ambassador explained: “In terms of welcoming others and integrating them into society, nobody does it better than we do … and we get a lot of credit for that in the international community.”
Canadian multiculturalism, in other words, is something the world admires as perhaps the most recognized and celebrated characteristic of Canadian citizenship. The Aga Khan, the leader of the globe’s Ismaili Muslims, for one, has proclaimed that Canada has done a superlative job in bringing peoples of disparate race, ethnicity, and religion together.
The celebrated urban thinker Richard Florida pronounced Canada’s multiculturalism, its “mosaic principle…one of the core enduring principles of our economy and society,” and the Globe and Mail’s national columnist John Ibbitson called the country’s “robust multicultural identity” the key to “preventing the emergence of a race-based underclass” like that in the United States and Western Europe.
Certainly Canadians are proudly polite, generally tolerant and relatively uncomplaining, making Canada perhaps the best nation in which to make the difficult idea of multiculturalism work. There is much patting ourselves on the back here, of course, and it is worth recalling Montreal historian Desmond Morton’s comment that “In the Olympics of self-admiration, Canadians would compete eagerly — for their traditional bronze medal.”
But what is Canadian multiculturalism and where did it come from?
The major political and cultural issues of the 1960s in Canada centred on French-Canadian/English-Canadian relations, and the rapid rise of nationaliste/indépendantiste sentiment in Quebec led the federal government to establish a Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in 1963. The commission eventually produced a host of recommendations, some of which were adopted, but an unintended result was that other ethnic groups, notably Ukrainian-Canadians, began to fear that they were being left out as the two “founding peoples” tried to deal with their historic differences. Such pressure soon forced the Royal Commission to consider the contribution of other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada. The commission recommended the integration (not assimilation) into Canadian society of ethnic groups with full citizenship rights and equal participation in Canada’s institutional structure. In other words, Canada was not to be a melting pot like the United States where everyone blended down into Americans. Instead, Canada was to be a mosaic, like a tile floor where the pieces were separate but joined into a whole.
The commission’s recommendations led to a policy on multiculturalism announced in October 1971. Its main aims were to assist ethnic groups to retain and foster their identity and to overcome the barriers to their full participation in Canadian society. At the same time, they could keep their right to identify with select elements of their cultural past if they so chose. In effect, multiculturalism policy aimed to integrate immigrants (and second and third generations) by offering them equal rights and opportunities; in return, they were expected to accept the ideas and rules that shaped and led Canadian society. The aim was that multiculturalism would help immigrants to integrate into Canadian culture and come to view their lives — and their children’s opportunities — as tied into a full range of Canadian social institutions, based on a common language (either English or French). Ottawa created a Department of Multiculturalism, allocated money to it, and soon a variety of programmes were up and running.
There was great need for this new idea of a multicultural Canada. Canadians were generally a tolerant people, but there had been terrible outbreaks of racism or acts of violence and hate against immigrants from certain parts of the world. Blacks had been treated shamefully, for example, and prejudice against Chinese, Japanese, and Indian immigrants had been strong. Efforts to keep Asians out of Canada had been put into law, and during World War II Japanese-Canadians had been forcibly moved off the West Coast into the British Columbia interior to meet public demands. And it wasn’t only those of different races who suffered. Jews faced discrimination in Canada, and the government turned its back on refugees trying escape Hitler’s Europe. Many Ukrainians had been interned during World War I because they came from part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire with which Canada was at war; that they did not support that Empire did not matter.
But that was all history now. Canada was setting out to change the way it thought and acted. There would be no more efforts to make immigrants to Canada into good Anglo- or Franco-Canadians. There was to be no melting pot, no attempt to assimilate newcomers. Now each immigrant could keep his or her culture and, what was more, the Canadian government would help in this task. It was a new idea for a changing nation. But would it work? Would “old” Canadians accept it? That was the key question.
It is a laudable goal to share our country with those who wish a better life with a future hope but unfortunately our Western cultural elites have lead us astray (yet again) and hijacked our original intentions. Society has been hoodwinked into believing that tolerance, the very principle on which multi-culturalism stands and which is correctly and originally defined as the right to have your ideas given equal hearing, should now be defined as the right for all propositions to be given equal validity. This nonsense has allowed society, under the authority of multiculturalism, to not only allow but encourage every group, no matter how bizarre, inauthentic or dangerous they may be to have their hands on the controls. As a result we no longer have a culture. Our culture (whatever it is) is now dominated by what was once fringe groups, our history has been largely re-written, political correctness rules the day (no matter how nonsensical it has become) and truth has been sacrificed. Tolerance is the rallying cry so you dare not tell anyone they may be wrong or tell them that’s not the way we do things here. They have been granted the right to do what they want with no pause for how it may affect the country as a whole. The majority must now change for the minority. The victim mentality is pervasive if not ubiquitous. And all the minority groups know how to play the game to their advantage thanks to multiculturalism gone awry. Thirty years ago I was a proud Canadian knowing that we were respected worldwide for the things we believed. Today, I’m a Canadian who when he travels abroad doesn’t wear a Canadian flag on my lapel or a sticker on my luggage. We are not now who we think we once were. I am ashamed that my generation allowed it all to happen.
Norm,
I may be missing something but your comment has a certain propagandistic odour to it. I think much of what you are saying could be condensed to “multicultural and tolerance is fine as long as I approve who the groups are that we are tolerating”.
Frankly statements like “Western cultural elites” and “Our culture is now dominated by what was once fringe groups” are just so much nonsense. The only domination being done by anyone in Canada is by white men. That’s who dominates the boards of fortune 500 companies in Canada not any group that you approve of or otherwise. Just to make this as clear as possible, the make-up of boards do not reflect Canadian society in way, shape or form. Not in the number of women, or visible minorities, or any other group you can name.
I guess your viewpoint is best summed up with “The majority must now change for the minority.” You really don’t get it do you? The “majority” of which you speak is actually now the minority. You’ll have to just hope that the new majority is more tolerant of you than you were of them.
I congratulate The Canadian Experience and Multimedia Nova for enlightening Canadians – new and old – on the many aspects of what it means to be Canadian. I welcome J.L. Granatstein’s historical perspective on Multiculturalism and to leave us with the questions, “but would it work?” and “would ‘old’ Canadians accept it?” They are important questions for the 21st century.
Canadians of all backgrounds are increasingly engaged in a conversation about the challenges and opportunities of multiculturalism in Canada. What has been taken as a given for over forty years in Canada is now coming under important and necessary scrutiny.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel heightened this discussion with her comments that multiculturalism (“multikulti”) in Germany had failed. Pointing to the failure of a number of ethnic groups to integrate into German society, to speak fluent German in their daily and work lives, and to share in the huge success of the German economy, Merkel called for a national discussion on the topic. Canadian commentators and interest groups took it as an opportunity to talk about the state of multiculturalism in Canada – some with genuine concern and others seizing the chance to criticize long-held Canadian values in favour of other agendas.
Shortly before Merkel’s comments, Michael Ignatieff asked me to take on the role of Multiculturalism Critic for the Official Opposition. This has given me a great opportunity to engage in the discussion that includes one of the core values of Canada: that the First Nations and the founding peoples of Canada are constantly being enriched and inspired by those who have come to this country as immigrants seeking a better economic future, by refugees seeking safety and opportunity, and by families seeking to be reunited to share in a better community life.
While this core value is still widely held, questions are being asked: are all communities integrating appropriately? Is Canadian citizenship valued for its intrinsic worth or has it become an economic commodity? Are the Canadian values of human rights, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and justice and equality for all being embraced by newcomers? Is Canada evolving naturally and appropriately as newcomers arrive or is it being radically changed? Are language skills in English or French being appropriated by newcomers quickly enough? Are newer Canadians able to have their foreign education or professional credentials recognized and are they able to get “Canadian experience” to enable them to succeed financially and to contribute to the economy as they want? And finally, does the Government of Canada recognize that we have a new comparative advantage in international trade by virtue of the fact that we have the languages, cultural knowledge and business contacts in every country that we want to do business with?
Multiculturalism in Canada in no way resembles “multikulti” in Germany. But there are some worrisome trends. The Conservative government favours temporary foreign workers rather than immigrants who work, contribute and are then eligible for citizenship. The German model hasn’t worked. Why would we start to imitate it? The German government has put few financial resources into settlement services, including language training. Our government has failed to honour a Canada-Ontario agreement on settlement services and has short-changed us by $207 million. More resources in this endeavour, not fewer, are needed and must be viewed as an investment in Canada’s future, not an expense to be endured (or, worse, mismanaged).
I welcome my new Critic role and hope I can help not only the people of Don Valley West, but all Canadians engage in this important and very timely conversation.