J.L. Granatstein: Leaving the old country behind

While the examples of diaspora politics and imported conflicts are valid and real, surveys such as the GSS indicate that by and large, multiculturalism is not a barrier to integration. But these conflicts do increase the challenges, as the Israel Hamas war and related increases in hate crimes demonstrate:

…What was going on? Clearly, the old country ties remained strong in immigrants to Canada. Ethnicity is a powerful force, naturally enough, but official multiculturalism encouraged ethnic communities to retain their identities. There were language schools funded by Ottawa, in addition to newspapers, community centres, and dance troupes. The money flowed because there were votes out there waiting to be harvested.

What was not going on was any effective effort by the state to turn immigrant communities into Canadians. Naomi Klein, (not someone I usually quote approvingly), wrote in 2005 after terrorist attacks in London “that the brand of multiculturalism practiced in Britain (and France, Germany, Canada …) has little to do with genuine equality,” she said. She continued:

It is instead a Faustian bargain, struck between vote-seeking politicians and self-appointed community leaders, one that keeps ethnic minorities tucked away in state-funded peripheral ghettoes while the centres of public life remain largely unaffected by seismic shifts in the national ethnic makeup.

Surely she was right, as we can readily observe when our parties scramble for ethnic votes in the suburban areas of the nation’s large cities.

Most Canadians believe immigration is important for Canada, the present difficulties notwithstanding. But polling also shows that most also believe that we must make Canadians of those who come here. It is not enough to leave them alone in the hope that they will quietly assimilate into accepting our values—peace, order and good government, civility, equality, tolerance, respect for rights—and that if they wish to join us they must understand and accept this. Canada is part of Western Civilization, not a community of communities, as Joe Clark put it, not a post-national state, as Justin Trudeau proclaimed. We are a well-established pluralist, democratic, secular nation.

To paraphrase the American writer David Rieff in the New York Times some years ago, the multicultural fantasy in Canada was that, in due course, assuming that the proper resources were committed and benevolence deployed, immigrants would eventually become liberals. As it was said, they would come to “accept” the values of their new countries. It was never clear how this vision was supposed to coexist with multiculturalism’s other main assumption, which was that group identity should be maintained. But by now that question is largely academic: the Canadian vision of multiculturalism, in all its simultaneous goodwill and self-congratulation, is no longer sustainable. And most Canadians know it. What they don’t know is what to do next.

Stephen Marche was right in saying that the old country must be left behind. It is long past time that Canadians figure out how to make this work.

Source: J.L. Granatstein: Leaving the old country behind

Unknown's avatarAbout Andrew
Andrew blogs and tweets public policy issues, particularly the relationship between the political and bureaucratic levels, citizenship and multiculturalism. His latest book, Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias, recounts his experience as a senior public servant in this area.

2 Responses to J.L. Granatstein: Leaving the old country behind

  1. SushiLjee's avatar SushiLjee says:

    Document 1 of 15
    By Sushil Jain. (1989, July 21). Cult of multiculturalism costly, unnecessary :[FINAL Edition]. The Windsor Star,p. A9. Retrieved June 25, 2011, from Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies. (Document ID: 188517841).
    Abstract (Summary)
    The answer to this question has now been provided, tentatively, by the Gallup poll as reported in The Windsor Star of July 5. It would appear from this poll that many Canadians, of all shades across Canada, have not embraced the ill-conceived ideology of multiculturalism. It is perhaps because they feel it is not an ideology of the heart but a vehicle for perpetuating racial and ethnic differences, unnecessarily, through government grants.
    This does not seem to be a hyperbolic figure when we consider that for the 1987/88 year, the Secretary of State spent $14,733,000 on multicultural grants, and another $3,114,000 on contributions expenditures, bringing the total to about $18 million. The total expenditures for the 1987/88 year, on multicultural grants and contributions expenditures, was $16,641,000 and $2,928,000 respectively; i.e., a total of more than $19.5 million for the past year (annual report, Secretary of State of Canada). This is more than $37 million; a lot of money being “(thrown) away at distinctive ethnic blocs.”
    Multiculturalism has been criticized by different people for diverse reasons. Rene Levesque’s and French-Canadians’ non-acceptance of multiculturalism is easy to comprehend. But other criticisms of multiculturalism require some thought and insight.
    Full Text
    (1274 words)
    (Copyright The Windsor Star)

    • Andrew's avatar Andrew says:

      A bit dated and other polls show considerable support, however multiculturalism is defined differently by different people. IMO, a form of integration, with the approach first defined in the 60s.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.