UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

"Invasion" of the "Immigrant Hordes" : an analysis of current arguments in Canada against multiculturalism… Puttagunta, P. Saradhi 1998

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1998-27229X.pdf [ 19.72MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055531.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055531-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055531-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055531-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055531-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055531-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055531-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055531-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055531.ris

Full Text

"INVASION" OF THE "IMMIGRANT HORDES": AN ANALYSIS OF CURRENT ARGUMENTS IN CANADA AGAINST MULTICULTURALISM AND IMMIGRATION POLICY by P. SARADHI PUTTAGUNTA HBA/BA, Lakehead U n i v e r s i t y , . 1990 MA, Dalhousie U n i v e r s i t y , 1992 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of E d u c a t i o n a l S t u d i e s We accept .this t h e s i s as conforming to the " r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March 1998 (c) P. S a r a d h i P u t t a g u n t a , 1998 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT This thesis i s a study of the current backlash against immigration and multiculturalism p o l i c i e s . The author looks at current arguments against both p o l i c i e s , and compares them to evidence. These arguments are drawn from the media; the writings of c r i t i c s l i k e Richard Gwyn, and William D. Gairdner; and the p o l i c i e s of the Reform Party. It w i l l provide a h i s t o r i c a l review of the experiences of immigrant groups i n adapting to Canadian society. From this review, the author i d e n t i f i e s several consistent themes i n anti-multiculturalism and anti-immigration l i t e r a t u r e , which include: multiculturalism i s l i t t l e more than "flash and dance", the policy i s unanimously unpopular among the general public, immigrants take jobs from Canadian-born, immigrants are a burden to society, and that immigrants are not needed to offset the ageing of the Canadian population. The author concludes that these criticisms are based on misconceptions and distortions of facts. In some cases, the crit i c i s m s r e f l e c t more of an attack on minority groups rather than on these p o l i c i e s , and reveal a movement to reverse the p l u r a l i s t i c nature of Canadian society. This research comes at a time when the debate over these p o l i c i e s i s clouded with emotion. The author makes several recommendations as to how the public education system can help counter the use of these themes i n the media. w, TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ' i i Table of Contents i i i L i s t of Figures i v Acknowledgement v Chapter One Introduction 1 Chapter Two Multiculturalism as a Concept 17 Chapter Three Multiculturalism as a Policy: History And Opponents 58 Chapter Four Arguments Against Multiculturalism Policy 77 Chapter Five What the Criticisms of Multiculturalism Policy Represent 111 Chapter Six Analysis of the Multiculturalism Backlash 165 Chapter Seven The Backlash Against Immigration: Arguments And Evidence i n a H i s t o r i c a l and Contemporary Context 194 Chapter Eight Economic Arguments Against Immigration 234 Chapter Nine General Themes i n Contemporary Immigration-Bashing 263 Chapter Ten Conclusion 304 Bibliography 342 Appendix A 363 Appendix B 364 Appendix C 365 Appendix D 366 i i i L I S T OF F IGURES Figure One: Immigrant Flows, by Region of Origin, Canada, 1901-1990 363 Figure Two: Multiculturalism Approved Funding to Uni-Cultural Organizations, 1992-93 to 1994-95 364 Figure Three: Immigrants as a Percentage of the Population, Canada, 1901-1991 365 Figure Four: Average Earnings of Foreign-born Individuals Who Landed i n 1981 and 1985 by Immigration Category, 1988 366 i v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT In 1994 I began this study out of concern for the image that was being portrayed of immigrants i n the media here i n Canada. The previous year was a federal election year, and some of the statements made by p o l i t i c i a n s seemed to be putting the blame on new Canadians for the economic and p o l i t i c a l woes the country was experiencing. Perhaps because I myself am an immigrant, I was very sensitive to what was being said, and c l e a r l y understood that immigrants were being used as scapegoats for problems they were not necessarily responsible for. I would l i k e to thank Pradip Sarbadhikari, who pointed me i n this direction years ago, and motivated me to follow my heart. In completing this research, I am grateful to many colleagues who provided very helpful comments and hints about my writing. S p e c i f i c a l l y , I would l i k e to thank Timothy Stanley, Tony Arruda, Diane Purvey, and Gail Edwards. My association with the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association has put me i n touch with many individuals whose own research and comments can be seen throughout this thesis. For their contributions, I owe a debt of gratitude to Marie McAndrew, Cornelius Jaenen, Jean Burnet, T.R. Balakrishnan, and John Berry. I would l i k e to thank Ather H. Akbari and Donald J. DeVoretz for answering my questions about the economics of immigration. I also owe a huge debt of gratitude to the members of my committee, Charles Ungerleider and Kogila A. Moodley, who not only provided many helpful suggestions, but whose own work i s quoted extensively throughout this paper. I hope my academic practices w i l l come to resemble their own. But above a l l , this work could not have been possible without the influence of my dissertation advisor, J. Donald Wilson. His performance i n this role has gone way above and beyond the c a l l of duty. His role as advisor, mentor, professor, c r i t i c , d i s c i p l i n a r i a n , motivator, and comedian set a new standard for others to match. I cannot say enough good things about him. I hope that this research w i l l somehow give him a sense that this his e f f o r t was a l l worthwile. I thank him not only for his advice and support, but also for his humour and for his a b i l i t y to forgive my many mistakes, of which I am sure he w i l l s t i l l be recovering from long after I leave this i n s t i t u t i o n . v CHAPTER O N E : INTRODUCTION Many Canadians np longer support immigration because, rig h t l y , they consider the immigration p o l i c i e s of the 1990s detrimental. 1 -Daniel Stoffman, 1998 Now, English Canada i s being, destroyed not only because non-t r a d i t i o n a l immigrants are f a i l i n g to assimilate, but because they are encouraged not to do so by the government's ridiculous p o l i c i e s of multiculturalism. 2 -Doug Colli n s , 1979 In 1993, during a federal election campaign i n Canada, Reform candidate for York riding John Beck stated that immigrants were bringing "...death and destruction to the people", and the time for Anglo-Saxons to assert themselves had come.3 Beck was subsequently expelled from his party for his remarks. While he was condemned by his own party's executive, i t became clear that his sentiments were representative of a trend i n the nineties of immigrant-bashing that was present not only i n Canada, but around the world. The native-born populations of developed countries were growing uneasy i n an era of recession and economic i n s t a b i l i t y . With both resources and employment becoming scarce, immigrants and minorities within these nations were becoming the scapegoats for these troubled times. In Canada, the atmosphere of h o s t i l i t y towards immigrants was reflected i n a 1994 p o l l by the Ekos Research Association which showed that 53% of Canadians thought too many immigrants were, coming.to Canada.4 As a result of this attitude towards newcomers, neo-conservative and ultra-conservative forces have been able to ca p i t a l i z e on this public fear of immigrants i n order to promote their agendas of immigrant r e s t r i c t i o n and revocation of rights for minority groups. The Reform Party has stated that i t s 1996-97 o f f i c i a l p o l i c y c a l l s for reducing immigration inflows into Canada from i t s current level of around 215,000 newcomers a year to 150,000. Reform Party policy also c a l l s for eliminating health and welfare benefits for new Canadians u n t i l they become citizens, 1 which takes about three to five years after their a r r i v a l , to deny Canadian citizenship to children of immigrants born on Canadian s o i l unless the parents are landed immigrants, and to use the "notwithstanding 1 clause i n the Charter of Rights i n order to ignore constitutional rights when expelling those considered to be bogus refugees and i l l e g a l entrants. 5 The purpose of this thesis i s to show that, rather than being about good economic and social policy, the contemporary attack on immigration p o l i c i e s i s about halting the increase i n immigration from non-traditional areas, and i s thus i m p l i c i t l y (and sometimes e x p l i c i t l y ) an attack on multiculturalism. This argument i s based on the .following points. The f i r s t theme i n this thesis i s that recent arguments about r e s t r i c t i n g immigration repeat anti-immigration themes voiced throughout Canadian history, and are related to, and reflected in, attacks upon Canada's o f f i c i a l policy of multiculturalism. I believe the term "backlash' accurately describes this current anti-immigration movement, as i t connotes that the movement has an ebb and flow. That is,, anti-immigration, movements are not a constant part of Canadian history. However, when they do happen, the same arguments are used by immigration c r i t i c s over and over again. Present-day criticisms of immigration are based on the b e l i e f that current patterns of immigration have either a negligible or negative impact on the quality of l i f e i n Canada. C r i t i c s such as journalist Daniel Stoffman stated that the era of "mass immigration' since 197,8 had not resulted i n increased incomes for individual Canadians, nor had i t eased the tax burden of Canadians. 6 Immigration • c r i t i c Charles Campbell claimed that Canada's open door policy towards newcomers was costly to taxpayers and, as a result, immigration must be reduced to a minimum.7 Some observers suggested that a moratorium on immigration was necessary to assimilate "last decade's scarcely-restrained human flood". 8 These c r i t i c s claim that Canada should follow the leads of other nations such as the United States and Australia by reducing inflows 2 of newcomers. C r i t i c s also state that societal problems such as crime have been made worse because of immigration. The shooting of a white woman i n Toronto by a black Canadian of Jamaican o r i g i n i n 1994 generated this comment from the periodical The Western Report: "High-profile crimes involving immigrants show the chaos of government po l i c y . " 9 By allowing for a l i b e r a l immigration policy to be coupled with o f f i c i a l multiculturalism 1 0, c r i t i c s claim, immigrants come to Canada without feeling the need to integrate with the rest of the population. As a result, Canadian society i s fragmenting into different groups. As Richard Gwyn states, ...by treating differences of race, ethnicity, and colour as integral to identity rather than as manifestations of heritage, o f f i c i a l multiculturalism encourages apartheid, or, to be a b i t less harsh,' ghettoism. 1 1 Such cri t i c i s m s are not a product of the modern era. These themes existed i n anti-immigration writings of e a r l i e r times i n Canada. J.S. Woodsworth warned i n 1919 that immigrants, would exacerbate soc i a l problems such as pauperism, i l l i t e r a c y , and crime. 1 2 Furthermore, the allowing i n of people who were ethnically and r a c i a l l y different from the native population would be dangerous, and cause society to splinter, as the "heterogeneity of these races tends to promote passion, localism, and despotism, and to make impossible free cooperation for the public welfare".. 1 3 ... A second theme i n this thesis i s that the accuracy of the arguments about r e s t r i c t i n g immigration and the arguments about the negative consequences of Canada's multiculturalism policy to which they are related have not been subjected to close, systematic scrutiny. Claims about immigration and multiculturalism are mentioned i n the media and i n ;public policymaking sessions as though they are fact. Recent immigrants are said to damage Canadian society and cause inconvenience for native-born Canadians. Commentators refer to immigrants as "hordes" who stage "floods" and "invasions". With regard to the recent influx of refugees from Somalia, Diane Francis claims to have spoken to a teacher, "whose 3 school has been t o t a l l y disrupted by these invading hordes". 1 4 She also says that the Somalis " w i l l contribute very l i t t l e , i f anything, to Canada i n the future". 1 5 Multiculturalism as a concept i s also under more scrutiny than before. Both of the main opposition parties i n the House of Commons have stated their opposition to the policy of multiculturalism. As Bloc Quebecois Member of Parliament•Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Temiscouata) stated i n 1994, drawing on the example of the current policy of interculturalism i n Quebec: It seems to me that we don't need to promote multiculturalism. Instead, we should strive to develop interculturalism and, of course, we should make a major amendment to this act. No, the act shouldn't even be amended, i t should probably be repealed and replaced by an act that would recognize the riches, cross-cultural contacts and exchange bring to our own communities, i n the broader context of being integrated into and respecting one or the other of those majorities. 1 6 The Reform Party shares this view, as stated by their former Immigration c r i t i c , . A r t Hanger: ...I don't agree with the multicultural direction this country has taken either. In fact, my personal view and that of our party i s that We would l i k e to see that act scrapped completely... and deal with some of the other matters i n other areas i n other departments. 1 7 Multiculturalism policy i s also being questioned outside of the House of Commons. Traditional conservative c r i t i c s such as William D. Gairdner see the policy as a "top-down imposition on the people'. 1 8 These c r i t i c s have been given a redemptive impetus since their ranks have been f i l l e d with non-traditional and non-conservative c r i t i c s such as Neil Bissoondath, himself, an immigrant. In his book Se l l i n g Illusions.: The Cult of Multiculturalism i n Canada, Bissoondath writes: "(It) may be time now for the cow of multiculturalism to be stripped of i t s holiness". 1 9 This i s because newcomers must learn to accommodate society, just as society must learn to accommodate the newcomer. Multiculturalism, . he says, has served neither interest. It has 4 only served to heighten differences, not diminish them. A t h i r d point this thesis w i l l make i s that when the accuracy of the arguments about r e s t r i c t i n g immigration and the arguments about the negative consequences of Canada's multicultural policy to which they are related are subject to close, systematic scrutiny, they are found to lack evidential support. Instead of cogent arguments supported by evidence, the arguments should be seen as rhetorical attacks on immigrants and immigration. This thesis w i l l i d e n t i f y the various arguments made against multiculturalism and immigration policy, and examine how well they r e f l e c t the evidence available on the topic. It w i l l examine the claims such as those mentioned above to see i f evidence exists to show multiculturalism .to be a"top-down' imposition on the people, and i f multiculturalism has in fact only served to heighten differences. These arguments -— as I plan to show— often do not take into account the complete range of facts, and the language these c r i t i c s use suggest a fear that immigration-will invariably change the nature of Canadian society, most l i k e l y against the interests of the established English/French majority. 2 1 This point i s accentuated by the fact that, as Appendix A show's, the number of immigrants from non-traditional areas such as the A f r i c a and Asia have between 1977 and 1990 grown to represent 71% of a l l immigrants who came to Canada.22 Incidents such as the exclusion of a veteran of Sikh, o r i g i n from the Newton Legion Hall i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n 1993, and the controversy raised over allowing Sikhs i n the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to wear their turbans are signs of contemporary intolerance towards minority groups. To make this point, I propose to explore how multiculturalism and immigration are connected, and how c r i t i c s combine their attacks on both. This w i l l involve an examination of contemporary multiculturalism policy i n Canada, as well as criticisms of the policy. I w i l l also review the history of anti-immigration sentiments over the past century that accompanied each successive wave of immigration to Canada. 5 A fourth theme i n this thesis i s that Canada's media contribute to a climate hostile to immigration and multiculturalism by f a i l i n g to c r i t i c a l l y assess the arguments and evidence mounted i n favour of r e s t r i c t i n g immigration and rescinding Canada's policy of Multiculturalism. Aside from what they learn i n school, most Canadians r e l y on the media to learn about these p o l i c i e s . Thus the media must be held accountable for reporting accurately on these topics. But i s this i n fact the case? If media.coverage of these issues i s not accurate, then the press actually serves to foment the backlash. Herman and Chomsky write that the media serves a "social purpose'. This purpose i s not one that enables the public to assert meaningful control over the p o l i t i c a l process by providing members information needed for the i n t e l l e c t u a l discharge of p o l i t i c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , but rather to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and p o l i t i c a l agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and state. 2 3 If immigration and multiculturalism p o l i c i e s require a review, as the c r i t i c s claim, then the issues should be presented i n the mainstream media i n a f a i r and balanced manner. The evidence that w i l l be presented i n this thesis w i l l suggest that the debate as seen i n the media today i s far from a f a i r one. A greater spectrum of views and evidence needs to be presented, not just those of writers on immigration, such as Charles Campbell, Daniel Stoffman, Diane Francis, and Doug Collins; and on multiculturalism, such as William D. Gairdner, Neil Bissoondath, Richard Gwyn, and Reginald Bibby. Another point made by this research i s that the f a i l u r e to c r i t i c a l l y appraise the arguments and evidence mounted i n favour of r e s t r i c t i n g immigration and rescinding Canada's policy of Multiculturalism poses a threat to the maintenance of Canada as a p l u r a l i s t i c and democratic nation. With the debate over these issues causing such emotion, the federal government may feel pressured to act i n order to appease those c a l l i n g for immigration r e s t r i c t i o n . Also, p o l i t i c i a n s may choose to implement tough 6 immigration p o l i c i e s i n order to appear i n the eyes of constituents to be "doing something" about the supposed immigration problem. Prior to being elected i n 1993, the currently incumbent Liberal Party, then i n opposition, promised to raise immigrant levels to 1% of the t o t a l population (that i s , from the rate of 250,000 new Canadians a year up to about 280,000 per year). Instead, after being elected, then Minister of Employment and Immigration Sergio Marchi announced i n September 1994 reductions i n immigrant inflows to the. current level of around 200,000 per year. Immigration was made an even more d i f f i c u l t process by his additional announcement of a $975 head tax per immigrant.24 Current Immigration Minister Lucienne Robillard confirmed that the anti-immigrant backlash was based on myths, but that the Liberals were s t i l l reluctant to increase immigration levels. "I have to recognize the myth i s there (that immigrants cause unemployment among the Canadian-born population) . To have more immigration i n Canada we need the support of the population". 2 5 This f a i l u r e to turn policy promise into policy implementation shows how the pro-immigration r e s t r i c t i o n movement, of which the Reform Party represents i n the House of Commons, has: been successful i n influencing government decisions. As the Minister stated, the c a l l s for r e s t r i c t i o n may be based on faulty evidence. Hence, we need to examine the backlash more carefully. How effective can public education be i n dealing with anti-immigrant sentiments i n the public? As Cornelius Jaenen stated almost twenty years ago, multicultural education represents a t r a d i t i o n a l reversal of the role of Canadian schools as tools of assimilation: " . . . i t would seem that the schools are being forced to re-examine their role and to readjust their programs and objectives to f i t a new d e f i n i t i o n of Canadian society". 2 6 Multicultural education needs to reinforce the cause of fundamental human rights, the development of insights into racism, and group relations, and to strengthen c i t i z e n participation. Such would be welcome additions to broader and deeper objectives of li t e r a c y , 7 i n t e l l i g e n t citizenship, and respect for excellence. 2 7 The research presented i n this thesis w i l l suggest new directions for multicultural education, i n particular the continuing need to teach students about multiculturalism and immigration i n order to better understand heterogeneity i n their society and to counteract the often unfounded claims of various c r i t i c s i n the media and i n public o f f i c e . That i s , education i n schools must go beyond dealing with just the teaching of culture to dealing with media l i t e r a c y and s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l issues involving culture and ethnicity i n our society. Teacher education must also be expanded and revised i n order to make multicultural education more effe c t i v e . Advocacy of immigrant r e s t r i c t i o n i s present not only i n Canada, but i n other nations as well. The Australian government recently cut the number of immigrants i t accepts from 110,000 per year down to 80,000, an example that Canadian c r i t i c s say their government should follow. 2 8 In terms of percentages, this would mean that Australia's annual inflow of immigrants would drop from 0.65% to 0.47% of the t o t a l population. Canada's current immigration rate i s about 0.77%. In Western Europe, anti-immigrant agitation i s not solely the domain of right-wing extremists such as The National Front, but also of bodies such as the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, which stated i n a 1993 report that immigrants there "...foster strikes, violence, and crime. They lower the general standard of l i v i n g . " 2 9 Since the seventies, the governments of Br i t a i n , Germany, and France have j u s t i f i e d measures r e s t r i c t i n g immigration of certain types or categories — such as denying work permits to family relations of immigrants, banning immigrants from s e t t l i n g i n certain areas, deliberate bureaucratic delays, and direct payments to encourage immigrants to leave — as a means to combat racism against newcomers, as though these measures were not a source of racism themselves. 3 0 The recent police action i n Paris during August 1996 against hunger strikers who were protesting France's r e s t r i c t i v e immigration laws shows 8 that this issue continues to be alive and we l l . 3 1 Immigration i s also a contentious issue i n the United States. The recent uproar over the beating of i l l e g a l Mexican immigrants by C a l i f o r n i a Highway Patrol o f f i c e r s i n A p r i l 1996,32 plus the passage of federal amendments to welfare l e g i s l a t i o n that bar legal immigrants from receiving most forms of welfare benefits, 3 3 shows how s i g n i f i c a n t the topic of immigration has been for Americans. To draw upon examples of the immigration backlash around the world i s to show, f i r s t , that the Canadian situation i s not unique. Second, as c r i t i c s draw examples from other countries as models that Canada should follow, any study on the phenomenon of anti-immigration l o c a l l y must therefore look at these examples and show how they do or do not apply. For example, i n comparing American immigration policy with that of Canada, Richard Gwyn refers to a 1995 American bipartisan federal commission's proposals to cut immigration by almost a half and substantially reduce the number of family-class immigrants, and writes: "An equivalent to the objective analysis of the bipartisan commission's study i s overdue to be duplicated here [in Canada]". 3 4 While a number of contemporary studies have focused on current anti-multiculturalism sentiments, and a few have looked at anti-immigration trends, 3 5 i t i s d i f f i c u l t to locate any studies that discuss the two issues together. None has linked the backlashes against multiculturalism and immigration to show how these sentiments might represent an overall trend against heterogeneity and cul t u r a l pluralism i n our society. The research presented here w i l l show that anti-immigrant/anti-minority group themes evident in the past p a r a l l e l those of today, thus showing how the contemporary backlash i s a reproduction of such trends i n history. This study w i l l be organized i n two parts: one part analyzing multiculturalism policy i n Canada, and the other examining issues of immigration. The two areas are intimately linked as they represent the di v e r s i t y of Canadian society: immigration i s one •means by which we acquire new Canadians, and multiculturalism 9 represents the way over the past generation that we integrate those new Canadians into our society. Part One, which deals with multiculturalism, w i l l have several chapters. Chapter Two w i l l define the terms that w i l l be used, such as "multiculturalism', "pluralism', and "ethnicity*. This chapter w i l l also discuss the reasons for the persistence of ethnicity i n modern societies, factors that f a c i l i t a t e against c o n f l i c t i n such societies, approaches to dealing with heterogeneous communities, the problem of non-recognition of culture (or s p e c i f i c a l l y , the non-recognition of the culture of non-charter groups) i n public policy, and the need to supplement human rights with group rights. This chapter w i l l also discuss the phenomenon of nativism. Chapters Three and Four w i l l explain the history of the policy of multiculturalism i n Canada, and examine the c r i t i c i s m s of the policy. Criticisms of the policy from Quebec nationalists and the F i r s t Nations w i l l be mentioned i n Chapter Three, but this thesis w i l l not analyze these criticisms i n any great d e t a i l . Since issues that concern minorities also concern the F i r s t Nations, and since multiculturalism policy sometimes deals with issues i n the Aboriginal community, I w i l l be drawing examples from the F i r s t Nations from time to time. The focus here i s on c r i t i c i s m of multiculturalism policy i n regards to immigrants. I w i l l examine some academic criticisms, but my focus w i l l be on popular contemporary criticisms made by observers such as Neil Bissoondath, Richard Gwyn, Reginald Bibby, William D. Gairdner, and Diane Francis. The impact on the public of these writers was far more widespread and effective than commentaries made by academics on this issue. Popular c r i t i c s have access to t e l e v i s i o n and popular media, whereas academics circulate their views largely i n academic journals and at academic conferences which are given l i t t l e attention by the media. Their criticisms include the notions that multiculturalism i s l i t t l e more than a scheme to buy votes i n minority communities, that i t does nothing to address the real 10 concerns of minority groups such as racism, that i t makes culture an object of exotic display, and i t causes ghettoization by encouraging separateness. The purpose of this chapter i s to see how well these critiques r e f l e c t the r e a l i t y of multicultural policy i n Canada and Canadian society i n general. Chapters Five and Six w i l l continue this analysis of popular critiques of multiculturalism, and i t w i l l also examine what these crit i c i s m s represent. It w i l l respond to issues such as whether or not these criticisms r e a l l y r e f l e c t concern for the supposed destructive effects of multiculturalism, or i f they represent a fear of the increasing presence of non-traditional, ethno-cultural groups i n Canada; why members of minority groups, such as Neil Bissoondath and University of Winnipeg professor Rais Khan, are against the policy; how accurately multiculturalism policy i s represented i n the media; i f such criticisms help refine the policy; and what might ' some of the actual shortcomings of multiculturalism be. Part Two, which deals with anti-immigration arguments., w i l l be divided into three chapters. Chapter Seven w i l l give a b r i e f h i s t o r i c a l examination of immigration backlash i n Canada, and look at demographic arguments against immigration. From this, I w i l l i d e n t i f y eight themes that persist within the arguments made against immigrants i n each of these various backlashes, and how these themes recur today. I w i l l also use this h i s t o r i c a l appraisal to show how anti-immigration proponents were, or were not, able to influence government policy. Chapter Eight w i l l deal with contemporary economic arguments against immigration. Rather than being a nation-wide phenomenon, immigration-bashing has tended to be a regional reaction towards an influx of s p e c i f i c groups of immigrants into particular regions of the country, especially the big c i t i e s l i k e Toronto and Vancouver, where v i s i b l e minorities now constitute one-third of the t o t a l population. The proportion of the population that i s considered to be from v i s i b l e minorities has nearly doubled i n the last ten years. 3 6 11 C h a p t e r N i n e w i l l e x a m i n e how t h e s e a r g u m e n t s r e f l e c t m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f C a n a d i a n n a t i v i s m ( t h a t i s , a b e l i e f s y s t e m b a s e d o n a c o n j u n c t i o n o f n a t i o n a l i s m w i t h e t h n o - c u l t u r a l , r e l i g i o u s , a n d / o r r a c i a l p r e j u d i c e ) . 3 7 T h i s c h a p t e r w i l l show how s u c h a r g u m e n t s a g a i n s t i m m i g r a t i o n a n d m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m c a n be s e e n a t t h e p u b l i c p o l i c y - m a k i n g l e v e l , a n d how t h e y h a v e t h e p o t e n t i a l t o s h a p e p o l i c y i n f a v o u r o f t h o s e s u p p o r t i n g a n a t i v i s t p o s i t i o n . The c o n c l u s i o n w i l l e x p l a i n a n d a n a l y z e some o f t h e m o s t r e c e n t c r i t i c i s m s o f m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m a n d i m m i g r a t i o n p o l i c y , a n d how m u l t i c u l t u r a l e d u c a t i o n c a n be i m p r o v e d t o d e a l w i t h i n t o l e r a n c e t o w a r d s c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i s m i n o u r s o c i e t y . A q u a l i f i c a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d h e r e : Quebec i m m i g r a t i o n a n d i n t e g r a t i o n p o l i c y i s somewhat d i f f i c u l t t o a s s e s s i n t h e C a n a d i a n c o n t e x t . W h i l e Quebec i s p a r t o f C a n a d a , a n d i s n a t u r a l l y a f f e c t e d b y f e d e r a l p o l i c i e s , Quebec h a s l a r g e l y d i c t a t e d i t s own i m m i g r a t i o n p o l i c y w i t h f e d e r a l c o n c u r r e n c e s i n c e t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t h a n d e d o v e r i t s p o w e r s o v e r t h e s e l e c t i o n o f i m m i g r a n t s t o t h a t p r o v i n c e t h r o u g h t h e 1978 C o u t u r e - C u l l e n A g r e e m e n t . 3 8 C o n s e q u e n t l y , I f e e l i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o d e a l w i t h Q u e b e c ' s p o l i c i e s o f i m m i g r a t i o n a n d i n t e g r a t i o n i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e r e s t o f C a n a d a , r a t h e r t h a n s e e i n g Quebec as p a r t o f t h e w h o l e . I p r o v i d e one q u a l i f i c a t i o n : f e d e r a l s t a t i s t i c s t a k e t h e w h o l e n a t i o n i n t o a c c o u n t . When r e f e r r i n g t o t h e s e s t a t i s t i c s , I w i l l i n d e e d i n c l u d e Quebec a s p a r t o f t h e w h o l e . T h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n d o e s n o t f o l l o w a n y p a r t i c u l a r t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . T h i s i s b e c a u s e I f i n d t h a t no one t h e o r y c a n a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n a l l t h e d i f f e r e n t e l e m e n t s i n e x p l a i n i n g t h e movement a g a i n s t i m m i g r a t i o n a n d m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m p o l i c i e s . A s a r e s u l t , I p r e f e r a more e c l e c t i c a p p r o a c h . F o r e x a m p l e , many a s p e c t s o f a c o n f l i c t - o r i e n t e d t h e o r y a p p e a r t h r o u g h o u t t h i s w o r k . The a n t i - i m m i g r a t i o n movement i s e x p l a i n e d a s a r e a c t i o n b y members o f t h e e s t a b l i s h e d w h i t e , E u r o p e a n - o r i g i n g r o u p s a s a means t o t r y a n d m a i n t a i n t h e i r hegemony i n C a n a d i a n s o c i e t y . H o w e v e r , c o n f l i c t t h e o r y w o u l d s u g g e s t t h a t t h e s e e s t a b l i s h e d e t h n o - c u l t u r a l 12 groups as a whole are trying to maintain their power while minority groups are as a whole attempting to challenge that power base, and I do not believe this to be the case. The range of opinions and views within any one ethno-cultural group are far too diverse to show this to be true. Not a l l members of the dominant white majority are against immigration, nor are a l l members of v i s i b l e minorities i n favour of o f f i c i a l multiculturalism. I find the most appeal i n the theoretical approaches of W i l l Kymlicka, who advocates the promotion of col l e c t i v e rights such as multicultural rights as a means to promote and support individual freedom, and Charles Taylor, who challenges the western-liberal concept of society as being "difference-blind'. While these two approaches guide my own exploration of the evidence on this topic, I do not adhere to them s t r i c t l y . 13 NOTES 1) Daniel Stoffman, "Toward a "moderate l e v e l 1 of immigration", The Globe and Mail (January 28 1998): A23. 2) Doug Collins, Immigration: The Destruction of English Canada (Richmond H i l l : BMG Pulishing Limited, 1979): 51. 3) Darcy Henton, "Local Reform Candidate Out After Remarks Called Racist", Toronto Star (October 14 1993): A l . 4) Jerry G. Reitz and Raymond Breton, The I l l u s i o n of Difference: Realities of Ethnicity i n Canada and the U.S. (Ottawa: CD. Howe Institute, 1994) : 78. 5) The Reform Party of Canada, Blue Sheet: Principles and Policies of the Reform Party of Canada — 1996-97 (Calgary: 1996): 7 . 6) Stoffman, 1. 7) Charles Campbell, "Save Money, Close Our Borders", The Vancouver Sun, February 21, 1995, A l l . 8) Tom McFeely and Kevin Michael Grace, "Sorry, Closed for Repairs", The Western Report, 9(July 11 1994): 6. 9) Ibid., 6. 10) For a discussion of the term " o f f i c i a l multiculturalism", please see chapter two. 11) Richard Gwyn, Nationalism Without Walls: The Unbearable Lightness of Being Canadian (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1995): 274. 12) J.S. Woodsworth, Strangers Within Our Gates (Toronto: The Missionary Society of the Methodist Church, Canada, 1919; reprint; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972): 187-206. 13) Ibid., 208. 14) Diane Francis, Underground Nation: The Secret Economy and the Future of Canada (Toronto: Key Porter Books Limited, 1994): 63. 15) Ibid., 63. 16) Canada, Parliament, House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Sub-Committee on B i l l C-35. Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Sub-Committee on B i l l C-35, An Act to Establish the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and to Make Consequential Amendments to the Other Acts. 14 Irregular 35th Parliament, session 1, number 1, June 16, 1994. (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1994): 23. 17) Ibid., 23. 18) William. D. Gairdner, The Trouble With Canada: A Citizen Speaks Out (Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Company Ltd., 1990): 395. 19) Neil Bissoondath, Selli n g Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism i n Canada (Toronto: Penguin Books, 1994): 44. 20) Ibid., 192. 21) By "English/French majority", I am using the t r a d i t i o n a l way of describing the Anglo-Celtic/French-Canadian dominant groups in Canada. 22) K..W. Taylor makes a similar point, saying that the number of immigrants from non-traditional areas such as the Third World have between 1962 and 1988 grown to represent two-thirds of a l l immigrants who come to Canada. "Racism i n Canadian Immigration Policy", Canadian Ethnic Studies, 23:1 (1991): 7. 23) Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The P o l i t i c a l Economy of the Mass Media (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988): 298. In the case of my own thesis, I argue that this contention i s also true i n the case of the Canadian media and i t s view on multiculturalism policy. 24) Canada, Parliament, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Bakopanos, Eleni.. Refugees, Immigration, and Gender. Parliament 35, session 1, number 48 (Ottawa: wa: Queen's Printer, June, 1995): 48. 25) Paulette Peirol, "Immigrant Levels Reflect Backlash", The Globe and Mail (October 30 1996): A l . 26) Cornelius Jaenen, "Mutilated Multiculturalism", i n J.D. Wilson (ed.). Canadian Education i n the 1980s (Calgary: Detselig Enterprises Limited, 1981): 93 27) Ibid., 94. 28) Australia's population, according to a 1991 estimate, i s 16,930,000 (World Book Encyclopedia, vol.1,1991: 899). Canada's population, according to the 1996 census, stands at 28.8 m i l l i o n . S t a t i s t i c s Canada, A National Overview: Population and Dwelling Counts (Ottawa: Minister of Industry, 1997): 11. 29) Nigel Harris, The New Untouchables: Immigration i n the New World Worker (London, New York: I.B. Taurus Publishers, 1995): 15 1 8 6 . .30) I b i d . , 1 1 . 31) C r a i g R . W h i t n e y , " P o l i c e i n P a r i s Smash I m m i g r a n t s i n S i t - I n " , The New Y o r k T i m e s ( A u g u s t 24 1 9 9 6 ) : s e c t . 1 : 6 . 32) T . V . Show: " N i n e News 1 0 : 0 0 p m R e p o r t ; K C A L - T V ; L o s A n g e l e s " , A p r i l 10 1 9 9 6 , 10pm PT ( o b t a i n e d f r o m L e x u s - N e x u s O n -L i n e ) . 33) C l a u d i a D r e i f u s , "The W o r s t J o b i n t h e W o r l d ? " , The New Y o r k T i m e s , 6 ( O c t o b e r 27 1 9 9 6 ) : 5 3 . 34) Gwyn, 2 2 0 . 35) E x a m p l e s o f s t u d i e s o n a n t i - m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m phenomena i n c l u d e T i s s a F e r n a n d o ' s " M o s a i c M a d n e s s o r S e n s i b l e P o l i c y ? R e f l e c t i o n s o n M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m " , i n N e i l Guppy a n d K e n n e t h S t o d d a r t ( e d . s ) , S o c i a l I n s i g h t s ( V a n c o u v e r : A n t h r o p o l o g y a n d S o c i o l o g y D e p a r t m e n t s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1991) ; a n d A n d r e w C a r d o z o ' s "On G u a r d f o r M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m " , The C a n a d i a n F o r u m , 522 ( A p r i l 1 9 9 4 ) , 1 4 - 1 9 . A n e x a m p l e o f a s t u d y o f a n t i -i m m i g r a n t s e n t i m e n t s w o u l d be N i g e l H a r r i s , The New U n t o u c h a b l e s : I m m i g r a t i o n a n d t h e New W o r l d W o r k e r ( L o n d o n , New Y o r k : I . B . T a u r u s P u b l i s h e r s , 1 9 9 5 ) . 36) A l a n n a M i t c h e l l , " F a c e o f b i g c i t i e s c h a n g i n g " , The G l o b e a n d M a i l ( F e b r u a r y 18 1 9 9 8 ) : A l . 37) H o w a r d P a l m e r , N a t i v i s m i n A l b e r t a : 1 9 2 5 - 1 9 3 0 , P r e s e n t a t i o n a t t h e C a n a d i a n H i s t o r i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n ( T o r o n t o : J u n e , 1 9 7 4 ) : 2 . 38) D i r e c t i o n d e s c o m m u n i c a t i o n s o f t h e Quebec M i n i s t e r e d e s Communautes c u l t u r e l l e s e t de 1 ' I m m i g r a t i o n , V i s i o n : A P o l i c y S t a t e m e n t o n I m m i g r a t i o n a n d I n t e g r a t i o n ( Q u e b e c : M i n i s t e r e d e s Communautes c u l t u r e l l e s e t de 1 ' I m m i g r a t i o n d u Q u e b e c , 1 9 9 0 ) : 7 . 16 CHAPTER TWO: MULT ICULTURAL ISM A S A CONCEPT An analysis of multiculturalism and the state of ethno/cultural relations requires a d e f i n i t i o n of terms and an explanation of the theoretical background. Without this, multiculturalism and i t s related issues mean different things to different people. . For example, Reginald Bibby sees multiculturalism as a form of pluralism which has led to relativism because of i t s emphasis on excessive individualism. The danger of this individualism, according to Bibby, i s that i f Canadians are increasingly led to believe that they have "no vision, national goals, and sense of coexistence", then we collapse into a "mosaic madness".1 According to Neil Bissoondath, multiculturalism i s responsible for producing among Canadians a loss of certainty and diminishment i n Canadian values which he does not identify s p e c i f i c a l l y . Unlike Bibby, he sees multiculturalism as depending on conformity to preconceived and unchanging notions of ethnicity. It creates stereotypes, based here on ethnicity, which strips the individual of a l l uniqueness. 2 Hence, we have two different interpretations of multiculturalism: one views i t as too i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c , the other sees i t as too conformist. Yet both interpretations come to the same conclusion: that this policy has caused a loss of identity among Canadians by advocating cul t u r a l relativism (the b e l i e f that a l l cultural practices are of equal value, and therefore members of one culture cannot judge the practices of another). Which interpretation i s accurate? Is either of them correct? The purpose of this chapter i s to help provide guidelines to the theory and interpretation of multiculturalism, c u l t u r a l pluralism, and related concepts. This gives the reader a foundation on which to assess the debate. To do this, definitions of key terms such as multiculturalism, cultural pluralism, ethnicity, assimilation, integration, separation/segregation, and marginalization, w i l l be given. In order to understand the Canadian approach to ethnocultural relations, these terms w i l l be explained i n the 17 context of different models. As this debate deals with ethno-cultural relations, a discussion of ethnicity i s warranted. Observers such as John Porter i n the 1970s saw ethnicity as rapidly diminishing due to i t s increasing irrelevance i n modern society i n the face of technology which put an emphasis on i n d i v i d u a l i t y which made ethnic t i e s irrelevant. Porter f e l t the American melting pot was more appropriate than the Canadian mosaic model for p l u r a l i s t i c societies because i t allowed for ethno-cultural groups to do what they were prone to do: shed their particularisms and j o i n the mainstream group. 3 Evidence suggests that this presumption i s not accurate. What are the reasons for this persistence of ethnicity? How do we deal with i t ? The continuing existence of ethnicity i n modern society despite Porter's contention leads to the question of how we shape our national p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s to deal with i t . Does the Western-l i b e r a l model of government provide adequate recognition of cult u r a l rights? If not, why should i t ? How do we recognize these rights? How does this shape the role of citizenship i n the concept of the western-liberal nation-state? In other words, i s the d e f i n i t i o n of citizenship i n western-liberal states such as Canada inclusive enough to incorporate those from minority groups? Finally, this chapter w i l l explain nativism i n the Canadian context. This w i l l include a description of what Canadian na t i v i s t s believe, and how they try to promote this through populism. This knowledge i s required to understand why those who support a more conservative and t r a d i t i o n a l interpretation of Canadian identity oppose a p l u r a l i s t i c view of Canada. The Terms o f D e b a t e A) M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m : Like culture i t s e l f , multiculturalism i s an evolving term. How we interpret multiculturalism now may be different from how i t was interpreted after i t s o f f i c i a l recognition i n 1971. In the early 18 years, the policy focused primarily on cultural retention. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, the policy became more concerned with issues such as social integration, race relations, and heritage language education. Later, issues of economic equality and economic contribution were added to the agenda.4 To note this evolutionary development i s important, as c r i t i c s of multiculturalism often define their criticisms based on the old d e f i n i t i o n of the policy without taking into consideration the changes that have occurred since the seventies. Multiculturalism can be i d e n t i f i e d as a policy and as an ideology. This has to be kept i n mind when reading commentaries on the policy. Is the writer c r i t i c i z i n g multiculturalism as a policy, or as an ideology, or both? Often, observers c r i t i c i z e various aspects of multiculturalism ideology that are not necessarily connected to the federal policy, such as hyphenization and minority groups asking for special privileges i n order to preserve their culture (a practice which occurs i n other countries that do not have an o f f i c i a l policy of multiculturalism) . However, they make recommendations, such as c a l l i n g to eliminate o f f i c i a l multiculturalism, which are directed at the policy of multiculturalism. According to Augie Fleras and Jean Leonard E l l i o t , any d e f i n i t i o n of multiculturalism should incorporate the following c r i t e r i a : a unique way of sorting out and evaluating diversity; a set of attitudes among individuals and groups regarding the i n t r i n s i c value of cultural diversity; an ideological commitment to d i v e r s i t y as productive and relevant to national or local interests; formal i n i t i a t i v e s by the government and i n s t i t u t i o n s to incorporate d i v e r s i t y into a set of p o l i c i e s and programs; and a b e l i e f i n the p r a c t i c a l benefits of multiculturalism for p o l i t i c a l and minority interests. 5 For these purposes, multiculturalism i s defined as "an o f f i c i a l doctrine and corresponding set of p o l i c i e s and practices i n which ethnoracial differences are formally 19 promoted and incorporated as an integral component of the p o l i t i c a l , s o c i a l , and symbolic order". 6 This d e f i n i t i o n , however, puts emphasis on the promotion and incorporation of ethnoracial differences. This emphasis could suggest that multiculturalism i s for minority groups, rather than for society as a whole, and would not be suitable for those who do not wish to retain their ethnic background. In comparison, Howard Palmer defines multiculturalism as "the means by which to protect and promote d i v e r s i t y within the context of Canadian citizenship and political/economic integration into Canadian society". 7 This d e f i n i t i o n allows for the aforementioned c r i t e r i a , while defining d i v e r s i t y within the context of integration into the larger society. This emphasizes more than just c u l t u r a l retention, but also d i v e r s i t y as a means to unify society. As P h i l i p Resnick writes, multiculturalism would be harmful i f i t denies Canadians an overall national i d e n t i t y . 8 Consequently, I feel that Howard Palmer's d e f i n i t i o n of multiculturalism i s the most appropriate. For the purpose of this dissertation, I w i l l use his d e f i n i t i o n when referring to "multiculturalism'. B) c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i s m : Horace Kallen f i r s t coined this term i n the United States i n 1924. He related cultural pluralism to the idea of an orchestra: each group compared to a musician playing a different instrument, a l l making music together. 9 In the Canadian context, Fleras and E l l i o t define cultural pluralism as: A term used interchangeably with multiculturalism, the concept of cultural pluralism describes a social arrangement in which r a c i a l l y or ethnically different groups co-exist under a single p o l i t y . As with multiculturalism, references to c u l t u r a l pluralism can take several points of departure, including those of pluralism as a descriptive fact, prescriptive ideal, or p o l i t i c a l process. 1 0 In other words, multiculturalism i s based on the concept of c u l t u r a l pluralism, which sees different ethno/cultural groups as l i v i n g together with equal or common recognition of their 20 differences. As cultural pluralism i s recognized o f f i c i a l l y i n Canada through the policy of multiculturalism, the term "multiculturalism 1 i s used to refer to this recognition, whereas the term "cultural pluralism' i s used more often i n the United States, where multiculturalism i s not o f f i c i a l l y recognized as i n Canada. In the context of this thesis, this point i s worth noting as c r i t i c s such as Reginald Bibby regard pluralism as contributing to c o l l e c t i v e and personal freedom by legitimating diversity, which i n turn j u s t i f i e s r elativism. 1 1 This relativism i s deemed to be the cause of Canadians' lack of identity today as "to l i v e by the sword of relativism... may also be to die by i t " . 1 2 The d e f i n i t i o n of cultural pluralism may not be interchangeable between Canadian and American l i t e r a t u r e . In the context of American i n t e r - c u l t u r a l relations, according to David A. Hollinger, multiculturalism and cultural pluralism are not necessarily interchangeable. Cultural pluralism — i n this context •— refers to c u l t u r a l groups of European o r i g i n l i v i n g together rather than different ethno-racial groups. . Multiculturalism, i n contrast, recognizes i n the United States the Eurocentrism of the p o l i t i c a l process, and emphasized minority empowerment by recognizing inequalities between European- and non-European-^origin groups. 1 3 This i s quite a different way of viewing things than i n Canada because i t very quietly introduces the notion of Blacks and Hispanics, for example, as victims of Eurocentric society. C) e t h n i c i t y : Ethnicity, according to Wsevelod Isajiw, i s a matter of double boundary: 1 4 that i s , i t i s defined from within the group, as well as through intergroup relations. To Isajiw, ethnicity.. ...refers to a group of people who share the same culture or are descendants of such people who id e n t i f y themselves as belonging to the same voluntary group. 1 5 Palmer and Troper also define an ethnic group by i t s members' 21 own i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with each other, as well as how the outer society views them. An ethnic group i s so because individuals within the group identi f y with the group and are generally recognized by non-members as being members of that group. 1 6 The elements that determine the ethnicity of a certain group, according to Rex and Mason, are a combination of language, r e l i g i o n , race, and ancestral background. 1 7 D ) a s s i m i l a t i o n , i n t e g r a t i o n , s e p a r a t i o n / s e g r e g a t i o n , a n d m a r g i n a l i z a t i o n , : These terms should be explained i n re l a t i o n to each other, rather than separately. The reasons are that, f i r s t , these terms are often seen to be interchangeable. Observers, sometimes use the term "assimilation' to refer to what others c a l l "integration', and vice versa. Second, by looking at these terms i n regards to each other, the purpose behind multicultural policy becomes apparent. These four terms represent options for p l u r a l i s t i c societies. Ethno-cultural groups, according to John Berry, confront two main issues within the societies where they exist: 1) cultural maintenance, and 2) participation within the larger society. 1 8 If a particular group (or individual) relinquishes i t s own culture and moves into the larger society, i t has been "assimilated". Integration occurs when a group or individual can maintain their culture while moving into the larger society. 1 9 Segregation/separation represent two versions of the same option. In the case of the former, the minority group i s compelled by the larger society to be put at a distance. 2 0 An example of this would be the discriminatory laws under the former regime of apartheid i n South A f r i c a . Separation i s when the minority group chooses to eschew mainstream society. 2 1 An i l l u s t r a t i o n of this would be the formation of Hutterite colonies on the p r a i r i e s i n Canada i n the twentieth century. In both cases, the group maintains i t s culture by not moving, or by not being allowed to 22 move, into the larger society. 2 2 Marginalization occurs when the group i n question loses i t s tr a d i t i o n a l culture and i t s contact with the larger society. This "ethnocide" can be seen i n the case of the treatment of aboriginal people i n Canada by the colonizing powers. Of these four models, o f f i c i a l multiculturalism favours the approach of integration. The intended goals and outcomes of multicultural policy, according to John Berry, are to manage intergroup and interpersonal relations; to encourage groups towards integration and away from marginalization; to support both individual and group choice; to emphasize human rights, social participation, equality, group maintenance, and intergroup tolerance; and to act as a balance between c o l l e c t i v e and individual r i g h t s . 2 3 The policy requires adaptation not only on the immigrants' part, but also on the part of larger society. 2 4 I digress at this point to re-emphasize how these terms can be interpreted d i f f e r e n t l y by others. Consider this statement by John Higham i n his book Send Them to Me: A multiethnic society can avoid tyranny only through a shared culture and a set of universal values which i t s groups accept. If integration i s unacceptable because i t does not allow for differences, pluralism f a i l s to answer our need for universals. 5 While Berry sees integration as the acceptance of difference of groups that move into the mainstream, Higham defines integration as the removal of differences i n order to move into the mainstream ("If integration i s unacceptable because i t does not allow for difference..."). Hence, Higham's d e f i n i t i o n of integration resembles Berry's d e f i n i t i o n of assimilation. This means that Higham i s arguing for assimilation. For the purposes of this dissertation, unless stated otherwise, I w i l l use Berry's terminology. Assimilation takes several forms:" Anglo-conformity, the melting pot, and — according to Anderson and Frideres — cultural 23 pluralism. 2 6 The fact that these terms mean different things to different people at particular times i n history leads to confusion. According to Howard Palmer, "melting pot' suggests that immigrants merge with settled communities to form a new Canadian culture. 2 7 Yet every idea — including cultural pluralism — can be interpreted i n a narrow and dogmatic fashion. As Palmer shows below, the Canadian melting pot model often was defined as a form of Anglo-conformity. 2 8 Again, this shows how confusion over these terms leads to misunderstandings. As a result, contemporary observers often c r i t i c i z e multiculturalism without defining what i t means to them. In the Canadian context, assimilation i s recognized primarily i n the form of Anglo-conformity. It implies that newcomers should conform to the ideals of a British-Canadian society. Prior to the F i r s t World War, assimilationist programs were sponsored by schools, Protestant churches, labour unions, and p a t r i o t i c and so c i a l welfare organizations. These programs combined fears of what would happen i f immigrants were not assimilated with humanitarian concerns for the social and personal problems faced by immigrants. 2 9 After World War One, this concept started giving way to the "melting pot'. This view envisioned a b i o l o g i c a l merging of Anglo-Canadians with immigrants along with a blending of cultures into a new "Canadian' culture. 3 0 While the melting pot idea became popular i n the 1920s due to the r i s e of autonomous Canadian nationalism, clear distinctions between Anglo-conformity and the melting pot paradigm did not always exist. The melting pot model was i n many ways a thinly-veiled conformist model, an Anglo melting pot. 3 1 As the following quote from former Prime Minister R.B. Bennett i n the House of Commons in 1928 shows, the ideals of conformity s t i l l thrived: We earnestly and sincerely believe that the c i v i l i z a t i o n which we c a l l the B r i t i s h c i v i l i z a t i o n i s the standard by which we must measure our own c i v i l i z a t i o n ; we desire to assimilate those whom we bring to this country to that c i v i l i z a t i o n , that standard of l i v i n g , that regard for morality and law and the 24 i n s t i t u t i o n s of the country and to the ordered and required development of this country. That i s what we desire, rather than by the introduction of vast and overwhelming numbers of people from other countries to assimilate the B r i t i s h immigrants and the few Canadians who are l e f t to some other c i v i l i z a t i o n . 3 2 Assimilation can take two forms: structural and behavioral. Structural assimilation implies that a l l groups have large-scale access entrance into cliques, clubs, and p o l i t i c a l and economic in s t i t u t i o n s of the host-society at the primary group l e v e l . Behavioral (or cultural) assimilation, also known as acculturation, stresses that a l l groups change their cultural patterns to adhere to those of the host society (or: dominant group) and behave accordingly. 3 3 The purpose of assimilation i s to develop or maintain a somewhat homogeneous society. But does i t actually create a universal society for a l l groups, as structural assimilation may imply, or does i t co-opt minorities into a hierarchy i n which they find themselves below the status of established groups? Assimilation can be seen as a means to force ethnic groups to bow to society's standards, as set by the dominant group. Furthermore, assimilation implies that some groups conform to the B r i t i s h ideal more easily than others. Consequently, ethnic groups of European o r i g i n were deemed acceptable, since they could conform more ea s i l y to the B r i t i s h ideal, while non-European groups were considered unacceptable. As Derrick Thomas states, complete assimilation demands surrender of ethnic identity. This imposes a painful s a c r i f i c e on immigrants (and other minority groups). Hence, assimilation i s l i k e l y to be resisted by some ethnic groups. This point highlights the paradox of assimilation: segregation (or exclusion) i s the only sanction r e a l l y available to enforce assimilation. 3 4 This point i s borne out i n Canadian immigration history, which w i l l be dealt with i n Chapter Five. Varying treatment towards different ethnic groups shows why assimilation has not always worked as i t was intended to 25 and why the federal government attempted instead to i n s t i t u t e c u l t u r a l pluralism through multiculturalism i n the 1970s. This fact i s worth noting: c r i t i c s of multicultural policy, p a r t i c u l a r l y the conservative right, often advocate a return to the assimilation model which they consider preferable to any other. E t h n i c P e r s i s t e n c e a n d t h e C h a n g i n g C o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e P o p u l a t i o n Multiculturalism and cultural pluralism would be moot subjects i f ethnicity was non-existent, or steadily diminishing i n our society. Some have t r i e d to make this point. The idea that ethnicity was irrelevant i n a modern ind u s t r i a l i z e d society was made by sociologists i n the f i f t i e s and s i x t i e s . John Porter argued that technology made assimilation i n e v i t a b l e . 3 5 People i n North American society, according to Porter, saw themselves as individuals rather than groups. Furthermore, l i t t l e evidence existed i n r e a l i t y to show that Canada's experience with the "mosaic' (a model at the time for cultural pluralism) was different from the American melting pot. Also, as Porter showed, the mosaic was " v e r t i c a l " , making i t unfair for those on the lower rungs with l i t t l e prospect to r i s e . H i s t o r i c a l l y , Canadians' treatment of those of different ethno/cultural groups hardly suggested the building of the foundations for a contemporary mosaic. The only time Canadians referred to their ethnicity, Porter stated, was when they were compelled to by the c o l l e c t i o n of census data (whether or not they f e l t their e t h n i c i t y ) . 3 6 Porter used this premise to show that a policy of multiculturalism was irrelevant i n a post-industrial world. It was a retrogressive policy i n that i t encouraged group claims within an increasingly i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c society. 3 7 Assimilation was a better model to achieve equality i n that i t discouraged e t h n i c i t y , 3 8 and concentrated instead on individual rights and equal access to material success. Evidence suggests that Porter's view of ethnicity as an a r t i f a c t 2 6 from the past within modern-day i n d i v i d u a l i s t society i s not en t i r e l y correct. While i t may have been assumed less than twenty years ago that ethnicity would disappear i n an i n d u s t r i a l i z e d society, the contrary has i n fact happened.39 An ethnic revival has occurred around the world following upon the end of the cold war. Since 1989, with the collapse of the Eastern bloc as symbolized by the f a l l of the Berlin Wall, a new era of globalization has been ushered i n . While a global economy has been i n place since at least 1776, the post-1989 era i s the f i r s t time this economy i s not ordered by an imperial power. With this new absence of imperial order, large sections of the world's population have won the "right to self-determination' on the worst of terms: they have been l e f t to fend for themselves. As nation-states such as Somalia and Yugoslavia collapse, ethnic populations have no imperial order to appeal to, and consequently they set upon each other to settle scores long deferred by imperial order. 4 0 This trend renders nation-states less relevant as p o l i t i c a l e n t i t i e s . This re-shaping of the role of the nation-state has led to a resurgence of groups who assert their ethnic i d e n t i t i e s and often create new ethnically-based states such as Slovenia, Slovakia, Serbia, and Croatia. 4 1 Some of these ethnic c o n f l i c t s , however, were not related to the cold war. The demands of Scottish nationalists i n The United Kingdom and Basques i n Spain and France pre-date the end of the cold war era, and their struggles continue today. With regards to the North-South factor, the populations of countries i n the North are i n decline numerically, i n spite of these nations' economic strength. Nations of the South are not as strong economically, but their populations are on the r i s e . As a result, this leads to a migration of people from the South to the North. Such a factor i s what reshapes western-industrialized societies: by the mixing of populations within borders! 4 2 It i s this re-shaping to which conservative forces are opposed, and thus 27 try to prevent by r e s t r i c t i n g immigration and opposing any o f f i c i a l recognition of heterogeneity within their respective nations as only an encouragement for more immigration from these sources. A number of studies show that ethnicity continues to exist among different c u l t u r a l groups. Language retention i s one measure of ethnic persistence. Edward N. Herberg's study of ethnicity i n Canada explains that between 1921 and 1941, the Canadian census showed that ethnic groups had higher rates of heritage language (original language of the group) retention. Between 1941 and 1961, heritage language retention was i n decline. However, the 1961 to 1981 period showed a recovery of language retention among a l l e t h n i c i t i e s except Jews, Natives, Scandinavians, Germans, and Dutch. 4 3 Jerry G. Reitz showed i n his study of ethnic retention through h i s t o r i c a l evidence and social survey techniques that ethnicity declines i n most groups, but does not disappear altogether. Over the long run, there i s a progressive trend toward abandonment of ethnic group tie s for a l l groups i n which long-term experience can be measured (this trend does not include the Chinese). There i s , i n fact, an ethnic group l i f e cycle. The finding s h o u l d n o t (his emphasis) be construed as equivalent to saying that ethnic groups eventually or inevitably assimilate... . Reitz points out that his 1980 study dealt with ethnic cohesion, not assimilation. An assessment of assimilation would require a clear d e f i n i t i o n and relevant measurement, and such an assessment was not attempted here. He goes on to say that this decline i n ethnic cohesion does not j u s t i f y the claim that ethnicity disappears altogether: ...the findings show only a decline i n cohesion, not i t s disappearance. In point of fact, i n none of the groups have a l l kinds of ethnic t i e s disappeared altogether by the t h i r d generation. From certain points of view, this may be a most sig n i f i c a n t fact. Whether the long-term outcome of change i s a complete dissolution [of ethnicity] i s inevitable, i t w i l l take a very long time indeed. Five or six generations after the time of the l a s t wave of immigration translates into more than a 28 century. If ethnic communities tend to survive for periods of one hundred years or two hundred years, then, from the point of view of contemporary society, they are permanent facts of l i f e , as permanent as most other variable- features of so c i a l structure. 4 5 One possible shortcoming of Reitz's study i s that the only " v i s i b l e minority' that he appeared to have included i n his study was the Chinese. Consequently, the majority of groups he looked at were of European or i g i n . These groups, with a few exceptions, do not migrate to Canada now i n large numbers. Furthermore, the treatment they received h i s t o r i c a l l y was quite different from the treatment that v i s i b l e immigrant groups received. As Appendix A shows, the majority of new Canadians who have come after the Sixties are from non-traditional, Third World countries. As his study noted with the Chinese, these v i s i b l e ethnic groups (South Asians, Afro-Caribbean groups, and East Asians) may have higher rates or retention. Nevertheless, his study shows that ethnicity does exist within cultural groups even after several generations. What Herberg and Reitz show through their studies i s that while ethnicity may decline (periodically, as Herberg shows i n terms of language retention), consequently fooling some observers, i t does not disappear so easily. Other cultural t r a i t s and i d e n t i f i e r s beyond language, such as r e l i g i o n , also seem to p e r s i s t . Thus, ethnicity remains a factor i n the p o l i t i c a l process, certainly i n Canada and i n the United States. Porter's explanation of the management of d i v e r s i t y i n the United States and Canada holds merit i n that s i m i l a r i t i e s do exist. However, they exist i n a way contrary to what he states. Porter believes that ethnicity diminishes within a "melting pot' i n Canada (whether or not Canada recognizes i t s e l f as a melting pot) as i t does i n the United States. Evidence shows the opposite; that ethnicity has survived within American society as i t does within Canadian society. Contrary to predictions i n the 1950s, ethnicity has not disappeared from the American so c i a l landscape. Its 29 persistence has made i t s e l f an important factor i n public policy discussions. 4 6 Furthermore, a 1989 Decima survey which compared attitudes of both Americans and Canadians to the retention of culture found that Americans favour cultural retention more than Canadians. 4 7 Reitz and Breton showed i n their 1994 study that no clear indication existed to show that ethnic o r i g i n had more salience for Canadians than i t did for Americans. 4 8 In spite of i t s "melting pot" model, ethnicity i s alive and well in the United States as i t i s i n Canada. The idea that assimilation necessarily leads to a unified national society does not prove v a l i d i n the example of the United States. Ethnic groups i n America may enter periods of latency as w i l l those i n Canada. Marcus Lee Hansen took note i n 1937 of "the almost universal phenomenon of what the son wishes to forget, the grandson wishes to remember".49 "Hansen's law', as sociologist W i l l Herberg called i t , became a c l a s s i c formula for the American experience of immigration and acculturation. This "law' stated while the f i r s t generation of newcomers to America remained attached to their country of origins and i t s traditions, the second generation t r i e d to assimilate and thus rejected the ways of their immigrant parents. Because they were not f u l l y accepted by older Americans, the second generation was marginal to both societies. Robert E. Park coined this plight of the second generation with the term "marginal man'.50 The th i r d generation, secure i n their identity as acculturated Americans, would revive interest i n their ethnic heritage. Hansen's theory provides a useful model to explain, as Eileen Tamura has i n the case of Japanese-Americans i n Hawaii, the survival of ethnicity i n the United States. In addition to theory, research has shown how ethnicity has survived i n American society. As Paul R. Spickard points out, ethnicity can be measured i n terms of shared interests, culture, and i n s t i t u t i o n s . Some ethnic groups, Afro-Americans as an example, are high on a l l these. Others such as Hispanics, are high 30 i n interests and institutions, but low i n shared cultures. S t i l l , other groups such as American Jews rate high on culture, yet low on shared inst i t u t i o n s and shared interests. Finally, some groups rate low on a l l three factors. Italian-Americans i l l u s t r a t e this l a s t case. Yet what appears to be a dying ethnic group may actually be a group that i s entering a period of latency: a state of low interests, low culture, and low i n s t i t u t i o n s . 5 2 As with the Basques i n Spain, or with native Hawaiians, Italian-Americans may one day develop a cultural revival or a compelling set of interests that bring their ethnicity into relevance again. 5 3 This evidence shows that ethnicity i s not dying out or becoming less and less relevant. A f i n a l point, related to the f i r s t one, i s that opponents of the o f f i c i a l multiculturalism policy i n Canada often point to the United States as an exemplar of how assimilation creates a u n i f i e d and homogenous society. In r e a l i t y , such i s not the case. Evidence shows that many Americans as well as Canadians ide n t i f y themselves by ethnic ori g i n . Numerous examples of ethnic i n s t i t u t i o n s exist i n the United States: The United Farm Workers for Mexican Labourers, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church i n San Francisco for Chinese Americans, Hadassah for Jewish women, The Daughters of the American Revolution for Anglo-American women, and the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People. 5 4 But Canadian c r i t i c s such as Reginald Bibby often see Americans as more committed to the nation, family, community, and r e l i g i o n than are Canadians as they have no such o f f i c i a l policy as multiculturalism. 5 5 Why does ethnicity persist i n our society? Anderson and Frideres outline a number of reasons for t h i s : the v i s i b i l i t y of a pa r t i c u l a r group may cause the larger society to view i t as "different', continued immigration may keep culture alive i n a particular group, and the geographical proximity of individuals of a particular group to each other. That i s , groups may stay close together, as the case of the Chinese i n Toronto's Chinatown, or the 31 existence of Finntown on Bay Street i n Thunder Bay for Canadians of Finnish o r i g i n would i l l u s t r a t e . Ethnicity may also survive due to various demographic factors: the length of time i n Canada, the education l e v e l , the occupations of members, the degree of upward mobility, the number of senior members, and the number of women (as women often emphasize culture more than men) — may prolong a group's cu l t u r a l s u r v i v a l . 5 6 In review, this section has shown how ethnicity continues to exist as a factor i n modern post-industrial societies, i n spite of e a r l i e r b e l i e f s i n i t s lack of relevance. Furthermore, this existence of ethnicity i n Canadian society may not be just because i t i s sanctioned; we see that i t also exists i n American society which advocates an E Pluribus Unum doctrine of uniformity. A number of reasons explain the persistence of ethnicity. How, then, does a multiethnic society balance the need for a universal culture with the demand by ethnic groups for recognition? A Q u e s t i o n o f N o n r e c o g n i t i o n ? The aforementioned quote by John Higham (saying that a multiethnic society can avoid tyranny only through a set of universal values which i t s groups accept) helps to i l l u s t r a t e the dilemma of reconciling universal values with the recognition of minority rights. Is a set of universal values the best way to maintain s t a b i l i t y i n a l i b e r a l society? By imposing a set of "universals' on a group, i s this not another form of tyranny? Western l i b e r a l t r a d i t i o n has tended to favour individual rights over c o l l e c t i v e rights. This r e f l e c t s a Rousseauian approach to p o l i t i c s : Rousseau was suspicious of a l l social d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , and was receptive to homogenizing tendencies that would form a common good. 5 7 Lawmakers i n the western l i b e r a l democracies assumed that a uniform implementation of individual rights would be su f f i c i e n t to protect minority rights (the recognition of minority groups, and the right for those groups to practice and preserve 32 their culture, possibly at state expense). A case i n point can be seen i n the drafting of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights: U.N. lawmakers deleted a l l references i n this l e g i s l a t i o n to ethnic and national minorities. 5 8 Traditionally, l i b e r a l s feel that cultural identity, l i k e r e l i g i o n , can be expressed i n the private a f f a i r s of citizens, but have no place in the concerns of state. While some l i b e r a l s made an exception by sanctioning affirmative action p o l i c i e s i n the United States, other l i b e r a l lawmakers think that sanctioning minority rights only serves to make citizens think of each other not as individuals but as members of groups. 5 9. Individualism c a l l s for the autonomy of the individual. That i s , i t c a l l s for each person to determine for himself/herself the good l i f e . 6 0 In regards to the recognition of minority rights, a tr a d i t i o n a l l i b e r a l form of p o l i t i c s i s inhospitable toward this kind of rights because the l i b e r a l model i n s i s t s on an equal application of these rights without exception, and second, co l l e c t i v e goals are viewed with suspicion i n that they emphasize group rights over minority r i g h t s . 6 1 In other words, for individual rights to survive, culture and state had to be separated. By giving o f f i c i a l recognition to minority rights, governments would appear to be putting communitarian rights before the rights of individuals. Furthermore, any sanctioning of ethnic identity would imply d i f f e r e n t i a l treatment, which could lead to different ethno/cultural groups competing for special status. Such a situation, i t was argued, would threaten national unity. Therefore, individualism could not be s a c r i f i c e d for ethno-cultural rights. This idea puts two models of equality and respect i n c o n f l i c t . One model believes that the principle of equal respect means we have to treat people i n a difference-blind fashion. The other model states that we must recognize and even foster the 33 p a r t i c u l a r i t y of different groups. The reproach that the f i r s t model makes to the second i s that the l a t t e r violates the principle of nondiscrimination, while the reproach of the second model to the f i r s t one i s that the former negates identity by forcing people into a homogenous role that i s untrue to them i n the name of equality. To add to this second reproach, the supposedly neutral set of difference-blind principles to which, a l l individuals are to conform i n the f i r s t model are i n fact a r e f l e c t i o n of the values of the hegemonic culture. Minorities are thus forced to take on an al i e n form i n order to conform. 6 2 The above discussion r e f l e c t s on a t r a d i t i o n a l model of liberalism. In r e a l i t y , some western-liberal democracies have given recognition to cultural and minority rights i n different ways. Affirmative action p o l i c i e s i n the United' States would be one example, as would be the o f f i c i a l recognition of multiculturalism i n Canada. These measures, however, have not been spared criticisms based on the aforementioned c l a s s i c view of l i b e r a l rights. Robert Fulford directs such a c r i t i c i s m towards o f f i c i a l multiculturalism i n Canada: By emphasizing race, multiculturalism t r i e s to freeze us into ethnic categories that may express only the least important qualities of the individual... . Government policy should never for a moment even, hint that one choice i s more desirable than the other. 6 3 This rationale begs a number of questions: how, then, does the l i b e r a l model accommodate individuals who id e n t i f y themselves i n c o l l e c t i v e terms? That i s , how does liberalism deal with those who choose (as individuals presumably have a right to) to unite with others of similar t r a i t s ? In response, l i b e r a l s reasoned that i f immigrants voluntarily came to a western nation such as Canada, they knew what would be expected of them.64 ' As we have seen, the ethnicity of minority groups has not disappeared i n western societies as some assumed i t would. As John Rawls states, the tie s of culture are often too strong to expect newcomers to give them 34 up, even i f they come voluntarily. Canadian history i s replete with examples that bear out this statement, as w i l l be discussed i n Chapter Five. Cultural membership plays a role i n s e l f identity of the individual. Margalit and Raz state that ethnic identity i s p a r t i c u l a r l y suited to serving as the core of personal i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as i t i s based on belonging, not accomplishment: Identification i s more secure, less l i a b l e to be threatened, i f i t does not depend on accomplishment. Although accomplishments play their role i n people's sense of their own identity, i t would seem that at the most fundamental level our sense of our own identity depends on c r i t e r i a of belonging rather than on those of accomplishment. Secure i d e n t i f i c a t i o n at that level i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important to one's being. 6 6 This c r i t e r i o n , according to Ignatieff, explains the tenets behind ethnic nationalism: that a nation i s composed not of shared rights, but of pre-existing characteristics: language, rel i g i o n , customs, and t r a d i t i o n s . 6 7 Cultural identity provides an anchor for peoples' s e l f - i d e n t i t y . This means that a people's s e l f -respect i s bound up with the esteem i n which their national group i s held. If a culture i s not generally respected, then the dignity and self-respect of i t s members w i l l also be threatened. 6 8 Cultural components can give a group a sense of pride and community that modernized societies can leave u n f u l f i l l e d . 6 9 • Charles Taylor notes that the problem with the l i b e r a l model of universalism i s that i t leads to nonrecognition. That i s , to make a l l groups and individuals conform to a uniform "difference-blind" code i s to eliminate the particulars that give a group a sense of unity and distinctiveness. In the western nations, this homogenizing code i s , i n fact, a code which r e f l e c t s the values of North A t l a n t i c c i v i l i z a t i o n . 7 0 Universalism does not accommodate the pre-existing characteristics (mentioned above) that a group of individuals might take comfort i n . Nonrecognition can be harmful; i t i s a form of oppression that can entrap someone in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being. 7 1 35 How does nonrecognition come to the level of harm? To quote Franz Fanon, the main weapon of the colonizers (or i n this case, the established majority) i s the imposition of their image of the colonized on the subjugated people (the ethno/cultural minority group) . In order to be free, the subjugated people must purge themselves of a l l deprecating self-images. 7 2 In other words, the l i b e r a l notion of universalism may not i n fact be so "colour-blind' as i t appears. It may actually be a subtle form of assimilation. While common citizenship has i t s advantages, i t alone i s in s u f f i c i e n t to integrate heterogeneous groups into a society. Few nations actually follow a s t r i c t common citizenship strategy, as i t means that the dominant culture makes i t s own culture and language the o f f i c i a l culture and language of the entire nation. Minorities then become vulnerable to the majority's p o l i t i c a l and economic decisions. 7 3 Even i n the former communist states of the Eastern bloc, i n which the s o c i a l i s t doctrine saw ethnicity as a hindrance to the p o l i t i c a l struggle, the Soviet government implemented a system of language rights and national autonomy for minorities i n the Eastern European s a t e l l i t e nations, to at least give the appearance of tolerance. 7 4 Does an answer to this problem require an eradication of l i b e r a l thought, or a re-thinking of i t ? Western-liberal societies need to consider the fact that c o l l e c t i v e rights already exist i n our society i n the form of rights for trade unions and corporations, and environmental r i g h t s . 7 5 Kymlicka argues that minority rights are consistent with individual freedom, and can promote i t . Minority rights can eliminate inequalities by addressing the fact that some groups are disadvantaged i n the cultu r a l and economic marketplace. In the competition for resources, members of some groups may be outbid by those of other groups because of a lack of influence. 7 6 That i s , some groups may lack the s k i l l s and influence needed to "make i t ' i n a society. The "benign neglect' notion (or the idea of a "level playing field') ignores the fact 36 that some groups (such as the aboriginals) are already at a disadvantage. 7 7 Contrary to tr a d i t i o n a l l i b e r a l thought, human rights are unable to resolve the most important questions relating to cultural minorities. For example, should ethnic groups have publicly-funded education i n their mother tongue? Can a minority group, such as a F i r s t Nations group, control a particular region? In order to deal with these issues, governments can supplement t r a d i t i o n a l human rights with minority r i g h t s . 7 8 This explanation of the dangers of nonrecognition and the need to supplement the tr a d i t i o n a l l i b e r a l paradigm of individual rights i s given to explain the rationale and j u s t i f i c a t i o n behind multicultural policy as practised today i n Canada. Multiculturalism i s an attempt to expand the l i s t of human, economic, and c i v i l rights to include protection for minority groups. This knowledge i s cru c i a l , considering the opposition and misunderstandings that multicultural policy can create not only from conservatives, but from l i b e r a l s as well. These " l i b e r a l 1 c r i t i c i s m s of multiculturalism are often consistent with those made by conservatives. For example, both Richard Gwyn and the Reform Party, while ideologically separate, claim that multicultural policy contributes to a breakdown i n national cohesion by giving minority groups the idea that they need not assert their loyalty to the nation. Furthermore, conservative sources such as The Western Report often quote non-conservatives such as Neil Bissoondath to support their case against minority rights. Hence, i n order to challenge the very basic assumptions which constitute the backlash, one needs to understand how p l u r a l i s t rights are not inconsistent with individual rights which are the foundations for western-l i b e r a l societies and their laws. A f i n a l point to make i s that many assume that c o l l e c t i v e rights inherently c o n f l i c t with individual rights. This assumption shows the necessity of distinguishing between two kinds of co l l e c t i v e 37 rights: internal r e s t r i c t i o n s and external protections. Internal r e s t r i c t i o n s enable a state or province to l i m i t the rights of i t s members in order to maintain strongly-held cu l t u r a l goals. The streaming of non-Anglo/non-French (allophone) children i n Quebec into French-language schools against their w i l l i n the Sixties i s an example of such. External protections l i m i t the power exercised by larger society over the group, and are not a threat to individual r i g h t s . 7 9 Section 27 of the Charter of Rights, which recognizes the multicultural nature of Canadian society, i s often used i n conjunction with section 2, which outlines fundamental freedoms, and section 15, which contains individual protections. These laws have been cited to protect individual rights such as freedom of r e l i g i o n i n court cases permitting turbans i n the R.C.M.P., Sunday store closings, and the use of prayer i n public schools (these w i l l be explained i n greater d e t a i l i n chapter three). A multicultural policy must concentrate on external protections. Kymlicka i n s i s t s that external protections can assist rather than impede a minority group's integration into the larger society. As cultures become more open (that i s , more people can question whether or not their culture i s the best l i f e ) , people share that culture's bonds less and relate more to people from other liberated cultures. 8 0 That i s , i n contemporary society people start to relate less to their own culture, and begin to share bonds with individuals from cultures different from their own. Now, I proceed to discuss Canadian nativism: i t s background, ideological foundations, and why i t i s opposed to recognition of other ethno/cultural groups within the larger society. N a t i v i s m a n d t h e ' n e w ' c o n s e r v a t i s m Nativism, as defined by John Higham, i s an "intense opposition to a minority on the grounds of i t s foreign connection". 8 1 Richard Hofstader defines nativism as: "a b e l i e f system forged out of 38 conjunction of nationalism with ethno-cultural, religious, and/or r a c i a l prejudice". 8 2 Essentially, what these definitions stress i s that nativism i s a form of nationalist group identity which defines i t s e l f i n the form of h o s t i l i t y towards groups unlike i t s e l f . According to Palmer, Canadians have tended to look at nativism as an American malady. But evidence shows that i t was also endemic i n Canada, alb e i t less virulent and v i o l e n t . 8 3 Just as i n the United States, Canadian nativism could be divided into three strands: Anglo-Saxon nativism, anti-Roman Catholic nativism, and ant i - r a d i c a l nativism. A l l three provided the basis of most anti-immigration sentiment. Each of these strands, however, had a s l i g h t l y different o r i g i n i n Canada. In regards to anti-radical nativism, for example, American na t i v i s t s saw the violence of labour unionists as "un-American'. American anti^radicalism stemmed from a l i b e r a l tradition, whereas i n Canada, this form of nativism stemmed from basic conservative values and from p o l i t i c i a n s who emphasized order before l i b e r t y . 8 4 Both Canadian and American nativism was not limited to these three strands. During both world wars, n a t i v i s t s r a l l i e d against enemy aliens (Germans and Ukrainians i n World War One, Germans and Japanese i n World War Two), regardless of the race, r e l i g i o n , or p o l i t i c a l ideology of the targeted group. 8 5 H i s t o r i c a l l y , anti-Catholic nativism was somewhat complicated i n the Canadian context. Many Catholics were French, and the existence of French Canada (and of the French as one of the founding European groups i n Canada) gave these Catholics a greater sense of legitimacy. This, however, did not stop n a t i v i s t s from attacking other Catholics or immigrants. 8 6 Bishop Lloyd of the Anglican church i n Saskatchewan i n the 1920s, for example, saw the migration of Scottish Catholics as a Vatican plot to take over western Canada.87 Anglo-Saxon nativism took the view that Anglo-Canadian "stock' was threatened by the increasing number of non-Anglo immigrants. 39 The n a t i v i s t s saw two ways of dealing with the "threat' that these immigrants posed: assimilation, exclusion, or both. 8 8 Such sentiments reflected i n the thinking and p o l i c i e s of groups such as the Orange Order, the Canadian Legion, the Native Sons of Canada, the Ku Klux Klan, and the National Association of Canada.89 Nativism can also express i t s e l f i n the form of populism. Populism, as defined by Trevor Harrison, i s an attempt to create a mass p o l i t i c a l movement, mobilized around symbols and traditions congruent with popular culture, which expresses a group's sense of being threatened, arising from presumably powerful "outside' elements and directed at i t s perceived "peoplehood'.90 Populist p o l i t i c a l parties, therefore, attempt to create a mass movement by mobilizing around these symbols. This t a c t i c i s often used by those preaching an anti-immigration stance. Doug Colli n s , for example, centred his arguments i n 1979 around the idea that the federal government under the Liberals i n the s i x t i e s and seventies overlooked the wishes of the majority of Canadians by allowing for non-traditional immigrants to come in large numbers, For i f ever a p o l i t i c a l party sold i t s e l f and the future of a country for the sake of ethnic votes, i t was the Liberals i n the period 1967-'72, and they are s t i l l doing i t . 9 1 The populist element i n this idea i s that English Canadians are against the influx on non-white immigrants, and they have been betrayed by their government which allows for such immigration. In other words, the central authority i s not l i s t e n i n g to the people. Collins claims that of dozens of p o l l s taken, not one shows majority support for non-white immigration. 9 2 Harrison states that this appeal to populist parties and movements i s an appeal to a socially-constructed notion of a "people' whose survival i s threatened by outside forces. 9 3 To many of Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Celtic o r i g i n within the Canadian population, certain recent events represent the decline of their autonomy as a people: the use of hyphenization by Canadians i n referring to 40 their identity which suggests a dual heritage, the change to a non-sectarian prayer i n the House of Commons, and the Quebec referendum i n 1995 (in which nationalists hoped that Quebecois would vote to establish a sovereign state). These contemporary events are perceived as just the latest i n a series of events over the years that have given Anglo culture a sense of plight: the adoption of a new f l a g i n the s i x t i e s , the changes to immigration flows i n the same decade that opened the door to migrants from Third World countries, and the r i s e of Quebec nationalism that led to the 1969 federal O f f i c i a l Languages Act, a l l of which did not represent elements of Anglo-British culture. 9 4 Consider this statement by the leader of the Reform Party, Preston Manning, on the question of Quebec and Aboriginal issues: Reformers believe that going down the special status road has led to the creation of two full-blown separatist movements i n Quebec and to the proposal of the Quebec Liberals to emasculate the federal government as the price of keeping Quebec i n a non-confederation. It has led to desires and claims for "nation-status' on the part of thousands of aboriginal groups, claims which, i f based on r a c i a l , l i n g u i s t i c , and cultural distinctiveness, are just as v a l i d as those of Quebecois, i f not more so. It has led to a hyphenated Canadianism that emphasizes our differences and downplays our common ground by l a b e l l i n g us English-Canadians, French-Canadians, aboriginal-Canadians, or ethnic Canadians — but never Canadians, period. 9 5 Within this statement l i e s the rationale behind Canadian nativism. Canada was i n c r i s i s because of "special interests'. After the Quebec nationalists demanded and received their special rights, other minority groups began to do the same with the hope of achieving the same status. A l l this was done at the expense of the Anglophone majority, presumably i n that these interests supposedly led to a fragmentation i n Canadian identity. Harrison's explanation helps to highlight the rationale for the n a t i v i s t backlash against multiculturalism. It follows that any policy of cult u r a l pluralism threatens the Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Celtic hegemony. We have already seen this reasoning used i n the writings 41 of Reginald Bibby. Doug Collins, writing i n 1979, also believed that the decline i n /Anglo-Canadian influence had led to an increasing plethora of social problems i n Canada: U n t i l f i f t e e n years ago i t was commonplace that Canada was a peaceful, law-abiding country. Nor, up to that time, did immigrants disturb that reputation; most immigrants came from law-abiding countries, shared a common /Anglo-European heritage, were courageous and resourceful enough to come under their own steam, and entered l e g a l l y . 9 6 Editor Link B y f i e l d - of The Western Report and The B r i t i s h Columbia Report, for example, uses the recent problems i n Vancouver and Edmonton involving violent crime among non-white youths to point out the problem of allowing i n immigrants from non-t r a d i t i o n a l sources. As he sees i t , between 1900 and 1970, people from dozens of cultures who came to Canada were "Canadianized'. Most of them were European and white, and many brought ethnic hatreds. Yet after one generation i n Canada, they were a l l happy. The ' problem, states Byfield, came in the seventies with the " i l l u s o r y ' (my emphasis) notion of "rights' and "fairness' (his emphasis). Within one generation, Canadians became fool i s h and distracted by issues l i k e "tolerance'. 9 7 To make things worse, immigration portals were opened to other races: "It i s a simple fact of history that r a c i a l mixing i s a dangerous business, even for a strong and self-assertive culture that knows i t s own mind".98 Byfield's comments i l l u s t r a t e the mentality of seeing Canada i n a c r i s i s due to special rights given to minority groups. It also shows the appeal that n a t i v i s t s make to a "glorious past"; a time when Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Celtic groups claimed Canada, and other European groups who came would assimilate into this culture. In other words, the nation was more homogenous, and therefore more harmonious. On this basis, asserts Byfield, "we b u i l t one of the most free and prosperous nations i n human history". 9 9 This romanticized view of Canadian history omits some glaring exceptions. The assimilation process i n Canadian history hardly 42 suggests a smooth process. Assimilation often involved l e g i s l a t i v e and m i l i t a r y pressures: the mi l i t a r y conquest of aboriginal and Metis i n the Red River and Northwest rebellions of 1870 and 1885,100 the i l l e g a l abrogation of rights of the French and Roman Catholic minorities i n Manitoba and the Northwest Te r r i t o r i e s (later known as Saskatchewan and Alberta) between 1890 and 1892,101 and the expulsion of the Acadians from the east coast i n 1755 when they would not pledge an oath of allegiance to the B r i t i s h crown. 1 0 2 Thus, Manning's assertions of - the threat to Canada due to the granting of special status to non-Anglo groups are by no means isolated. They are the foundation of Anglo-Canadian nativism. What makes Anglo-Canadian nativism peculiar i n Canada? H i s t o r i c a l l y , Canadian identity was framed within- the context of B r i t i s h and American imperialism. After World War Two, Britain's influence on Canadian l i f e began to lessen while that of the United States was on the r i s e . The 1965 fl a g debate i l l u s t r a t e d the continuing t i e s that imperial nationalists f e l t with the B r i t i s h empire. Many, led by Tory leader John Diefenbaker, opposed the new fla g as i t did not include the Union Jack, the t r a d i t i o n a l symbol of B r i t a i n . 1 0 3 In the late Sixties, factors such as the American intervention i n Vietnam and the c i v i l rights struggle led to a push in Canada away from the American model. Canadian nationalism began to carve out a d i s t i n c t i v e Canadian identity based on economic nationalism. 1 0 4 Imperial nationalists, however, opposed this move away from the B r i t i s h model of identity. Their allegiance was with Anglo-Saxon cultural institutions, including a b e l i e f i n l i b e r a l democracy and free enterprise. In other words, nativism i n Canada tends to fasten i t s loyalty to the wider Anglo-culture rather than to the t e r r i t o r i a l d e f i n i t i o n of Canada. 1 0 5 This appeal to Anglo culture i s evident within the ranks of the Reform Party. For example, Reform Party members Stan Waters, William Gairdner, Ted Byfeld, Arthur Child, and Donovan Carter expressed their discontent over the ending of apartheid i n South 43 A f r i c a . This begs the question: why would Reform Party members show support for apartheid,, a system based on r a c i a l group a f f i l i a t i o n ? This contradicts Reform Party policy, which espouses individual rights over group rights. This inconsistency can only be explained adequately by accepting the notion that many Reformers strongly i d e n t i f y with "Anglo' culture. 1 0 7 This appeal to "Anglo' culture i s repeated throughout Canadian history by those who feared changes to the ethnic composition of the Canadian population. R.B. Bennett's 1928 quote ("We earnestly and sincerely believe that the c i v i l i z a t i o n which we c a l l the B r i t i s h c i v i l i z a t i o n i s the standard by which we must measure our own c i v i l i z a t i o n . . . " ) i s one example. A second example would be from R.E. Gosnell, journalist and secretary to several B r i t i s h Columbia premiers, who wrote this i n Westward Ho! magazine i n 1908: ...this vast and i n some respects s t i l l unknown country has p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n store for i t not yet, perhaps, dreamed of... p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n short as a greater B r i t a i n on the Pa c i f i c , where B r i t i s h arts and inst i t u t i o n s w i l l expand under B r i t i s h laws and justice w i l l be respected and enforced, and where B r i t i s h men and women w i l l be bred equal to the best traditions of the race. 1 0 8 The, appeal to Anglo culture continues to be used by Canadian n a t i v i s t s today. Doug Collins, who attempted to run for o f f i c e under the Reform Party banner, 1 0 9 j u s t i f i e s the r e s t r i c t i o n of immigrants from Third World countries to Canada as a defence of Anglo-Canadian culture: The s u i c i d a l passion to flood the country with v i s i b l e minorities must be stopped — unless whites themselves are to become a v i s i b l e minority, that i s . For, contrary to what Trudeau said, i t does matter where the immigrants come from. 1 1 0 Collins accuses the federal government, p a r t i c u l a r l y under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, of intentionally barring those of European o r i g i n from entering Canada. The objective of this anti-European campaign, according to Collins, was: "to cut immigration from B r i t a i n and Europe and to replace that t r a d i t i o n a l source of 44 immigrants with immigrants from Asia, A f r i c a , the Caribbean, and South America". 1 1 1 If the Reform Party i s a r e f l e c t i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l English-speaking nativism, then should the Party's leadership and ranks not predominantly be Anglo-Saxon/Celtic and perhaps Protestant? An anecdotal observation of the names of those involved i n the Party's formation would suggest so: Brimelow, Brown, Burns, Byfield, Chapman, Fryers, Gray, Grey, and Manning. 1 1 2 As for empirical evidence, a 1991 University of Alberta Population Research Laboratory Survey of Alberta residents asked the question, "What i s the religious and ethnic background of Reform Party supporters?" It found supporters to consist of Protestants (63%), people of Anglo-Saxon/Celtic heritage (29%), people of European heritage ( i f one sees this group as not already assimilated: 32%), and "Canadians'(34%). The majority of those who i d e n t i f i e d themselves as "Canadians' were actually from an Anglo-Saxon/Celtic background: 91% i d e n t i f i e d English as their f i r s t language. 1 1 3 While this s t a t i s t i c a l evidence i s somewhat limited, the overall pattern of Reform support from those of Anglo-Saxon/Celtic background i s a h i s t o r i c a l l y - s p e c i f i c pattern of support that one would expect i f Reform was appealing on some level to n a t i v i s t tendencies. 1 1 4 How i s the "new' conservatism relevant to this? David Frum explains that conservatives want to r o l l back the state not because they envision human beings as s e l f i s h individuals who must be l e f t alone to make as much money as they can (as some people define conservatism to mean) , but because they see the functions of real communities being usurped by overweening government. This usurpation ends with the citizens ultimately unable to do anything for themselves without the aid of central authorities, as community responsibilites have been transferred to the government.115 The modern Canadian government, Frum explains, has abrogated to i t s e l f the functions of real communities, and i s now attacking the very preconditions of the communities' existence: the moral norms that 45 the communities enforce on their members. The expansion of government leads to the decay of the old "obligation c u l t u r e ' . 1 1 6 Charles Ungerleider i d e n t i f i e s the "new' conservatism as an obstacle to the practice of multiculturalism. This ideology advocates that individuals are autonomous, alb e i t unequal, moral agents who are responsible for the consequences which b e f a l l them. It accepts inequality and emphasizes an individual's own resources and resourcefulness. Inequality i s seen as a natural condition among people that should be preserved to ensure so c i a l and economic progress. Inequality stimulates competition among individuals who seek to better their position and expand their share of resources. 1 1 7 In regards to this, two views of conservatism can be presented. Frum argues that this "possessive individualism' i s only part of the conservative ideology: But contemporary Canadian conservatism i s only incidentally concerned with acquisition, and defends individualism only within l i m i t s . At i t s core i s a doctrine dedicated to the vindication of a good society - and to the preservation of that society from the ideologies and interest groups bent on destroying i t . 1 1 8 Another point of view within the conservative f o l d sees any government attempt to le g i s l a t e equality as i n h i b i t i n g progress i n our society. Writer William D. Gairdner, for example, advocates that the state should not correct imbalances between people. To correct imbalances, he argues, i s to destroy individual p r i v i l e g e s : "The most unfortunate consequence of the top-down state... springs from the reliance on the notion of individual egalitarian rights... . These rights are then used by individuals and interest groups, with the help of various charters, to destroy the t r a d i t i o n a l supra-individual privileges of a l l societal groups II 119 • This philosophy i s related to the l i b e r a l notion of allowing the individual to decide for himself/herself on the good l i f e . While the t r a d i t i o n a l l i b e r a l philosophy f a i l s to account for the fact 46 that some members of various groups start from a level of disadvantage, the new conservative philosophy acknowledges and accepts this fact as a natural phenomenon. This acceptance of inequality can be seen as a defence of privilege, an argument on the part of conservatives for e l i t i s m . From here, one can establish a connection to nativism. Contemporary n a t i v i s t s oppose multiculturalism because i t reinforces the notion that a l l Canadians are equal i n regards to ethnicity. Immigration reinforces the a b i l i t y of non-charter groups to demand their rights by strength i n numbers. Those who support the new conservatism such as the Reform Party may not see themselves as n a t i v i s t s . However, statements made by individual members, and p o l i c i e s . t h a t the Party advocates, suggest n a t i v i s t elements i n their thinking. The Party's o f f i c i a l policy, for example, c a l l s for the elimination of o f f i c i a l multiculturalism. 1 2 0 The Party's policy also c a l l s for a reduction of yearly immigration levels to 150, 000 from the current rate of about 215, 000 i n any year where the unemployment rate exceeds 10%, 1 2 1 and to deny immigrants social services and health benefits u n t i l they become citizens(about three to five years after their a r r i v a l ) . 1 2 2 Individual members of the Reform Party also display n a t i v i s t tendencies: member Al i c e White from Alberta warned that "low blacks and low Hispanics" were taking over that province. 1 2 3 John Beck, a Reform candidate i n Toronto, stated: "It seems to be predominantly Jewish people who are running this country". 1 2 4 Beck was expelled from the party following the p u b l i c i t y caused by his remarks. Jack Telfer, a B.C. Reform member, stated: "As George Wallace said, S I have nothing against blacks, I think everyone should have one'". 1 2 5 Contemporary Canadian nativism i s seen i n (but not only in) Reform Party doctrine, and i n comments made by individual members. Nativism t i e s Anglo-Canadians to the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic population worldwide. Its proponents, who may not see themselves as n a t i v i s t s , often refer to a romanticized view of the past i n order 47 to make the case for p o l i c i e s that preserve the "Anglo" hegemony i n Canadian society. Such p o l i c i e s include the r e s t r i c t i o n of immigration, especially from Third World countries, and an abolition of multiculturalism. 48 NOTES 1) Reginald Bibby, Mosaic Madness: The Poverty and Potential of L i f e i n Canada (Toronto: Stoddart, 1990): 104. 2) Neil Bissoondath, Se l l i n g Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism i n Canada (Toronto: Penguin Books, 1994): 211. 3) John Porter, The Measure of Canadian Society (Toronto: Gage, 1979): 160. This b e l i e f assumes that newcomers would shed their particularisms i n order to get ahead f i n a n c i a l l y and to scale the socio-economic ladder. Kogila A. Moodley makes a related point, stating that competence, not culture, i s the concern of parents from minorities i n the education of their children. Therefore, maintaining cultural heritage u n c r i t i c a l l y through the education system may prove to be a hindrance to the purposes of integrating immigrants into mainstream Canadian society. Kogila A. Moodley, "Multicultural Education i n Canada: H i s t o r i c a l Development and Current Status", i n James A. Banks and Cherry A. McGee Banks (ed.s), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (New York: Macmillan, 1995): 816-817. 4) Gus Mitges, Multiculturalism: Building the Canadian Mosaic (Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1987): 49 5) Augie Fleras and Jean Leonard E l l i o t , Multiculturalism i n Canada (Scarborough: Nelson Canada, 1993): 21. 6) Ibid., 22. 7) Howard Palmer i n Fleras and E l l i o t : 21. 8) P h i l i p Resnick, Thinking English Canada (Toronto: Stoddart, 1994): 76. 9) David A. Hollinger, Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism (New York: Basic Books, 1995): 92 10) Fleras and E l l i o t : 314. 11) Bibby: v i i . 12) Ibid., 13. 13) Hollinger: 100. 14) Wsevelod W. Isajiw, "Definitions of Ethnicity", i n Rita Bienvenue and Jay Goldstein, Ethnicity and Ethnic Relations i n Canada (Toronto: Butterworths, 1985): 14. 49 15) Ibid., 16. 16) Howard Palmer and Harold Troper, "Canadian Ethnic Studies: H i s t o r i c a l Perspectives and Contemporary Implications", Interchange, 4:4(1973): 16. 17) John Rex and David Mason (ed.s), Theories of Race and Ethnic Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986): 22. 18) John W. Berry, "Prejudice, Ethnocentrism, and Racism", Migration(Finnish journal), 2(1996): 7. 19) Berry i n S t e l l a Hryniuk (ed.), Twenty Years of Multiculturalism: Successes and Failures (Winnipeg: St. John's College Press, 1992): 187. 20) Ibid., 187. 21) Ibid., 187. 22) Ibid., 187. 23) Ibid., 191 24) Ibid., 185. 25) John Higham, Send Them to Me: Immigrants i n Urban America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, c.1984): 275. 26) Anderson and Frideres, 275. Clearly, Anderson and Frideres have a different understanding of assimilation, as they consider i t synonymous with cultural pluralism. For my purposes, I w i l l define these terms as two very different concepts. I see cul t u r a l pluralism as more associated with John Berry's d e f i n i t i o n of "integration', as i t allows for the existence of other cultural practices within parameters, whereas assimilation demands conformity. 27) Howard Palmer, "Reluctant Hosts: Anglo-Canadian Views of Multiculturalism i n the Twentieth Century", i n Howard Palmer (ed.), Cultural Diversity i n Canadian Education (Caleton University Press, 1984): 21. 28) P h i l i p Gleason makes a similar statement i n discussing the meaning of "melting pot' i n the United States (Speaking of Diversity: Language and Ethnicity i n Twentieth-Century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). "Melting pot' suggests that immigrants should w i l l their own assimilation (p.10). Yet many Americans think this model upholds the ideals of cultural pluralism: openness towards immigrants and their c u l t u r a l values, 50 and the b e l i e f i n inclusion of a l l groups (p. 26) . This shows that this confusion over what these terms mean i s not only a problem i n Canada, but elsewhere as well. 29) Howard Palmer, Patterns of Prejudice: A History of Nativism i n Alberta (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1982): 3. 30) Palmer, "Reluctant Hosts", 30. 31) Ibid., 31. 32) Howard Palmer, Immigration and the Rise of Multiculturalism (Vancouver: Copp Clark, 1975): 119. 33) Milton M. Gordon, Assimilation i n American L i f e : The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964): 71 34) Derrick Thomas i n Steven Globerman (ed.), The Immigration Dilemma (Vancouver, The Fraser Institute, 1992): 217. 35) Porter, 143. 36) Ibid., 158. Porter may have actually been mistaken i n suggesting the existence of a v e r t i c a l mosaic i n Canadian society. In a study of Porter's methodology and measures, Richard Ogmundsen found the results to be faulty. Therefore, he suggests, Porter's entire body of thought may be mistaken. Furthermore, a number of studies concerning the trends i n ethnic origins of Canadian e l i t e s from a disparate group of sociologists, p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s , and journalists came up with very different conclusions. These studies showed that "third ethnic group' Canadians had been represented i n p o l i t i c a l , economic, and social e l i t e s . Richard Ogmundsen, "At The Top of the Mosaic: Doubts About the Data", The American Review of Canadian Studies, 23:3 (Autumn 1993): 382-383. 37) John Porter i n J. Mallea and J. Young (ed.s), Cultural Diversity and Canadian Education (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1989): 74. 38) Ibid., 80. 39) John W. Berry and J.A. Laponce (ed.s), Ethnicity and Culture i n Canada: The Research Landscape (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994): 3. 40) Michael Ignatieff, Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism (Toronto: Viking, 1993): 8. 41) Berry and Laponce, 3. 51 42) Ibid., 3. 43) Edward N. Herberg, Ethnic Groups in Canada: Adaptations and Transitions (Scarborough: Nelson Canada, 1989): 122. 44) Jerry G. Reitz, The Survival of Ethnic Groups (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1980): 231-232. 45) Ibid., 232. 46) John J. Bukowczyk and Nora Faires, "Immigration History i n the United States, 1965-1990: A Selective C r i t i c a l Appraisal", Canadian Ethnic Studies, 23(1991): 8. This point i s also made by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. i n his book The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society (New York, London: W.W. Norton and Company, 1992). He writes that i n recent times, the culture of ethnicity has risen among non-Anglo whites and among nonwhite minorities, who have denounced the melting pot (p.15). 47) Jerry G. Reitz and Raymond Breton, The I l l u s i o n of Difference: Realities of Ethnicity i n Canada and the United States (Ottawa: CD. Howe Institute, 1994) : 125. 48) Ibid., 61. By examining the results of various studies i n Canada and The United States regarding ethnic salience through individuals' knowledge of ancestry and the extent to which individuals i d e n t i f i e d with a particular group, intermarriage, multiple origins of individuals, l i n g u i s t i c retention, and social interaction and a c t i v i t i e s , Reitz and Breton concluded that for both Canadians and Americans, ethnicity become largely symbolic over several generations of l i v i n g i n their respective nations. 49) Hansen i n Eileen Tamura, Americanization, Acculturation, and Ethnic Identity: The Nisei Generation i n Hawaii (Urbana: University of I l l i n o i s Press, c.1994): 20. 50) Ibid., 20. 51) Spickard, Paul R., "Japanese Americans: The Formation and Transformation of an Ethnic Group", in Franklin Ng, Judy Yung, Stephen S. Fujita, and Elaine H. Kim (ed.s), New Visions: Diversity, Community, Power in Asian American Studies (Pullman, Washington: Washington State University Press, c.1994): 162. 52) Ibid., 168. 53) Ibid., 162. 54) Ibid., 161. 52 55) Bibby, 93. 56) Anderson and Frideres, 106-109. 57) Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism: The P o l i t i c s of Recognition (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992): 6. 58) W i l l Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995): 2-3. 59) Ibid., 3-4. 60) Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism: Examining the P o l i t i c s of Recognition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994): 57. 61) Ibid., 60. 62) Taylor, Multiculturalism (1992), 43. 63) Robert Fulford, "Do Canadians Want Ethnic Heritage Freeze-Dried?", The Globe and Mail (February 19 1997): A19. 64) Kymlicka, 62. 65) Rawls i n Kymlicka, 87. 66) Avishai Margalit and Joseph Raz, "National Self-Determination", The Journal of Philosophy, 87:9 (September 1990): 447. 67) Ignatieff, 4. 68) Kymlicka, 89. 69) James A. Banks, "Multicultural Education: Development, Paradigms, and Goals" i n J. Banks and J. Lynch (ed.s), Multicultural Education i n Western Societies (London: Holt, Rinehart, 1986): 5. 70) Taylor, (1992), 71. 71) Taylor, (1994), 25. 72) Ibid., 65. 73) Kymlicka, 183. 74) Ibid., 71-72. 53 75) Ibid., 35. 76) Ibid., 108-109. 77) Ibid., 110. 78) Ibid., 4-5. 79) Ibid., 7. 80) Ibid., 87. 81) Higham i n Palmer, Patterns of Prejudice, 6. 82) Hofstader i n Trevor Harrison, Of Passionate Intensity: Right-wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995): 7. 83) Howard Palmer, Nativism i n Alberta: 1925-1930, Presentation at the Canadian H i s t o r i c a l Association (Toronto, June 1974): 2. 84) Ibid., 3. 85) Howard Palmer, Nativism and Ethnic Tolerance i n Alberta, 1920 - 1972, (Ph.D. Thesis, Toronto: York University, 1973): 3. 86) Ibid., 2. 87) John E. Lyons, "For St. George and Canada: The Fellowship of the Maple Leaf and Education on the Prairies", i n J.D. Wilson (ed.), An Imperfect Past: Education and Society i n Canadian History (Vancouver: Centre of the Study of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984): 206. 88) Palmer, Nativism i n Alberta, 11 89) Ibid., 1. 90) Harrison, 5. 91) Doug Collins, Immigration: The Destruction of English Canada (Richmond H i l l : BMG Publishers, c.1979): i . 92) Doug Collins, Immigration: Parliament Versus the People (Toronto: Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform Incorporated, c.1984): 8. 93) Harrison, 139. 54 94) Ibid., 19. 95) Ibid., 163. 96) Collins, Destruction, 63. 97) Link Byfield, "When i t Comes to Mayhem Among Minority Groups, We Reap What We Sow", The B r i t i s h Columbia Report, 7:47 (July 22 1996): 7. 98) Ibid., 7. 99) Ibid., 7. 100) R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith, Destinies: Canadian History Since Confederation (Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston of Canada Limited, 1988): 27-28, 69-70. 101) Ibid., 82-83, 136. 102) Brendan O'Donnell, Chronicles of Milestones i n Canadian Multiculturalism (Ottawa: Department of the Secretary of State, 1987): 5. 103) J.L. Granatstein, Irving M. Abella, David J. Bercuson, R. Craig Brown, and H. B l a i r Neatby, Twentieth-Century Canada (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd., 1983): 376. 104) Ibid., 376, 378. Canada's opposition to America's intervention i n the Vietnam war was made clear by former Prime Minister Lester Pearson's Philadelphia speech i n which he suggested a halt to American bombing of North Vietnam (p. 378). Granatstein et. a l . give the example of economic nationalism i n Minister of Finance Walter Gordon's attempt i n the s i x t i e s to make Canada's economy more independent of the United States by l i m i t i n g American investment i n Canada (p. 37 6). 105) Harrison, 166. 106) Stan Waters stated his misgivings about the ending of apartheid i n this way: "If history has any. parallelism, you might find a very serious problem emerging i n South A f r i c a which may dwarf the objectionable features of the current administration... . I always ask (former External A f f a i r s Minister) Joe Clark, i f South A f r i c a i s going to change, what black nation, do you want i t to imitate? Most of them are despotic presidents for l i f e i n almost every case". Brian Laghi, "Waters Wary of Black Rule i n A f r i c a " , The Edmonton Journal (October 29 1989): A7. In his book The Trouble With Canada: A Citizen Speaks Out (Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Company Ltd., 1990), William Gairdner wrote i n a similar 55 fashion, "I have no problem with anyone d i s l i k i n g apartheid... . But i t pales i n comparison with the human rights infractions i n just about every black n a t i o n . . . . So why the selective morality from Canadians (?)" (p.266-267). Donovan Carter was i d e n t i f i e d as a paid agent of the South African embassy i n a t e l e v i s i o n report ("The Persuaders", The F i f t h Estate, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 14 1989: i n Dobbin). Murray Dobbin also notes the support shown for South A f r i c a by Reform members Arthur Child and Ted Byfeld Murray Dobbin, Preston Manning and the Reform Party (Toronto: James Lorimer and Company, 1991): 93, 103. 107) Harrison, 171. 108) R.E. Gosnell i n William Peter Ward, White Canada Forever: B r i t i s h Columbia's Response to Orientals, 1985-1914 (Kingston: Queen's University, 1972): 267. 109) Robin Brunet, "The Bi t t e r Poison of Multiculturalism", The Western Report, 9:2(April 18 1994): 33. 110) Collins, Parliament, 17. 111) Coll i n s , Destruction, 29. 112) Harrison, 168. 113) Ibid., 168-169. 114) Ibid., 169. 115) David Frum, What's Right: The New Conservatism and What It Means for Canada (Toronto: Rand House of Canada, 1996): 5. 116) Ibid., 6. 117) Charles Ungerleider, Strategic Evaluation of Multicultural Programs: Final Report (Ottawa: Government of Canada, March, 1996): 66. 118) Frum, 8. 119) William D. Gairdner, The War Against the Family: A Parent Speaks Out (Toronto: Stoddart, 1992): 14. 120) Reform Party of Canada, Blue Sheet: Principles and Policies of The Reform Party of Canada — 1996-97 (1996): 7. 121) Ibid., 7. Also i n : Edward Greenspon, "Reform backs immigration cuts", The Globe and Mail (October 31 1994): A l 56 122) Ibid., 7. Also i n : Michael Jenkinson, "A Fine Line on Immigration", The Western Report, 9(November 14 1994): 10. 123) Murray Dobbin, "The Gospel According to Reform", The Canadian Forum, 74(November 1994): 50. 124) Ibid., 50. 125) Ibid., 50. 57 CHAPTER T H R E E : MULT ICULTURAL ISM A S A P O L I C Y : HISTORY AND OPPONENTS Multiculturalism has k i l l e d our Canadian culture. Thirty or or forty years ago, we had a Canadian culture and everyone knew i t . Now immigrants have their own l i t t l e communities, their own l i t t l e worlds... when they get here, they try to make Canada into whatever they l e f t . 1 -Don Cherry, hockey commentator And what I can say, what many of us "ethnics" have been quietly saying for years, i s that we are sick of newcomers demanding that Canada adopt their customs and their languages, rather than the other way around.2 -Sonja S i n c l a i r , free-lance writer The Nineties has become a decade of backlash against the policy of multiculturalism i n Canada. This phenomenon i s part of a worldwide Nanti-immigrant 1 trend. The economic recession and the decline of the power of the nation-state i n the post-cold war era have led to a general feeling of insecurity among populations of the western-liberal nations. As a result, neo-conservative and ultra-conservative forces have been able to c a p i t a l i z e on this fear of change i n order to promote their agenda of immigrant r e s t r i c t i o n , revocation of legal accommodations for minority groups, and i n some cases, such as i n France, immigrant expulsion. The anti-multicultural wave i n Canada, however, i s not the property solely of the conservative right. Those of a non-conservative nature have joined the c a l l to end multiculturalism as well. Commentator Richard Gwyn has called multiculturalism "a slush, fund to buy ethnic votes" 3 He has been joined by individual members of minority and immigrant groups, the very people multicultural policy was supposed to benefit (assuming i t i s only for minorities) . What are the arguments against multiculturalism? Are they representative of the actual state of ethnic relations and ethnic integration i n contemporary Canadian society? The purpose of this chapter i s to examine and c r i t i c a l l y analyze the popular claims 58 both for and against multiculturalism. In spite of ideological differences, c r i t i c s often make similar arguments against this policy. Thus I w i l l group these arguments and state who their claimants are. This chapter w i l l concentrate primarily on the arguments of Richard Gwyn, Neil Bissoondath, and Margaret Cannon, as well as conservative c r i t i c s such as Doug Collins ,• William Gairdner, and other members of the Reform Party. The outline of this chapter i s as follows: Part One w i l l b r i e f l y examine the history of multicultural policy i n Canada. This examination i s essential, as i t helps to assess the v a l i d i t y of some of the attacks on multicultural policy. Part Two w i l l i d e n t i f y who the c r i t i c s are and which areas they represent: the academic sphere, the media, ethno/cultural groups, the conservative right, and various p o l i t i c a l parties. Part Three w i l l i d e n t i f y and test the various criticisms of this policy. This chapter w i l l concentrate on the arguments themselves. If I am to prove that these criticisms about multiculturalism are manifestations of nationalism, I have to examine the accuracy of the cri t i c i s m s being made. For this purpose, the information given i n Chapter Two — the reasons for the persistence of ethnicity i n modern society, the need for cultural rights i n the l i b e r a l framework, and the d i f f i c u l t y i n assimilating a group of people — w i l l help i n this analysis. H i s t o r y o f t h e C a n a d i a n P o l i c y o f M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m Most c r i t i c s consider the b i r t h of multiculturalism as being i n 1971. Some make the mistake of saying that the Multiculturalism Act was passed this year. For example, Neil Bissoondath faults former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau for a particular section of the Multiculturalism Act which he c i t e s . 4 This reference i s a mistake on Bissoondath's part: Trudeau introduced a multicultural policy i n 1971. The Multicultural Act was not passed u n t i l seventeen years later under the government of Brian Mulroney. 5 This error explains the difference i n interpretation: 59 multiculturalism was o f f i c i a l l y recognized i n 1971, but the Multiculturalism Act was not passed into law u n t i l 1988. This example highlights the fact that for many c r i t i c s , 1971 i s the i n i t i a t i o n point for multiculturalism. By stating that multiculturalism began i n this time period i s to place the policy in the context of the 1960s and 1970s with that decade's emphasis on human rights and just i c e . As Reform M.P. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Jean de Fuca) said: "Multiculturalism has i t s roots i n that 1960s flower-child, s o c i a l i s t i c attitude that looks at the past with a sense of shame".6 This interpretation also allows c r i t i c s to refer to the " v i l l a i n " Pierre Trudeau's p o l i c i e s as the source of the multicultural policy. It also helps c r i t i c s place multiculturalism i n the context of the recognition of o f f i c i a l biculturalism. This i s j u s t i f i e d i n part due to the fact that the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism recommended multiculturalism within a b i l i n g u a l framework i n Book 4 of i t s report, The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups.7 The year 1971 i s important for some c r i t i c s as i t j u s t i f i e s the idea that multiculturalism replaced the "two nations' concept of biculturalism i n the S i x t i e s . 8 Consequently, multiculturalism i s seen as a policy that was implemented not so much to recognize the p l u r a l i t y of Canadian society, but rather to defeat the two-nation concept i n which Quebecois chose to see themselves within the context of Canada. Both of these views help j u s t i f y critiques of multicultural policy as being a "top-down' policy created by the e l i t e rather than by the grass-roots of society, and the unnatural concept of "tolerance' that replaced assimilation as the means to incorporate minorities into Canadian society, and as a cynical policy used to "buy ethnic votes' and to reduce Quebec to the status of other minority groups. The announcement of the o f f i c i a l policy of multiculturalism i n 1971, according to Fleras and E l l i o t , was given l i t t l e attention i n the media. Key elements of the policy that were included were that there would be no o f f i c i a l culture even though French and English 60 would be the o f f i c i a l languages, no ethnic group would take precedence over any other, and that, the government would take action to ensure freedom of choice i n the overcoming of "cultural barriers to f u l l participation i n Canadian society". 9 Trudeau l i s t e d the four broad objectives of the policy: 1) assistance to cultur a l groups to retain and foster their identity, 2) to assist cul t u r a l groups i n overcoming barriers to f u l l p a rticipation i n society, 3) to promote cultural interchange among a l l Canadian cul t u r a l groups, and 4) to assist immigrants i n acquiring at least one o f f i c i a l language. 1 0 According to Fleras and E l l i o t , Trudeau 1s announcement appeared on the surface to encourage the retention and promotion of ethnic groups and communities. Yet a closer reading reveals the opposite: the announcement did not endorse the establishment of separate communities and p a r a l l e l minority i n s t i t u t i o n s . The policy dissuaded minorities from establishing groups and in s t i t u t i o n s at variance with French and English structures. Trudeau's policy aimed at the involvement and participation of ethnic minorities i n mainstream in s t i t u t i o n s , without denying them the right to identify with select elements of their cultural past i f they so chose. 1 1 C r i t i c s of multiculturalism often interpret the "cultural retention' aspects of the policy as being synonymous with challenging and d i l u t i n g Canada's national i d e n t i t y . 1 2 Their view leads them to conclude that multiculturalism means that minority groups can re-create their "old world' culture i n Canada without having to integrate into the larger society. As Fleras and E l l i o t state, such provisions did not exist i n the policy. In fact, i t encouraged the incorporation of minority groups into mainstream society. The passage of the Multiculturalism Act i n 1988 by unanimous vote i n the House of Commons13 made Canada the f i r s t country to pass a national multiculturalism law. The Act acknowledged multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society with an integral role i n the decision-making process. The 61 new law sought to assist with cultural and language preservation, to reduce discrimination, to enhance in t e r c u l t u r a l awareness and understanding, and to promote culturally-sensitive i n s t i t u t i o n a l change at federal l e v e l s . 1 4 While the Multiculturalism Directorate of the federal government has existed since 1972,15 i t has merged with other directorates under the Department of Canadian Heritage in the nineties. Provincial governments have recognized multiculturalism i n a variety of ways. As education i s a provincial r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n Canadian public policy, provincial governments promote multiculturalism through education i n one or more of the following ways: 1) English as a Second Language (ESL) programmes for new a r r i v a l s 2) Nonofficial language (heritage language) instruction. These classes are designed to teach a s p e c i f i c ethnic language. Requests for these courses often originate from the interested ethnic group. 3) Programmes aimed at discouraging and eradicating racism. An example would be the "Alternatives to Racism' project i n B r i t i s h Columbia. 4) Cultural and h i s t o r i c a l information transmitted through the s o c i a l studies curriculum. Some municipalities, such as Ontario, offer separate courses i n multiculturalism. 1 6 Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta have p o l i c i e s of supporting multiculturalism, and have taken steps to put them into practice. Ontario has promoted multicultural education through i t s Heritage Languages Programme. The Ministry of Education has also provided courses for teachers, and implemented guidelines for textbook publishers. Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan have a l l implemented integrated language programmes. Alberta, for example, has at least ten b i l i n g u a l schools using languages such as Ukrainian and German.17 B r i t i s h Columbian passed i t s own Multiculturalism Act i n 1993.18 However, multicultural p o l i c i e s i n the province have tended to be remedial "band-aid' responses, according to one scholar. 1 9 62 Quebec does not recognize multiculturalism per se, but follows a policy of interculturalisme. This programme takes into account the p l u r a l i t y of Quebec society, but also recognizes the perennial "French fact': that a l l Quebecois are, and must be, united by the French language. The Quebec government has taken steps to preserve minority cultures by implementing programmes such as P.E.L.O. (Programme for Original Languages) 2 0 which promotes the teaching of n o n - o f f i c i a l languages. Provincial p o l i c i e s of multiculturalism are worth noting because provincial p o l i c i e s are often responses to federal i n i t i a t i v e s . H i s t o r i c a l l y , provincial governments have i n some cases responded against federal provisions for s p e c i f i c minority groups. The response by the B r i t i s h Columbian government towards Doukhobors in the f i r s t half of the twentieth century, and the r e s t r i c t i o n s in Manitoba which disallowed Menonites from educating their children i n separate schools i n the late nineteenth century,, are two such cases. Furthermore, the backlash i s present at the provincial level as well. The Mike Harris government, for example, repealed l e g i s l a t i o n such as the Job Equity Act i n Ontario, 2 1 while the Klein government in Alberta i s dismantling i t s multicultural l e g i s l a t i o n . Another area which highlights the importance of understanding federal-provincial differences i n regards to the backlash against multicultural p o l i c i e s i s i n the way some c r i t i c s of multiculturalism view the management of heterogeneity i n Quebec. C r i t i c s of federal multicultural policy such as Bissoondath often look to Quebec's policy of management of heterogeneity as an alternative whose example English Canada should follow. This idea of the "Quebec exemplar' i s based on the assumption the interculturalisme model i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y different from multiculturalism, and that Quebec i s more successful i n integrating i t s immigrants. I w i l l discuss and challenge these assumptions l a t e r . As already mentioned, a basic knowledge of the history of 63 multicultural policy i s essential i n order to understand and judge the v a l i d i t y of i t s cr i t i c i s m s . Those criticisms come from several different sources. While the c r i t i c s themselves make arguments against multiculturalism that overlap and/or are based on similar presumptions, they come from different points of view and do not always share the same intentions. Thus, a review of the different forms of critiques and what they represent follows. C r i t i q u e s o f M u l t i c u l t u r a l P o l i c y Since i t s o f f i c i a l inception i n 1971, multiculturalism has come under scrutiny from various sectors: Quebec, the aboriginal community, academic c r i t i c s , popular c r i t i c s , conservatives, and various c r i t i c s from p o l i t i c a l parties. Quebec has o f f i c i a l l y and u n o f f i c i a l l y rejected the multicultural perspective of Canada. Quebec academics saw multiculturalism as undermining Quebec's claim to statehood. According to Guy Rocher, the policy reduced the status of francophones from a "founding people' to the status of "other 22 ^ ethnic groups'. Kenneth McRoberts explains that Quebecois c l i n g to the two-nations concept of Canada. Because of this interpretation, they see multiculturalism as part of Pierre Trudeau's "national unity' policy, which defines language policy i n in d i v i d u a l i s t terms. That i s , this policy expresses support for l i n g u i s t i c minorities rather than for a continuation of the two-nations policy implied i n the O f f i c i a l Languages Act. 2 3 In other words, multiculturalism i s thought to have a detrimental impact on the col l e c t i v e identity of the Quebecois. Since the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, provincial p o l i c i e s i n Quebec i n the f i e l d s of immigration, language, and "cultural communities' r e f l e c t the primacy of protecting the cultu r a l and l i n g u i s t i c i n t e g r i t y of Quebec.24 Themes i n writings about Quebec on this issue r e f l e c t the idea that multiculturalism r e l a t i v i z e s culture, and masks the "national question' that has otherwise dominated federal p o l i t i c s . 2 5 64 Like the Quebecois, F i r s t Nations prefer to negotiate within a b i c u l t u r a l framework that recognizes their special status and acknowledges their c o l l e c t i v e right to d i f f e r e n t i a l treatment. As a result, aboriginal people perceive multiculturalism as responsible for lowering the status of aboriginal groups to the level of "minority' group. They also c r i t i c i z e the policy for denying the unique relationship between the F i r s t Nations and the government based on the principles of aboriginal land t i t l e and self-determination. 2 6 A c a d e m i c C r i t i q u e s Various c r i t i c s i n the academic world have put multiculturalism under scrutiny. John Porter, whose writings were adressed i n Chapter Two, c r i t i c i z e d multiculturalism for advocating group claims within an essentially i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c society. By concentrating on cultural rather than social or p o l i t i c a l concerns, multiculturalism, according to Porter, reflected and reinforced a system of s t r a t i f i c a t i o n i n which members of charter groups occupied the e l i t e positions i n society while ethno-racial minority members were relegated to low-status positions. 2 7 This "vertical mosaic' made multiculturalism of questionable value i n promoting equality. For Porter, assimilation was a better model to achieve equality as i t ignored ethnicity and group r i g h t s . 2 8 f Australian academic Brian Bullivant has c r i t i c i z e d multiculturalism from a Marxist perspective. Bullivant argued that multiculturalism, i n a l l i t s confusion, was a subtle way of appearing to give members of ethnocultural groups what they want in education (Bullivant's study focused on issues i n education) while i n r e a l i t y giving them l i t t l e to enhance their l i f e chances. 2 9 This contradiction was evident i n that a large part of multiculturalism was involved only i n the celebration of l i f e s t y l e s . Bullivant's study of multicultural education i n several nations including Canada saw the p l u r a l i s t notion that democracy's 65 interests were best served by developing the uniqueness of the individual as naive. For a society to survive, i t s culture had to be passed on. Hence, individual freedom could not be allowed to endanger the common good. 3 0 In other words, multiculturalism could not be allowed to fl o u r i s h i n i t s true form, as i t would threaten national identity. Within a multicultural context, "knowledge managers' (the agents of cultural transmission: teachers and administrators) control the way knowledge i s made accessible to children. In a c u l t u r a l l y p l u r a l i s t society, knowledge managers can control the l i f e chances of children from "unworthy' ethnic groups by l i m i t i n g the knowledge transmitted to those children. 3 1 In other words, these managers use multiculturalism to prevent children from minority groups from being allowed to integrate and succeed i n society. Katerina Pizanias argues that multiculturalism i s just a symbolic representation of Canadian society. She argues that the practice of existing multiculturalism shows the policy to be unicultural and Anglo-conformist. The policy i s actually a means of control used to quell dissent i n ethnocultural communities.32 For example, she cites how at multicultural events such as the Edmonton Heritage Festival, the Chilean and Polish associations were denied the chance to draw attention to the p o l i t i c a l situation in their countries of o r i g i n . 3 3 The theme of multiculturalism as an attempt to de - p o l i t i c i z e ethno-cultural relations i s also present i n the writings of Kogila A. Moodley. She argues that multiculturalism i s based on a dep o l i t i c i z e d and s t a t i c d e f i n i t i o n of ethnicity. Consequently, the policy ignores the real needs of ethnic groups. 3 4 Writing i n 1983, she pointed to the ri s e and f a l l of Quebec nationalism to show how state policy can co-opt ethnic minorities. 3 5 This view sees ethnic i n t e l l e c t u a l s as a coopted group who promote multiculturalism out of personal gain and s e l f - i n t e r e s t . 3 6 Moodley's more recent writings suggest a s h i f t i n her position on multicultural policy. In 1992, she wrote that ethnic cohesion 66 has declined everywhere i n Canada except i n Quebec (acknowledging that francophone nationalism had not been co-opted) due to socio-economic structural changes such as the existence of the welfare state, improved legal status of immigrants, and the s o c i a l i z a t i o n and geographic dispersal of ethnic minorities. The problem with multicultural policy was that i t focused on a r e i f i e d , d e p o l i t i c i z e d and privatized concept of ethnicity. Consequently, i t overemphasized l i f e s t y l e s and neglected actual ethnic i n e q u a l i t i e s . 3 7 In 1996, Moodley wrote that multiculturalism policy i s not a question of choice or p o l i t i c a l strategy to be revived and abandoned at w i l l , but a social r e a l i t y regardless of policy. It would be a prudent government that recognizes this 38 r e a l i t y , as multiculturalism results from necessity. P o p u l a r C r i t i c s Recently, multiculturalism policy has received a large amount of attention i n the mainstream media. With the recession i n the Nineties, the increased presence of v i s i b l e minorities i n urban areas, the f a i l u r e of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, and the general backlash worldwide towards immigrants, multicultural policy has increasingly become the focus of attention i n the popular media. A number of commentators suggest that multiculturalism i s responsible for a loss of identity i n Canada. Reginald Bibby, as mentioned i n chapters one and two, states that: In this country, there w i l l be no pressure, as there i s in some other countries, notably the United States — to discard one's cultural past and conform to the dominant culture. ... Canada may find i t s e l f the world leader i n promoting the breakdown of group l i f e and the abandonment of the pursuit of the best. 9 Columnist Richard Gwyn and reporter Margaret Cannon believe that multiculturalism i s responsible for the breakdown of national cohesion i n Canada. Both of them c i t e examples of how minority groups have taken advantage of multiculturalism to try and reproduce their mother culture i n Canada. 67 Mainstream c r i t i c s have been joined by those of immigrant and minority background for whom multicultural policy i s seen as a barrier that prevents minority groups from pa r t i c i p a t i n g i n Canadian society. Neil Bissoondath, a Canadian writer of Trinidadian origin, argues that multiculturalism actually hampers, not encourages, integration of immigrants: Multiculturalism with a l l of i t s f e s t i v a l s and i t s celebrations has done — and can do — nothing to foster a factual and clear-minded vi s i o n of our neighbours. Depending on stereotype, ensuring that ethnic groups w i l l preserve their distinctiveness i n a gentle and insidious form of cult u r a l apartheid, multiculturalism has done l i t t l e more than lead an already divided country down . the path to further social divisiveness. 4 0 While Bissoondath's writings have been popularized i n the contemporary media, he i s only one i n a line of Canadians who have c r i t i c i z e d multiculturalism based on their experiences as members of an ethno/cultural minority. These include Laura Labia, Devo-Jaiikoah Dyette, and Bharati Mukherjee. The l a t t e r , a former Canadian, gave this warning about multiculturalism: "by preserving differences, (we) preserve biases". 4 1 Do these "ethnic* c r i t i c s validate the notion that multiculturalism does l i t t l e to foster positive ethno/cultural relations i n Canada? As I sha l l show, especially i n the case of Bissoondath, other c r i t i c s have cited members of this group of c r i t i c s i n order to support their arguments. The ethnicity of these observers from minority groups appears to legitimate their claims. C o n s e r v a t i v e C r i t i c s Not surprisingly, members of the conservative right oppose the policy and ideology of multiculturalism. With the r i s e of the New Right i n the Eighties, and the a n t i - p l u r a l i s t sentiments now being expressed i n the popular media, the conservatives have received a new legitimation for their opposition. B r i t i s h Columbia newsperson Doug Collins has since the 1970s attacked multiculturalism for 68 being, as he saw i t , part of Pierre Trudeau's calculated' plan, to allow i n immigrants who would consequently vote for the Liberal Party. Trudeau's supposed plan was to break the t r a d i t i o n a l immigration pattern and replace i t with multiculturalism. 4 2 A side effect of this policy was that members of "vismins" (Collins' term for " v i s i b l e minorities') are appointed to powerful jobs i n race relations "so that the natives can be kept i n order". 4 3 He then goes on to give eight examples of members of ethnic minorities who were appointed to such positions: Tom Sosa (Black) as Employment and Immigration Canada's Advisory Board chair, and Dhiru Patel (Indo-Canadian) as. head of the Race Relations Unit of the Multiculturalism Directorate, just to name two.44 More recently, Collins has been joined by writer and York University professor William D. Gairdner,- who often served as keynote speaker to Reform Party leader Preston Manning pr i o r to the 1993 e l e c t i o n . 4 5 Gairdner claims that multiculturalism i s based on a contradiction because the essence of family -- assuming society i s l i k e a family — i s natural s i m i l a r i t y i n aspects of food, language, r e l i g i o n , etc. Therefore, a unicultural policy l i k e that •of Japan w i l l work because i t promotes natural s i m i l a r i t i e s that existed before policy. The problem with multiculturalism, as Gairdner sees i t , i s that i t promotes difference as a means of equality, yet expects, us to subordinate these differences. The result i s . h o s t i l i t y within society, as the Canadian experience i s proving. 4 6 He gives no s p e c i f i c examples. Writers for the magazine The Western Report frequently fault multiculturalism for the problems they see i n Canadian society. For example, an a r t i c l e t i t l e d "The B i t t e r Poison of Multiculturalism" opens with the- l i n e : "Anyone who thinks that. Canada's multicultural and immigration p o l i c i e s are working f a i r l y smoothly might take a t r i p to the South Vancouver suburb of Richmond".47 The a r t i c l e goes on to describe the changes i n Richmond: the' fact that 30% of the population i s now of Asian origin, and the consequent increase i n Chinese r e t a i l outlets. The 69 writer . does not actually state how these changes constitute a problem, or how they are related to the multicultural policy, but rather just assumes that the situation i s problematic i n that t r a d i t i o n a l residents w i l l no longer monopolize the community: "Families who protested the "Asian invasion' know they are rapidly becoming a minority". 4 8 Unlike the popular and academic sceptics of multiculturalism,. who primarily but not exclusively questioned the policy for i t s capacity to create a cohesive society and to combat racism, the conservative camp opposes multiculturalism for the potential and real changes the policy can bring about. The policy reduces the amount of power i n the hands of t r a d i t i o n a l groups for which Judeo-Ghristian ethics and B r i t i s h p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s hold special value. They see multiculturalism as re-distributing this power to non-traditional groups who presumably have less respect for these in s t i t u t i o n s , and bring their own values and traditions to Canada. Nevertheless, the conservatives and other c r i t i c s share much in common: they see the policy as regressive i n that i t encourages cultu r a l maintenance rather than assimilation, and i t has caused Canadians to be d i v i s i v e and to have l i t t l e value or loyalty for their nation. P o l i t i c a l P a r t i e s 1) The Reform P a r t y : Since 1989, the abolition of multiculturalism has been on the agenda of the Reform. Party. In the 1997 federal election campaign, The Reform Party platform included a promise that four major federal government departments, including the Department of Canadian Heritage, " w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced in scope, with remaining a c t i v i t i e s merged into a smaller number of departments". 4 9 As their 1993 o f f i c i a l election policy stated: .. The Reform Party supports.the princ i p l e that individuals or groups are free to preserve their cultural heritage using their own resources. The Party s h a l l uphold their right to do so. 70 The Reform Party of Canada opposes the current concept of multiculturalism and hyphenated Canadianism pursued by the Government of Canada.' We would end funding of the multiculturalism program and support the abolition of the Department of Multiculturalism. 0 Before 1991, the Reform Party's statement of principles included the phrases: immigration should not be " e x p l i c i t l y designed to ra d i c a l l y or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada".51 Also included was a statement referring to the change i n the R.C.M.P. dress code which would allow Sikhs.to wear their turbans: "...the preservation of the di s t i n c t i v e heritage and t r a d i t i o n of the R.C.M.P. by retaining the uniformity of the dress . code". Both statements, were removed from Reform Party statements after 1991.52 U n t i l recently, the Reform Party i s the only o f f i c i a l federal party that has stated it's, opposition, to multiculturalism. The Party's executive, denies that this i s a racially-motivated platform. Former policy o f f i c e r Stephen Harper claimed^ that because the. party does not have an ethnic base, i t i s the only party not being influenced by ethnic groups who want a "race-oriented' immigration p o l i c y . 5 3 • 2) The P r o g r e s s i v e C o n s e r v a t i v e P a r t y : While i n o f f i c e between 1984 and 1992, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and his • Progressive-Conservative Party passed a number of p o l i c i e s that promoted immigration and multiculturalism. Due to the losses of popular support to The .Reform Party i n western Canada, however, party members introduced certain resolutions at the August 1991 party convention that suggested the Tory platform was moving i n the same direction as Reform policy. The resolutions that were accepted suggested a "crackdown on immigrants' theme: rigorous application of the removal of immigrants who commit crimes or are a medical problem. 5 4 The Party also passed, a resolution which c a l l s for the abandonment of multiculturalism i n order to t ry and foster "a common national identity for one people l i v i n g together i n harmony as equal citizens, loyal to the Canadian i d e a l " . 5 5 The party's 71 1991 convention resolutions also called for the abolishment of the Department of Multiculturalism. Among the rejected resolutions was one c a l l i n g for the forced return of refugees after their homelands become safe, a five-year r e s t r i c t i o n on where new immigrants could l i v e i n order to keep them out of major urban centres, and one which proposed that stetsons be the sole choice of headgear i n the R.C.M.P.56 Both the New Democratic Party and the Liberals have expressed general support for multicultural policy. General themes emerge from these c r i t i c i s m s . In spite of the fact that c r i t i c i s m comes from different sectors, s i m i l a r i t i e s exist i n the statements of those arguing against multiculturalism. Commentators w i l l often c i t e each other. C r i t i c s such as Bissoondath say the ineptness of multicultural policy i s •'••.-itself responsible for the current backlash. 5 7 Is o f f i c i a l multiculturalism actually responsible for what some1 refer to as the current ethno-cultural c o n f l i c t i n Canada? Is Canadian society i n fact i n a state of ,ethno-cultural conflict.? If the arguments made against multicultural policy are correct, then perhaps the backlash and i t s c a l l s to end the policy are j u s t i f i e d . If the arguments • are not correct, then further enquiry into the causes of the backlash are required. 72 NOTES 1) Tom McFeelyy "The Deconstruction of Canadian Culture", The Western Report, 10 (February 27 1995): 7. 2) Sonja S i n c l a i r , "Why I've had i t with multiculturalism", The Globe and Mail, Wednesday, October 5 1994: 7A22 3) Valerie Knowles, Strangers at Our Gates (Toronto and Oxford: Dundern Press, 1992): 187. 4) Neil Bissoondath, Selli n g Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism i n Canada (Toronto: Penguin Books, 1994): 42. 5) Andrew Cardozo, "Fuelling the Backlash", . The Canadian Forum, 522 (November 1994)':. 30. 6) McFeely, 8. 7) Charles Ungerleider. Canadian Heritage. Strategic Evaluation of Multiculturalism Programs: Final Report (Ottawa?: Canadian Heritage 1996): 12. .8) Kenneth McRoberts "Quebec Sovereignty: Talking i t Over", The Globe and Mail, Saturday, January 4 1997: D5. '9) Augie Fleras and Jean Leonard E l l i o t , Multiculturalism i n Canada (Scarborough: Nelson Canada, 1992): 73. 10) Gus Mitges, Multiculturalism: Building the Canadian Mosaic (Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1987): 19. 11) Fleras and E l l i o t , 73. 12) For example, Reginald Bibby writes that because of multiculturalism, Canadians have become more ethnocentric. Mosaic Madness: The Poverty and Potential of L i f e i n Canada (Toronto: Stoddart, 1990): 10-11. Richard Gwyn writes that because of multiculturalism policy, many ethnic groups are. i n r e a l i t y practicing monoculturalism. Nationalism Without Walls: .The Unbearable Lightness of Being Canadian (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1995): 232. 13) Cardozo, 30. 14) Fleras and E l l i o t , 75. 15) Kogila A. Moodley i n Banks, James A. and Cherry A. McGee Banks (ed.s), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (New York: Macmillan, 195): 803. 73 16) J.D. Wilson i n Ronald J. Samuda, John W. .Berry, and Michel Lafferriere, Multiculturalism i n Canada: "Social and Educational Perspectives (Toronto: A l l y n and Bacon Inc., 1985): 69. 17) Moodley i n James Banks and J. Lynch (ed.s), Multicultural Education i n Western Societies (London: Holt, Rinehart, 1986): 57-58. 18) Moodley i n Banks and McGee Banks, 806. 19) Moodley i n Banks and Lynch, 58. 20) Wilson i n Samuda et. a l . , 70. 21) "Ontario to Repeal Joby Equity Act", Financial Post Daily, A r t i c l e Online, 8:96 (July 20 1995): 5 22) . Guy Rocher i n Yasmeen Abu-Laban and Daiva Stasiulus, "Ethnic Pluralism Under Seige: Popular and Partisan Opposition i n Multiculturalism", Canadian Public Policy, 18:4 (December 1992): 367. .. -23) McRoberts, D5. 24) . Abu-Laban and Stasiulus, 367. 25) Ibid., 368. 2 6) Fleras and E l l i o t , 120. 27) Ibid., 135. 28) John Porter, "Dilemmas and. Contradictions of a Multi-E t h n i c Society", i n J. Mallea and ; J. Young (ed.s), Cultural Diversity , and Canadian Education- (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1989): 80. .29) Brian M. Bullivant, The. P l u r a l i s t Dilemma i n Education (Sydney: George Allen and Unwin, 1.981) : i x . 30) Ibid., 8. 31) Ibid., i x . 32) Caterina Pizanias, "Centering on Changing Communities: The Colours of the South i n the Canadian V e r t i c a l Mosaic", Canadian Ethnic Studies, 24:3 (1992): 92. . 33) Ibid., 92. 34) Kogila Moodley, "Canadian Multiculturalism as Ideology", 74 Ethnic and Racial Studies, 6:3 (July 1983): 325. 35) Ibid.,,.327: 36) Moodley i n Laverne- Lewycky, "Multiculturalism i n the 1990s and i n the Twenty-First Century: Beyond Ideology and Utopia", i n Vic Satzewich (ed.), Deconstructing a Nation: Immigration, Multiculturalism, and Racism i n Nineties Canada (Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 1992): 383. 37) Kogila A. Moodley, Beyond Multicultural Education: International Perspectives (Calgary: Detselig, 1992) 1.0. • 38) Kogila A. Moodley, "State Responses to Immigration i n Culturally-Homogenous and Multicultural Societies: Comparative Perspective", Occasional paper i n the Robert Harney Programme in Ethnic, Immigration, and Pluralism Studies: (Toronto:University of Toronto, 1996): 23-24. 39) Bibby, 7,15. 40) Bissoondath, 89-90.. .41) Bharati Mukherjee from The Middleman and Other Stories, in Richard Gwyn, Nationalism- Without Walls: The Unbearable Lightness of Being Canadian (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1995): 187. 42) Doug Collins, Immigration: Parliament Versus'. the People (Toronto: Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform Inc., c.1984): 4. 43) Ibid., 16. 44) Ibid., 16. * 45) Murray Dobbin, Preston Manning and the Reform Party (Toronto: James Lorimer and Company, 1991): 102. 46) William Gairdner. The Trouble With Canada: A Citizen Speaks Out. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Company Ltd., 1990. 47) . Robin Bfunet, "The B i t t e r Poison of Multiculturalism", The Western Report, 9:2 (April 18 1994): 32. 48) Ibid., 32. 49) Reform Party of. Canada. A Fresh Start for Canadians: A 6-Point Plan to Build a Brighter Future Together. (Election Campaign Material, 1997) : 7. In i t s plan to end over-centralization, The Reform Party wants provincial governments to be recognized as the primary providers and guardians^ of cultural services, and as the 75 regulators of cultural industries. Reform Party of Canada, 20/20: A Vision For the Future of Canada (Calgary: Reform Party of Canada, 1996): 9. 50) Reform Party of Canada. Blue Sheet: Principles, Policies, and Election Platform (1993): 6. . Preston Manning explains his Party-' s stance on multiculturalism i n his book The New Canada (Toronto: Macmillan Press, 1992):317. "The Reform Party believes that c u l t u r a l development and preservation ought to, be the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of individuals, groups, and i f necessary i n certain cases... the provincial and l o c a l governments. The role of the federal government should be neutral toward culture just as i t i s toward(s) r e l i g i o n " . 51) Abu-Laban and Stasiulus, 373. 52) Ibid., 373. .53) "Reform Party Denies Allegations of Racism", The Ottawa Citizen, (June 24 1991): A3. 54) Abu-Laban and Stasiulus, 374. 55) Ibid., 374. 56) Ibid., 374. 57) Bissoondath, 71. He cites the f a i l u r e - of multiculturalism i n that i t eradicated the centre i n Canadian p o l i t i c s . That i s , i t created uncertainty about what i t means to be a.Canadian, consequently leading to the r i s e of the Right. 76 CHAPTER FOUR: ARGUMENTS AGAINST MULTIC3ULTURALISM P O L I C Y When examining the arguments of those opposed to multiculturalism, several themes emerge: 1) Multiculturalism i s a top-down phenomenon with no grounding i n Canadian p o l i t i c s prior to 1971; 2) Multiculturalism i s unpopular, and never had base support among the general public; 3) Multiculturalism i s l i t t l e more than a patronage policy, designed to "buy ethnic votes" and to co-opt those ethnic groups; 4) Multiculturalism l i m i t s i n d i v i d u a l i t y by putting, emphasis on group s o l i d a r i t y ; 5) Multiculturalism does nothing to address real day-by-day problems faced by minority groups; 6) Multiculturalism exoticizes culture by concentrating primarily on folk a c t i v i t i e s ; 7) Minorities themselves do not advocate multiculturalism. They themselves would prefer an assimilation'ist model; 8) Multiculturalism causes ghettoization of minorities by encouraging separateness; and 9) Other models of integration/assimilation — p a r t i c u l a r l y the Quebec model — are more effective and appealing than, multiculturalism. 1) M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m i s a t o p - d o w n a n d u n n a t u r a l phenomenon w i t h no g r o u n d i n g b e f o r e 1 9 7 1 : In the words of William D. Gairdner, the problem of multiculturalism i s that i t i s a. top-down imposition on the people, and has no inherent roots i n the l i f e of anyone.1 Margaret Cannon blames the ineffectiveness of pluralism on the i'dea that "multiculturalism's roots are shallow". 2 Richard Gwyn also states that multiculturalism i s a top-down policy, which only a few Canadians (except the Ukrainians on the prairies) wanted when i t was f i r s t introduced i n 1971,.3 77 In other words, multiculturalism i s a policy imposed by the e l i t e of Canadian society i n an attempt at "social engineering". 4 This s o c i a l engineering, according to Doug Collins, i s an attempt by p o l i t i c i a n s to solve the problem that they created: large-scale immigration of immigrants from the Third World. 5 This interpretation implies that multiculturalism i s an unnatural paradigm for managing of diversity. This i s evident i n that many c r i t i c s use this argument when making the case for a return to an assimilation-oriented model of diversity. Link Byfield, i n his e d i t o r i a l on immigrant crime, t e l l s readers about the time between 1900 and 1970 when newcomers from dozens of different cultures came and were "Canadianized'. Only i n the seventies, with the r i s e of notions of "rights' and "fairness' (of which multiculturalism i s presumably a part), did Canada start to head down the road of societal breakdown.6 This breakdown i s evident i n the numerous examples of violent crime caused by immigrants which he c i t e s . As mentioned i n Chapter Three, some evidence does exist to support this view, expecially i f one views multiculturalism as beginnning only i n 1971. That i s , o f f i c i a l multiculturalism was brought i n at the last minute as a means to include "Third, Force.' Canadians i n a bi l i n g u a l d e f i n i t i o n of the nation. One could also argue that this claim depends on an incomplete view of history. It assumes that cul t u r a l pluralism never existed i n Canadian history prior to the seventies. It assumes that a l l people of other cultures that came to Canada always conformed to Anglo-Canadian standards. This situation supposedly led to a harmonious, safe, and hard-working society. ' 1 Contrary to the claims of Gairdner and Cannon, multiculturalism does have roots i n Canadian history. Cornelius Jaeneri i d e n t i f i e s seven h i s t o r i c a l factors which have contributed to the present multicultural d e f i n i t i o n of Canada. One, Canada• i s a product of two c o l o n i a l i z i n g movements: English and French. 7 Two, Canada was o r i g i n a l l y a B r i t i s h — not English — nation. The B r i t i s h themselves are a diverse group. Thus they seek uniformity by 78 recognizing p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s such as the Monarchy rather than cultu r a l and l i n g u i s t i c ones. Three,, Canada has a long t r a d i t i o n of cooperation, not separation, of church and state. This has led to the tolerance of religious l i b e r t y and the enhancement of minority rights. 8 Four, education i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n of provincial governments, thus allowing for l o c a l particularisms and regional div e r s i t y . Five, Quebec's di s s a t i s f a c t i o n with federal a f f a i r s after World War Two had led to the c a l l for the tolerance of other cultures. 9 Six, the post-World War Two immigration wave has led to the diverse nature (both multiracial and multiethnic) of Canadian society. Finally, the demand for cultural rights (which originated i n the United States i n the s i x t i e s due to the f a i l u r e of the melting pot paradigm), i s only.a natural follow-up i n the framework of individual rights i n the realms of p o l i t i c s and economics. 1 0 Jaenen shows that the idea of tolerance between ethnic groups i s more than o f f i c i a l policy. It i s an ethos that i s present i n the history of this country, albeit not always consistently. One could make the case that only assimilation p o l i c i e s existed i n our history. One could also show how p o l i c i e s of exclusion and assimilation towards Asians, Blacks, Jews, and . aboriginals ostracized these groups from mainstream society. However, to say that this i s the only way societal heterogeneity was dealt with i n Canadian history prior to 1971 i s false. A number of examples show how.accommodation of minority groups was part of. the policy-making process i n Canada. While i t was r e s t r i c t e d largely to European groups, these groups themselves were heterogeneous, and often at odds with each other. These compromises were sometimes made against the w i l l of the majority. The emancipation of. Jews in Lower Canada i n 1832, against the wishes of the Roman Catholic majority i n the assembly, i s one such example.11 Egerton Ryerson, in his attempt to establish a system of public schooling i n . Canada West (now Ontario) i n the nineteenth century, found he could not get his wish of a unitary public education system under non-denominational principles. While the population that this school 79 system was meant to serve was overwhelmingly Christian, i t was divided into many denominations.. Even the two main denominations, Catholics and Protestants, were divided into sub-groups.. Ryerson had to find common ground with the Roman Catholics, and therefore he conceded to public school rights to Roman Catholics by making provisions for separate schooling. 1 2 In fact, three kinds of separate schools existed i n Canada West at the time of Confederation. These were "public schools of a special nature" which allowed for education i n languages such as French, German, Gaelic, and Algonquin; schools for particular r a c i a l groups such as blacks who requested separate schools after their children were either rejected or ejected from common schools; and schools for special denominational groups such as Roman Catholics and Protestants. 1 3 ' The lesson here for the contemporary debate on multiculturalism i s that the claim that this policy originated only i n 1971, and was imposed on the people, i s based on a particular view of history. C r i t i c s assert that this policy of tolerance was i n s t i t u t e d due to the r i s e of non-traditional immigration from the late s i x t i e s onwards as evidenced by Byfield's comment about how most of the immigrants who came at the time of assimilation between 190.0 and 1970 were white, and by C o l l i n s ' claim that multiculturalism Is the p o l i t i c i a n s ' attempt to clean up the "mistake' of the opening of the immigration portals to Third World nations. This suggests a n a t i v i s t sentiment of a "unified white people' with a proud history before the a r r i v a l of non-white newcomers who endangered the fabric of society. The examples given here show how pluralism was part of Canadian history, p a r t i c u l a r l y among those groups of European o r i g i n who were not as unified as contemporary c r i t i c s would have others believe. 2 ) M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m i s u n p o p u l a r among t h e C a n a d i a n p u b l i c According to William D. Gairdner, opinion p o l l s i n the United States/ Canada, and Australia show people to be " o f f i c i a l l y against 80 multiculturalism". 1 4 This theme runs/consistently throughout the l i t e r a t u r e against multiculturalism. Neil Bissoondath quotes a 1993 p o l l that he says shows that most Canadians (72%) think multiculturalism i s not working, "and ' should be replaced by a melting pot". 1 5 . Doug Collins claims that non-white immigration would not be a problem i f people wanted i t , but people do not. He claims that of dozens of p o l l s , not one shows a majority of Canadians are for non-white immigration. 1 6 Why are these c r i t i c s trying to show that multiculturaiism lacks popular support i n Canada? In the case of the conservative right, they are trying to reinforce the notion that by imposing a p l u r a l i s t policy l i k e multiculturalism on the people rather than a uriicultural policy l i k e assimilation, the governing e l i t e i s ignoring the wishes of the genera! public. This argument extends from the view of multiculturalism as a "top-down phenomenon with no roots i n Canadian history'. Gairdner, Collins, and B y f i e l d are trying to make a populist argument that the e l i t e ignores the wishes of the "grass-roots majority'. As Gairdner states, the p o l i t i c a l e l i t e assumes cultural d i v e r s i t y i s bliss,' yet the majority i s against t h i s . 1 7 This allows the conservatives to assert their c a l l s for p o l i c i e s supporting a homogenous view of Canada because they sense public support. As Link By f i e l d states, "It i s a simple fact of history that r a c i a l mixing i s dangerous business". 1 8 Doug Collins also t r i e s to show that heterogeneity i s bad news by quoting Kingsley Amis: "As a result of the displacement and mixing of races, there are more r a c i a l problems i h the world today than at any time i n the past". 1 9 Is the. Canadian public unanimously and consistently against multiculturalism as the c r i t i c s claim? A review of various polls show that such i s not the case. Polls reveal that. Canadians are ambiguous towards multiculturalism at Worst, and generally supportive at best. Charles Ungerleider shows that a number of surveys demonstrate that around two-thirds of the Canadian public feel that multiculturalism and immigration' make Canada a better 81 place. A Maclean's/Decima p o l l i n January of 1990 showed 68%- of respondents agreed with the statement: "Being made up of people of different backgrounds makes Canada a more interesting and better country". 2 0 A Globe and Mail/Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (C.B.C.) news p o l l i n November/1991 found 63% of respondents to agree with the statement: "The fact that there are people from different races i n Canada adds to what i s good to [sic] this country". 2 1 A 1991 government Multicultural Attitude Survey found 70% of respondents to support Canada's multiculturalism policy while 77% believed that this policy enriches Canadian culture. Only 18% feared that multiculturalism would destroy the Canadian way of l i f e . 2 2 Many Canadians, : furthermore, f e e l that immigration and multiculturalism provide cultural benefits. One sees this i n an August 1991'Leger and Leger p o l l i n Quebec (62% f e l t immigrants had a positive effect on the culture of the province) and- i n the 1991 Multicultural Attitude Survey where 77% f e l t that federal multicultural policy enriches Canadian culture, and 65% agreed that "a society that has a variety of ethnic and cult u r a l groups i s more able to tackle new problems as they occur". 2 3 The ambiguity comes from p o l l s which suggest an a n t i - p l u r a l i s t mood. Kogila A. Moodley refers to a 1994 Angus Reid p o l l that showed that between two-thirds to three-quarters of. Canadians give rhetorical support for multiculturalism. However, the same p o l l showed that 57% of respondents advocate that minorities should be encouraged "to change to be. more l i k e Canadians", while only a minority (34%) wished "to encourage Canadians as a whole to try to accept minority groups and their languages". According to Moodley, this conformist attitude c l e a r l y contradicts multiculturalism. 2 4 The 1991 Multicultural Attitude Survey found 46% of respondents agreed that people who came to Canada should change their behaviour to be "more l i k e us". Forty-two per cent f e l t national unity was weakened by ethnic groups "sticking to their old ways".25 This particular survey showed a minority to favour conformism. However, other surveys show that a majority of respondents would l i k e to see 82 minority members become "more l i k e Canadians" 2 6, that "immigrants should blend with the larger society" 2 7, .that immigrants should integrate into. Canadian culture rather than being encouraged to preserve their ethnic culture, and that Canadians considered "too many immigrants feel no obligation to adopt to Canadian values and way of l i f e " . 2 8 This ambiguity, along with the way these results can be interpreted i n secondary sources, gives some c r e d i b i l i t y to c r i t i c s . who argue that the public i s unhappy with the concept of multiculturalism. Sometimes, the second-hand quotation of research can lead to a survey's findings being distorted. Bissoondath cites a December/1993 Decima Pol l from a .Globe and Mail a r t i c l e which apparently showed "that 72% of Canadians were d i s s a t i s f i e d with the country's multiculturaiism policy". According to Andrew Cardozo, this assertion i s the result of an unusually sensational press release from the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, the organization that commissioned the p o l l , which read: "Canadians reject multiculturalism mosaic". 2 9 * As Cardozo shows, the p o l l said nothing of the sort. The p o l l shows that 72% of Canadians believe that different ethnic arid r a c i a l groups should try to sadapt' to Canadian society. This raises two points: one, nowhere i n the p o l l does i t show what people feel these groups should do to adapt, nor does i t say what "adapting" constitutes, or what i s meant by "Canadian society". Does i t mean play hockey, and not wear a turban? 3 0 Do . a l l respondents define "adapt' i n the same^  way? Two,- as i s the case with the aforementioned po l l s , the demand by Canadians that minority groups adapt to a Canadian l i f e s t y l e i s to argue that mu l t i c u l t u r a l • p o l i c y i s about opposing adaptation. Clearly, this i s not the case. Even Trudeau's statement on .multiculturalism i n 1971 declared the government's support i n assisting members, of a l l cultu r a l groups to . . "overcome cultural barriers to f u l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Canadian society", and to "assist immigrants to acquire at least one of Canada's o f f i c i a l languages i n order to 83 become f u l l participants i n Canadian society". 3 1 While the Decima p o l l did not s p e c i f i c a l l y ask i t s respondents whether or not multiculturalism works, some of the responses give a comprehensive idea. Sixty-seven per cent said that Canadians have an excellent or good a b i l i t y to Nget along', 68% agreed that "one of the best things about Canada i s our acceptance of people from a l l races and backgrounds", and 52% believed that "Canada does an excellent or good job i n fostering positive r a c i a l and ethnic relations". In terms of racism, 61% believed there i s some racism i n Canada, and 25% believed that a great deal of racism exists.. Seventy-seven per cent believed that there i s less' racism i n Canada than i n the United States. 3 2 These details would have challenged Bissoondath's assertion that Canadians are against multiculturalism, yet they are missing from his book. This examination of Bissoondath's c i t a t i o n leads to several points: one, poor research can allow a writer to reach any conclusion that he/she chooses. Two, the r e i t e r a t i o n of misreadings (in this case, of survey research) leads to their reprinting ad nauseum as i f they were f a c t s . 3 3 Bissoondath quoted a misreading from The Globe and Mail, which printed a. misreading from the press release of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. Now, Bissoondath's misrepresentation i s cited by others: John Metcalf wrote i n The Ottawa Citizen: "Neil Bissoondath feels, along with 72% of Canadians polled i n 1993, that multiculturalism does not work to Canada's advantage and i s not wanted".34 Three, Bissoondath i s misrepresenting facts. This appears to be the case since he r e l i e s heavily on secondary sources for information. Contrary to what Gairdner, Collins, and Byf i e l d may say, Canadians are becoming more accommodating of heterogeneity. Co l l i n s claimed i n 1984 that anti-immigration sentiment had grown higher i n heavy immigrant areas such as Vancouver and Toronto, "thus proving that the nearer people are to r a c i a l r e a l i t i e s , the less they l i k e them".35 This claim was refuted by Reitz and Breton, who showed that residents of Canadian c i t i e s with the 84 largest number of immigrants were not more l i k e l y than other Canadians to oppose cultural retention. 3 6 The results of the aforementioned Maclean 1s/Decima p o l l of January/1994, The Globe and Mail/C.B.C. November 1991 p o l l , and the 1991 Multicultural Attitude Survey mentioned above show also that this i s not the case. Other surveys show that most Canadians have frequent direct experience with ethnic d i v e r s i t y . A 1991 Angus Reid survey showed that 39% of Canadians had family members of a different ethnic background, 73% had close friends of different ethnic backgrounds, and 82% had such people as neighbours. 3 7 A 1990 p o l l by Angus Reid found 60% of respondents to agree with a proposition that treating minorities with generosity i s a special desirable aspect of the country's character. 3 8 Three opinion p o l l s (The Globe and Mail/C.B.C. p o l l of November/1991; the Leger and Leger p o l l in. Quebec in August/1991; and the Maclean's/Decima p o l l of July, 1989) show that between 70 and 85% of those surveyed said that they would be either pleased or indifferent i f one of their children chose to marry a person of another ethnic group. 3 9 Sixty-eight per cent of The Globe ' and, Mail/C.B.C. respondents f e l t i t would not make a difference i f people of a different race l i v e d i n the same neighbourhood. 4 0 The evidence disproves Byfield, Collins, and Gairdner's claim that "...the government creates racism * i n the people by restructuring society against i t s w i l l i n a way that generates r a c i a l attitudes"(Gairdner) . 4 1 In spite of increases i n the number of immigrants and Canadians of colour, f a i r l y high tolerance levels p r e v a i l . My purpose here i s not to overwhelm the reader with survey research, nor am I trying to show that the Canadian public i s unanimous in i t s approval of multiculturalism policy and the increasing heterogeneity of society. Rather, what I am doing i s deconstructing the claim that the public i s against multiculturalism. Conservatives present this idea of a "popular d i s l i k e ' as i f i t i s indisputable. While certain p o l l s may show a 85 particular disenchantment by the public•towards minority.groups at a particular time, consequently allowing some observers to select and interpret certain p o l l s to suggest that Canadians are fed up with p l u r a l i s t p o l i c i e s , they are not enough to show a general and permanent discontent. At the worst, the p o l l s show an ambiguity on the part of Canadians towards the policy. Some recent p o l l s may suggest a r i s i n g backlash or loss of confidence i n the policy although this i s not the case i n the Ekos Research p o l l , conducted on January 18/1996,42 yet many po l l s exist showing the opposite. For example, the Environics Research group conducted five national surveys regarding the levels of awareness and- approval of the federal policy of multiculturalism i n the l a s t eight years that showed that Canadians were becoming more aware of the multiculturalism policy, that approval of the policy has risen i n the l a s t few years, and that younger Canadians approve, of the policy more than older Canadians do. 4 3 If Canadians are generally supportive of multicultural policy, why do c r i t i c s try to show the opposite? In Bissoondath 1s case, he may be limited by information. In the case of the conservative right, they appear to be trying to legitimate their n a t i v i s t claims by showing them as sthe voice of the people'. Herein l i e s the populist elements of their arguments: they attempt to show that the masses' c a l l s for pro-homogeneity p o l i c i e s f a l l on the deaf ears of e l i t e p o l i t i c i a n s who are trying to destroy the predominant ethnic base of Canada. Hence, Gairdner refers to multiculturalism as "a divide-and-rule policy of government".44 Consider this statement by Doug C o l l i n s : What that means i s that at the w i l l of this supremely e l i t i s t academic (Pierre Trudeau) and his a l l i e s , ordinary citizens must l i e back and enjoy what i s happening to them. If their neighbourhood has suddenly become a suburb of New Delhi, Hong Kong, Kingston, Jamaica, they must l i k e i t . If their children are eased aside i n schools so that the offspring of ali e n cultures can be looked after, they must l i k e that, too. They need not look to the p o l i t i c i a n s for help, and i f they make any fuss l i b e r a l police forces w i l l see to i t that order prevails. That explains the 86 p r o l i f e r a t i o n of the human rights commissions, Urban Alliances on Race Relations, the large sums poured into "special projects" by the Secretary of State's Department, the punitive control measures'being introduced i n the school systems (especially i n Ontario), and the growing insistence on "Affirmative Action', which means in s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d discrimination against whites. 4 5 One can see how the n a t i v i s t elements i n this quote .(...their neighbourhood has suddenly become a suburb of New Delhi, Hong Kong...", "...so that the offspring of alie n cultures can be looked after...", and ""Affirmative action'... means i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d r a c i a l discrimination against whites") are juxtaposed with populist sentiments ("...this supremely e l i t i s t academic and his a l l i e s . . . " , "They need not look to the politicians, f o r help...", and " . . . l i b e r a l police forces w i l l see to i t that order p r e v a i l s " ) . What the. conservative right i s trying to do i s show Canadians that multiculturalism has led to a state of discontent and c r i s i s , and a l l - t heir neighbours (or.at least a l l the "tra d i t i o n a l ' ones) seem to think so. ' What i s then, needed, they conclude, i s a new assimilationist-oriented policy. To show that multiculturalism has the general support of 'the population would be to turn the conservative argument on i t s head: that i s , to say that the c a l l for a unicultural policy i s an e l i t i s t ideal that i s not representative of the general.public. 3) P a t r o n a g e t h e s i s : M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m i s a " v o t e - b u y i n g " scheme d e s i g n e d t o c o - o p t e t h n i c g r o u p s According to Margaret Cannon, multiculturalism i s not about consensus between groups, i t i s about p o l i t i c s and votes. She gives the example of the recent Somali immigrants. She says that when they establish themselves, multiculturalism gives them money for newspapers and f e s t i v a l s . While the policy w i l l not help combat racism, the policy w i l l put Somalians into the multicultural industry. Multiculturalism, . i n other words, i s "meant to buy ethnic votes". 4 6 87 Cannon's statement expresses a popular conception about multiculturalism. It i s a policy designed to win ethnic p o l i t i c a l support. The policy, she says, was o f f i c i a l l y designed to recognize the contributions of non-charter groups. Its less noble reason for existence was because the Liberals wanted to guarantee the electoral support of ethnic groups, as electoral support from Quebec was too v o l a t i l e to be r e l i e d upon.47 Richard Gwyn refers to multiculturalism as "a slush fund to buy ethnic votes". 4 8 Bissoondath refers ,to multiculturalism as "sweet talk" on the part of Pierre Trudeau, who implemented the policy to buy ethnic votes. 4 9 While he was a visionary, he was " r e a l l y just saving, his own".50- William D. Gairdner claims that the government t r i e d ' to buy ethnic votes at the price of fragmenting Canadian society: "In buying votes, the government has overlooked that these cultures are i n c o n f l i c t " . 5 1 Doug Collins also sees multiculturalism as patronage: he says that p o l i t i c i a n s ignore the majority, "but spare no expense on multiculturalism". 5 2 The second part of this claim sees multiculturalism as a means to co-opt 'these minorities. That i s , the government, s p e c i f i c a l l y , the Liberals who have been i n power most of the past generation, uses the policy to garner support for their policies,, and to help maintain power. Kogila A. Moodley, i n 1983, pointed to the rise and f a l l of Quebec nationalism to show how state policy can co-opt ethnic minorities. 5 3 In regards to the idea of nationalism as "vote buying', the onus i s on the c r i t i c s to prove i t . However, i n a l l of the sources mentioned, no evidence i s cited to actually prove this claim. The closest any of them seem to come i s Margaret Cannon who says the Liberals i n 1992 used the ethnic vote to make up for the lost Quebec vote. 5 4 These c r i t i c s provide no hard evidence, no causal links between multicultural grants and possible vote swings i n the ethnic community or for that matter, no evidence of voting patterns i n ethnic communities, no statements by p o l i t i c i a n s or bureaucrats which suggest that multiculturalism grants are used to curry favour 88 i n minority communities, no examples of p o l i t i c i a n s channelling funds into multicultural projects before elections, and no evidence of p o l i c i e s which would be designed to win the support of non-charter groups. In short, these writers do not try to prove.that multiculturalism i s a patronage policy. They just state i t as though i t was true. C r i t i c s might assume that, because government funds are available to ethnic groups, this constitutes "patronage" (recall Cannon's statement: "multiculturaiism gives them, money for newspapers and f e s t i v a l s " ) . Leslie Pal examines this issue i n his study of state funding through the Secretary of State for advocacy groups. In regards to the patronage theory, he. concludes that, evidence i s either anecdotal or conjectural. L i t t l e evidence exists to show how important these funds are to these groups such as • the Canadian Ethnocultural Council (C.E.C.), The Ukrainian Canadian Congress (U.C.C.), and the National Association of Canadians of Origins i n India- (N.A.C.O. I.) , 5 5 As for the co-optation thesis, Pal concludes: Evidence shows that the "co-optation' thesis i s s i m p l i s t i c i n the extreme, both because of the powers that organizations have over the state as a consequence of these programs, and because of the role that state-funded groups play i n contemporary p o l i t i c s . 5 6 Pal explains that such a study would require an examination of how important these funds are to these groups, and how these groups would behave i n the absence of public funding. These c r u c i a l gaps i n evidence leave the co-optation thesis unproven. 5 7 Because the government never gives large . grants through multiculturalism (between $5,000 and $20,000 per grant), i t becomes hard to credit the state as somehow trying to manage the internal rhythms of ethnic p o l i t i c s . 5 8 Also, the Secretary of State i s so regionalized that l i t t l e coordination between the national headquarters and regional offices, exists to suggest an organized attempt to use multicultural grants to obtain the compliance and support of these groups. 5 9 Secondly, 89 i f multiculturalism i s used to win support from ethnic groups, i t does not appear to have results. Advocacy groups w i l l sometimes pu b l i c l y defend government i n i t i a t i v e s that they find progressive and h e l p f u l . 6 0 However, they can also be the government's toughest c r i t i c s . The C.E.C., the U.C.C., and N.A.CO.I., for example, a l l lobbied against various aspect's of the Meech Lake Accord. 6 1 In other words, the government may control the funding, but cannot control the discourse of groups, nor the influence those groups have on public policy. These groups may abide by democratic rules, but are not puppets. 6 2 As Pal points out, the anecdotal evidence given to show multiculturalism as a patronage policy designed to give v i s i b i l i t y to l o c a l Members of Parliament (of which no s p e c i f i c examples I could find i n the available literature) are more the exception than the r u l e . 6 3 Gairdner, Cannon, Bissoondath, and others a l l claim multiculturalism i s vote-buying, yet provide no evidence of i t either i n how multicultural grants, or how ethno/cultural groups and organizations have t a i l o r e d their agendas to f i t that of the incumbent government. 4) M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m l i m i t s i n d i v i d u a l i t y b y e m p h a s i z i n g g r o u p s o l i d a r i t y : Bissoondath quotes Robert Fulford to state that the problem of multiculturalism i s that i t puts the rights of a group (race-based, according to Fulford) before the rights of the i n d i v i d u a l . 6 4 For Bissoondath, multiculturalism contradicts individualism. To pretend one does not evolve, as multiculturalism does, i s to s t u l t i f y personality, creating stereotype, and "stripping the individual of a l l uniqueness". 6 5 Bissoondath i s not the f i r s t to make this, point. His argument resembles Porter's claim that multiculturalism i s anachronistic i n that i t emphasizes group t i e s i n an i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c , modern, c a p i t a l i s t society. As Bissoondath states, we must acknowledge the wide variance within cultural groups. Shared ethnicity does not 90 mean unanimity of vision, according to Bissoondath: "If the individual i s not to be betrayed, then humanity must prevail over the narrowness of et h n i c i t y " . 6 6 The d i f f i c u l t y . i n analyzing this claim i s that Bissoondath provides no causal examples to show how multicultural policy actually l i m i t s individualism. This makes this thesis hard to test. ' Indirectly, he provides a number of personal examples: of how others t r i e d to silence him when he wrote the story of a refugee, as he himself i s not a refugee, 6 7 and how as a student at York University i n Toronto i n the early seventies, he was encouraged to "stick to-his own".68 This view possibly represents a particular view of the policy, which states that multiculturalism compels the c i t i z e n r y to' define themselves by group a f f i l i a t i o n . . The policy, as .seen i n Trudeau's statements i n 1971,; suggests integration such as helping newcomers to overcome barriers, and to guarantee access to o f f i c i a l language education. As Kyml'icka points out, multiculturalism i s an attempt to achieve a balance between individual and group rights. Kymlicka further notes that p l u r a l i s t p o l i c i e s must not allow for an ethnic group to place internal r e s t r i c t i o n s on i t s members. Thus, to prove that multiculturalism does l i m i t individuality, c r i t i c s would have . to provide evidence of these internal r e s t r i c t i o n s . The evidence, as seen i n the case of Bissoondath, i s largely anecdotal. This does not mean that this such evidence i s inv a l i d , but i t represents only a limited experience. One could challenge these with counter-anecdotes: not a l l Canadian Sikh males wear turbans, not a l l Muslim women wear hijabs, and no laws i n Canada forbid exogamy. From a legal standpoint, both individual and collective, rights are protected i n the Charter of Rights.. Individual rights are protected under Section 15,' and c o l l e c t i v e rights are protected under Section 27, which reads: "This Charter s h a l l be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians". 6 9 Could c o l l e c t i v e rights be 91 used to l i m i t the minimum standards of respect for individual rights i n order to preserve the special characteristics of the group? According to E. Diane Pask,, "Whether this i s to be done, how and under what circumstances i s , as yet, an unconfronted challenge". 7 0 One q u a l i f i c a t i o n might be the case of genital mutilation, to which the Department of Canadian Heritage has. attempted to put an end to i t by working with the ethnic groups in question- and by advocating changes to law to forbid the p r a c t i c e i 5) M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m does n o t h i n g to address the r e a l i s s u e s and problems o f m i n o r i t y groups . I t even exacerbates these problems. Multiculturalism, according to Toronto poet and writer Nourbese Ph i l i p , does l i t t l e to address issues that ethnocultural groups i n Canada are t r u l y concerned with, s p e c i f i c a l l y racism: Because i t pretends to be what i t i s not — a mechanism to equalize a l l cultures i n Canada — i t ought not to surprise us that multiculturalism would be s i l e n t about issues of race and colour. In short, multiculturalism, as we know i t , has no answers for the problems of racism... unless i t i s combined with a c l e a r l y articulated policy Of anti-racism, directed at rooting out the effects of r a c i s t and white supremacist thinking... multiculturalism w i l l not disappear. Too many people benefit-from i t , and i t i s too far fancy a piece of window-dressing for a government to get r i d of. 7 1 This statement i l l u s t r a t e s what has become a popular critique of multiculturalism: the policy does l i t t l e to address the actual problems and issues that surround ethno/cultural groups today. In contrast to Philip's claim, Bissoondath suggests that the multicultural budget diverts, funding from multicultural h a l l s to anti-racism programs, "stressing not the differences that divide them (children), but the s i m i l a r i t i e s that unite ' them".72 The second part of this claim states that multiculturalism actually makes these problems worse even though we think multiculturalism w i l l lead to more openness. Multiculturalism w i l l not, according 92 to Bissoondath, as i t "indulges i n stereotypes, and depends on flash and dances". 7 3 Margaret Cannon also argues that multicultural policy contains no a n t i - r a c i s t elements: "Multiculturalism isn't a n t i - r a c i s t . It can, i n fact, simply perpetuate racism, by keeping old hatreds and old prejudices i n t a c t " . 7 4 Her examples are somewhat dubious: she faults the policy for the fact that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service investigated Canadians of Arab o r i g i n during the Gulf War, and for the k i l l i n g i n Somalia of a Somali teenager by two members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. She gives no explanation of how these incidents are t i e d to multicultural policy. She only says that, i n the case of the death i n Somalia, that the two perpetrators were of aboriginal origin, and therefore subject to r a c i a l taunts. 7 5 This l i n e of argument has given the conservative right a new weapon . i n . their push to - eliminate multiculturalism. In the following statement, Reform Party Immigration c r i t i c Art Hanger mentions this theme during the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration: I know we certainly a l l strive to have a perfect society but the problems we talk about here when i t comes to intolerance and the l i k e are on the r i s e i n spite of the fact that we've had twenty years of multiculturalism and i n fact seem to be going the other way. Don't you think i t ' s time to r e v i s i t this whole thing and maybe put i t out of sight for a period of time to see i f i n fact i t i s multiculturalism i t s e l f that i s the problem? 7 6 In analyzing the accuracy of these statements, I would argue that this claim r e l i e s largely on the b e l i e f that the multicultural policy only translates into folk a c t i v i t i e s . This i s . evident i n Bissoondath's claim that multiculturalism depends on "flash and dances'. This concern w i l l be dealt with l a t e r . Here, I want to concentrate on the idea that multiculturalism does nothing to address the real issues facing minorities. C r i t i c s who make this argument give l i t t l e analysis of the actual application of multicultural p o l i c i e s through the Department 93 of Canadian Heritage or through other departments. Cannon, i n explaining Philip's claim ("...multiculturalism w i l l not disappear. Too many people benefit from i t " ) , says: "...she's talking about, l i t e r a l l y tens of thousands of jobs that range from the cheery bureaucrats i n federal and provincial o f f i c e s to the reporters at the l o c a l ethnic newspapers".77 A question that arises i n response to this quote i s i f the federal government i s only spending $17 mi l l i o n per year on multiculturalism, down from $27 m i l l i o n prior to 1995, can i t support " l i t e r a l l y tens of thousands of jobs"? Are the editors of these ethnic newspapers actually being paid by the government? Like Bissoondath, she makes an assumption about how multicultural funds are being spent (for Cannon, this includes " l o c a l ethnic newspapers" and " f e s t i v a l s " . For Bissoondath, multicultural funds are spent on multicultural "halls".) without evidence to prove i t . To judge the v a l i d i t y of these claims requires an examination of how multicultural policy i s applied i n practice. Areas include the funding of advocacy groups, how the Multiculturalism Act i s adhered to i n different select federal r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s (Revenue Canada, health care, police a c t i v i t i e s ) , the functions of the Department of Heritage, and how multiculturalism i s applied i n law. The question to ask i n examining these a c t i v i t i e s i s whether multiculturalism i s r e a l l y ineffectual i n addressing the real, concerns of :minorities? A d v o c a c y g r o u p s : Since i t s formation i n 1970, the advocacy group Canadian Ethnocultural Council (C.E.C.) has been funded almost ent i r e l y by the Secretary of State. It appeared before the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and .House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada (1980). The C.E.C. endorsed the entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, i n l i g h t of Canada's history of discrimination against groups of non-Anglo o r i g i n (aboriginals, Chinese, Ukrainians, and Japanese). The C.E.C. also involved i t s e l f i n the hearings of two parliamentary committees i n 1983 and 1985. It appeared before the House of 94 Commons Special Committee on Participation of V i s i b l e Minorities i n Canadian society (which issued the Equality Now!, report) to suggest that a l l federal government order-in-council appointments and Senate appointments be made i n consultation with national ethnocultural associations, and to suggest a variety of proposals in education to expunge .racism i n the curriculum as well as to raise understanding and tolerance. It also, appeared before the House of Commons Sub-Committee on the Equality of Rights (The Boyer Committee) to urge the committee to pass a v • separate Multiculturalism Act — which was successsful — a n d to i n s t i t u t e a separate Department of Multiculturalism. 7 8 The C.E.C. also outlined principles to guide Multiculturalism policy, which led to B i l l C-93 of the proposed Multiculturalism Act' i n 1987. The C.E.C. also lobbied against certain aspects of the Meech Lake Accord. Members f e l t i t was important to bring Quebec into the constitution, but not at the expense of subordinating section 16 of the Accord (protecting multicultural rights) to Section- One, which saw French and English, as the "fundamental characteristics' of Canada.79 While the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (U.C.C.) has been i n existence since 1940, i t i s financed only i n ,part by the Secretary of State. 8 0 In 1980, the U.C.C. appeared before the Special Joint. Committee on the Constitution to demand the removal of Section One of the proposed constitution, which allowed for the suspension of rights. They based their stance on the experience of the internment of some Ukrainian-Canadians during the F i r s t World War. The U.C.C. was also unhappy that the proposed Charter did not mention multiculturalism (which was later added under Section 27), and asked for special education guarantees. 8 1 ' In regards to Meech Lake, the U.C.C. also (like the C.E.C.) believed that Section 16 of the Accord was i n s u f f i c i e n t to guarantee multicultural rights.. The U.C.C. suggested amendments to make Ottawa and the provinces responsible for promoting and preserving multiculturalism: A country that gives greater rights to i t s c i t i z e n s 95 b a s e d o n t h e i r b e l o n g i n g t o e t h n i c g r o u p s t h a t came t o C a n a d a s o o n e r i s n o t o u r v i s i o n o f wha t C a n a d a i s o r s h o u l d b e . We a r e a l l i m m i g r a n t s o r d e s c e n d a n t s o f i m m i g r a n t s . We m u s t a l l b e t r e a t e d e q u a l l y , a n d f a i r l y . 8 2 The N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f C a n a d i a n s o f O r i g i n s i n I n d i a ( N . A . C O . I . ) r e c e i v e s a r o u n d . 83 t o 88% ( b e t w e e n 1987 a n d 1988) o f i t s f u n d i n g f r o m t h e g o v e r n m e n t . 8 3 I t i s more p r e o c c u p i e d t h a n t h e U . C . C . i s w i t h i s s u e s c o n c e r n i n g v i s i b l e m i n o r i t i e s . . I t demanded b e t t e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y g o v e r n m e n t a g a i n s t h a t e p r o p a g a n d a a n d r a c i a l s l u r s . I n t h e m i d - 1 9 8 0 s , N . A . C O . I . v i g o r o u s l y o b j e c t e d t o t h e way t h e m e d i a c o v e r e d t h e A i r I n d i a c r a s h a n d t h e S i k h i n s u r g e n c y i n I n d i a . N . A . C O . I . a l s o a d r e s s e d i s s u e s o f i m m i g r a t i o n a n d R e v e n u e C a n a d a ' s v i e w o f e t h n o c u l t u r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s as h a v i n g " c h a r i t a b l e s t a t u s ' . 8 4 I t a l s o r e p r e s e n t e d i t s v i e w s w i t h i n t h e C . E . C , a s t h e two g r o u p s c o n c u r r e d o n some b a s i c i s s u e s . F o r e x a m p l e , N . A . C . O . I , o b j e c t e d t o t h e " d i s t i n c t s o c i e t y ' c l a u s e i n t h e M e e c h L a k e A c c o r d , a s i t g a v e s p e c i a l s t a t u s t o Quebec w h i l e l u m p i n g a l l o t h e r C a n a d i a n s t o g e t h e r -F e d e r a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s : O p e r a t i o n o f t h e , M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m A c t r e q u i r e s f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t d e p a r t m e n t s b e y o n d t h e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e d i v e r s i t y o f C a n a d i a n s o c i e t y a n d t o i m p l e m e n t m e a s u r e s , t o manage t h a t ' d i v e r s i t y . I u s e r a n d o m e x a m p l e s o f d i f f e r e n t d e p a r t m e n t s t o i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p o i n t . R e v e n u e C a n a d a , f o r e x a m p l e , , m a i n t a i n s c o n t a c t w i t h v a r i o u s e t h n o c u l t u r a l a s s o c i a t i o n s t o a s s u r e t h a t d e p a r t m e n t a l p u b l i c a t i o n s r e f l e c t C a n a d a ' s d i v e r s i t y . The d e p a r t m e n t p r o v i d e s c r o s s - c u l t u r a l t r a i n i n g f o r e m p l o y e e s , a n d t r a i n s v o l u n t e e r s f r o m v a r i o u s e t h n i c c o m m u n i t i e s t o h e l p c o m m u n i t y members w i t h t h e i r t a x f o r m s . 8 5 H e a l t h C a n a d a h a s p r o v i d e d t h e u s e o f m e d i c a l t r a n s l a t o r s i n h o s p i t a l s . I n 1 9 9 3 , t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t r e a c t i v a t e d t h e F e d e r a l I n t e r d e p a r t m e n t a l W o r k i n g G r o u p o n F e m a l e G e n i t a l M u t i l a t i o n . C h a i r e d b y t h e Women 's H e a l t h B u r e a u o f H e a l t h C a n a d a , t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s g r o u p was t o w o r k w i t h a f f e c t e d c o m m u n i t i e s t o i n f o r m a n d e d u c a t e t h e m o n C a n a d i a n . l a w s r e g a r d i n g f e m a l e g e n i t a l m u t i l a t i o n . 96 It informed these communities that this practice was' condemned i n Canada because, i t violates the basic right to body int e g r i t y . The group conducted workshops on this issue, and worked for amendments to the criminal code condemning this practice. 8 6 I digress b r i e f l y from describing multicultural policy applications to show how this last point can be used to respond to a claim by Bissoondath. Bissoondath attempts to show through the example of female genital mutilation, also known as female circumcision and/or infibulation, of how multicultural policy has f a i l e d to establish limits on d i v e r s i t y . 8 7 This resulting "ethical chaos" has led to the ris e of female circumcision. Clearly, Bissoondath i s unaware that this issues was, i n fact, being addressed most aggressively through Health Canada.. The : federal government currently has five departments working together on this issue,, and even Somali-Canadian women's groups have spoken fo r c e f u l l y against the practice. 8 8 Application of the Multiculturalism Act i s also seen in. the a c t i v i t i e s of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (R.C.M.P.). To help develop p o l i c i e s and practices that would enhance relationships between the- police and.communities, the Mounties set up focus groups to bring v i s i b l e minorities and aboriginal communities together with the R.C.M.P. Commissioner and .senior management. The R.C.M.P. also changed their training to include cul t u r a l d i v e r s i t y training, and have i n s t i t u t e d various outreach programs for youth. 8 9 P i l o t projects i n Quebec and the Atl a n t i c provinces have been instituted at police academies to recruit and tr a i n v i s i b l e minority candidates for careers i n p o l i c i n g . 9 0 The Department of Canadian Heritage engages i n projects such as a four-year interdepartmental i n i t i a t i v e on family violence. This shows how cultu r a l pluralism i s practiced not only by making adjustments i n the host society to.accomodate immigrant groups, but also by working towards adjustments within the minority groups themselves so they can acculturate to the larger society. The department also formed education partnerships between non-97 governmental organizations, educators, and p r o v i n c i a l / t e r r i t o r i a l ministries of education to provide funding and technical assistance for curriculum development, int e r c u l t u r a l encounters i n classrooms, and educator training and research. 9 1 Regional-level projects were also funded by the department, such as a leadership training and community development conference i n B r i t i s h Columbia to prevent ul t r a - r i g h t groups from establishing a hold i n the Chilliwack region, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of guides for people who lead workshops for new. immigrants, a research project by the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society to determine areas of discrimination experienced by Black and Indo-Canadian lawyers, a project to counter the problems of r a c i a l violence and intolerance i n public schools i n Moncton, New Brunswick, sponsorship of the work of Orientation-Travail Committee of Immigrant Workers i n Quebec; the organization of cultural camps in Saskatchewan to sensitize provincial judges about discrimination faced by Aboriginal people,, the sponsorship of two programs by Society for Educational V i s i t s and Exchanges i n Canada aimed at antiracism and ethnocultural equality, and support for an Aboriginal Women's Programme focused 92 on resolving and preventing family violence, to name a few. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the Race Relations Unit engaged i n a c t i v i t i e s which included producing twelve situation studies about race relations i n Canadian c i t i e s , the sponsorship of Symposiums on Race Relations and the Law and Policing i n multicultural communities, and support • « 93 for a t e l e v i s i o n training program for v i s i b l e minorities. L a w : The recognition of Canada's multicultural heritage through section 27 of the Charter has had an impact on the interpretation of various laws i n regards to the protection of minority rights in Canada. Section 27 has been cited to shield minority interests from provincial l e g i s l a t i o n regarding Sunday closing (R. v. Big M. Drug Mart Ltd. i n 1985, and R. v. Edwards Books i n 1986), 9 4 in a case challenging the Ontario Ministry's requirement that a l l public schools be opened and closed with religious scriptures and similar 98 readings such as the Lord's Prayer (Zybelberg et. a l . v. Sudbury Board of Education i n 1988), 9 5 and i n the allowance of the Sikh religious practice of wearing kirpans i n court (ceremonial daggers) (R. v. Hothi et. a l . i n 19 8 5), 9 6 i n which case the courts at different levels.went both ways.97 In the case of Grant v. Canada (Attorney-General) i n which a group of R.C.M.P. veterans challenged the R.C.M.P. Commissioner from allowing the wearing, of religious symbols as part of the Mountie uniform, the judge did not find section 27 p a r t i c u l a r l y helpful or necessary. However, i n handing down a decision for the defendants (that i s , affirming the allowance of the wearing of turbans as part of the uniform code of the R.C.M.P.), the judge did legitimate the multicultural objectives of this allowance: "...the wearing of the turban would operate as a demonstration and an acceptance of the present day multicultural nature of Canada. These are laudable objectives". 9 8 The addition of section 27 to the Charter of Rights i s not merely a symbolic recognition of minority rights i n Canadian law. Its presence provides legitimacy i n challenging potential infringements of minority rights. Often, i t i s used i n conjunction with individual rights cited i n sections 2 and 15 of the Charter (usually regarding freedom of r e l i g i o n ) . This shows that minority rights are not necessarily a challenge, but rather an extension of individual rights. This would support Kymlicka's interpretation of multicultural rights. Summary : In c i t i n g these examples of how multiculturalism i s practised i n terms of support given to advocacy groups, i n the practices of various government departments and i n law, my purpose i s not to give multiculturalism a bli n d promotion. Rather, I am examining the v a l i d i t y of the often made claim that multiculturalism does l i t t l e for minority groups, and i n fact only exacerbates those problems. This judgement of multiculturalism i s often based on su p e r f i c i a l evidence that does l i t t l e to reveal the 99 actual application of multicultural policy. This review shows that the policy has, i n fact, addressed the concerns of minorities i n various ways: the lobbying done by ethnocultural organizations such as the C.E.C, the U.C.C, and N.A.CO.I. for changes to Canadian policy, the efforts made by various government departments to ensure access to ethno/cultural communities through various programs, the organization of forces against hate groups by the Department of Canadian Heritage, and the application of section 27 of the Charter of Rights i n various cases i n order to defend minority rights. Furthermore, this review shows that multiculturalism i s also used to address the concerns of the larger society: that i s , the integration of minority groups. Efforts made to deal with female genital mutilation, spousal abuse, and integration of newcomers demonstrate this integrative aspect of the policy. Some may argue that i n spite of these measures, multiculturalism has' done l i t t l e to improve cohesion among individuals i n Canada. However, this i s not the argument made by the c r i t i c s whose claims have been presented here. Their claims are that multiculturalism does l i t t l e i n practice to address minority group needs. They are not questioning the actual effectiveness of these measures, as they make no mention of them. 6) M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m e x o t i c i z e s c u l t u r e by c o n c e n t r a t i n g p r i m a r i l y on f o l k a c t i v i t i e s : Multiculturalism policy i s associated primarily with festive events and f o l k l o r i c a c t i v i t i e s . As Sonja S i n c l a i r states: ...the multiculturalism pendulum swung out of control when p o l i t i c i a n s began wooing the ethnic vote with millions of dollars spent on teaching "heritage languages", organizing multicultural conferences, and staging dance-and-sohg f e s t i v a l s . Having been raised i n cosmopolitan Prague, I never wore a national costume u n t i l coming to Canada and being enlisted i n some cultural extravaganza." Caterina Pizanias states that multiculturalism "allows only for 100 f e s t i v a l s " . 1 0 0 Richard Gwyn states that multiculturalism has not had much effect, as i t consists mostly of grants "dished out" to ethnic organizations that were created to receive them. The result, he says, i s "lots of f e s t i v a l s and dances". 1 0 1 Neil Bissoondath r e l i e s heavily on this same view of multiculturalism: "The public face of multiculturalism i s - flashy and attractive; i t emerges with verve and gaiety from the bland stereotype of t r a d i t i o n a l Canada at "ethnic' f e s t i v a l s around the country". 1 0 2 Multiculturalism, he says, encourages devaluation of that which i t claims to promote. That i s , i t makes culture an object of display, not the heart and soul of i t s i n d i v i d u a l s . 1 0 3 The multicultural f e s t i v a l s do nothing, he maintains, to help neighbours understand minorities. It only promotes divisiveness. 1 0 4 This particular critique i s an extension of the "multiculturalism does nothing to address the concerns of minorities" theme. It assumes that multiculturalism policy translates largely into support for "the three Ds' (dress, diet, and dance), 1 0 5 and that l i t t l e e f f ort i s spent on more relevant issues such as anti-racism, minority empowerment, and integration of newcomers. Consequently, the policy i s l i t t l e more than symbolic nature. How accurate i s this view of multiculturalism policy? While f o l k l o r i c a c t i v i t i e s may have been a preoccupation of multiculturalism policy i n the seventies, such i s not the case today. The museum-oriented approach of seventies multicultural policy may have been a r e f l e c t i o n of interests of particular groups. However, in the early eighties, the concentration of v i s i b l e minorities i n large Canadian c i t i e s , and the eruption of race r i o t s i n B r i t a i n affected a change i n the spending. 1 0 6 Policies of integration, along with anti-racism and equity, now formulated the core of the p o l i c y . 1 0 7 Moreover, the passage of the Multiculturalism Act i n 1988 reflected the change from the f o l k l o r i c a c t i v i t i e s of the seventies to the a n t i - r a c i s t agenda of the early 1980s with an emphasis on justice and s o c i a l equality. 1 0 8 101 A breakdown of federal multicultural spending would bring the v a l i d i t y of the aforementioned critique into question. Multicultural funding, as seen i n Appendix B, i s directed at a c t i v i t i e s such as the elimination of systematic discrimination, equality of access and opportunity, provision of c u l t u r a l l y sensitive services, organizational development, the overcoming of integration problems, the changing of attitudes and behaviours, language and cultural development, and the promotion of cultural d i v e r s i t y . 1 0 9 The only programme which may allow for spending on f o l k l o r i c events, as well as other endeavours, i s i n language and cul t u r a l development (or, as i t i s known in e a r l i e r l i t e r a t u r e , the heritage cultures and languages programme). In this programme, the rules for applications state that federal grants are available for " a r t i s t i c expression i n theatre, music, dance, f o l k l o r i c arts, and visual a r t s " . 1 1 0 A study of approved funding to uni-cultural organizations between 1992-93 and 1994-95, seen i n Appendix B, shows that funding i n this programme averaged just over 4% of the entire budget, and never exceeded 5%.111 In other words, Bissoondath and others base this critique of federal multiculturalism on what constitutes 4% of the federal multicultural budget. In spite of this continuous refinement, c r i t i c s continue to refer to multiculturalism as "song and dance1 a c t i v i t i e s . Why do they continue to perpetuate the stereotype i n spite of evidence that shows otherwise? A possible explanation would be that these "three D' a c t i v i t i e s are the most v i s i b l e promotion to the public of multiculturalism. Other programs such as anti-racism training and immigrant integration are not as v i s i b l e , are conducted behind closed doors, and are not always i d e n t i f i e d as sponsored by the Department of Canadian Heritage. C r i t i c s , therefore, assume that "three D' events are. a l l there i s to multiculturalism. Furthermore, when referring to s p e c i f i c multicultural events, 1 1 2 certain c r i t i c s make no mention of whether or not federal multicultural funding even played a part i n the sponsorship of that 102 particular event. C o n c l u s i o n While the history of o f f i c i a l Canadian multiculturalism policy can be traced back to the 1971, signs of government acknowledgement of Canada's diverse population were evident much e a r l i e r . Consequently, popular criticisms fault the policy as the cause of recent problems i n Canadian society, as that time period coincides with changes to immigration policy and to the r i s e of Quebec nationalism and the introduction of "participatory democracy" in the late s i x t i e s . The recent backlash i n Canada i s a r e f l e c t i o n of a general anti-immigrant pattern worldwide. However, c r i t i c s of the Canadian policy consist not just of members of the New Right, but also of academics and those of l i b e r a l i n c l i n a t i o n as well. In spite of this difference, many of these c r i t i c s , whether or not they represent a n a t i v i s t point of view, advocate the termination of the policy and rely on common arguments, multiculturalism i s a top-down, unnatural phenomenon with no grounding before 1971; multiculturalism i s unpopular with the Canadian public; the policy i s l i t t l e more than "vote-buying 1 and cooptation aimed at ethno-cultu r a l groups; i t l i m i t s i n d i v i d u a l i t y by emphasizing group s o l i d a r i t y ; i t does nothing to address the real concerns of minority groups; and exoticizes culture by concentrating primarily on folk a c t i v i t i e s . Chapter Five w i l l continue with this examination of popular critiques of multiculturalism policy. The focus i n the next chapter w i l l be critiques based on popular conceptions of Canadian society and history. The analysis w i l l also concentrate on the reasons for misconceptions of multicultural policy, and how this r e f l e c t s the overall backlash against ethnic groups and immigrants i n Canada. 103 NOTES 1) William D. Gairdner, The Trouble With Canada: A Citizen Speaks Out (Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Company Ltd., 1990): 395. 2) Margaret Cannon, The Invisible Empire: Racism i n Canada (Toronto: Random House of Canada, 1995): 243. 3) Richard Gwyn, Nationalism Without Walls: The Unbearable Lightness of Being Canadian (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1995): 195-196. 4) Ibid., 196. 5) Doug Collins, Immigration: Parliament Versus the People (Toronto: Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform Inc., 1984): 16. 6) Link Byfield, "When i t Comes to Mayhem Among Minority Groups, We Reap What We Sow", The B r i t i s h Columbia Report, 7:47 (July 22 1996): 7. 7) Cornelius J. Jaenen, "A Multicultural Canada: H i s t o r i c a l Roots and Educational Implications", address, Thunder Bay, (January 15 1982): 6. 8) Ibid., 7. 9) Ibid., 8 . 10) Ibid., 9. 11) Brendan O'Donnell, Chronicles of Milestones i n Canadian Multiculturalism (Ottawa?: Policy, Analysis, and Research, Multiculturalism, Department of the Secretary of State 1987): 9. 12) Egerton Ryerson i n J.G. Hodgins (ed.). A Documentary History of Education i n Upper Canada from the Passing of the Constitutional Act of 1791 to the Close of the Reverand Dr. Ryerson's administration of the Education Department i n 1876 (Toronto: 1897): 155-156. 13) J.D. Wilson, Robert M. Stamp, and Louis-Philippe Audet (ed.s), Canadian Education: A History (Scarborough: Prentice-Hall of Canada Ltd.-, 1970) : 231-232. 14) Gairdner, 389. 15) Neil Bissoondath, Selli n g Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism i n Canada (Toronto: Penguin Books, 1994): 1. 16) Collins, 8. 104 17) Gairdner, 394. 18) Byfield, 7. 19) Kingsley Amis i n Doug Collins, Immigration: The Destruction of English Canada (Richmond H i l l : BMG Publishers, c.1979): 31. 20) Ungerleider, Strategic Evaluation of Multiculturalism Programs: Final Report (Ottawa: Canadian Heritage, 1996): 40. 21) Ibi