Tom Fennell responds:
The fires burning in the rubble of the World Trade Center had barely been extinguished when the first Canadian troops arrived in Afghanistan. Since then, their role has grown, and more than 2,000 soldiers are now in the troubled country. But at home there is little support, judging from a Strategic Counsel poll in February, which found that 62 percent of Canadians are opposed to the deployment. To counter his critics, Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier has gone on the offensive, claiming that domestic security requires Canada to take a front-line role in the international war on terrorism. So why aren’t people buying into his argument Perhaps it is because, mistaken or not, Canadians still cling to the image of themselves as peacekeepers. And while the military disparages the term, it still holds currency with many policy-makers, who believe that terrorism might be defeated over the long haul if our money were spent improving the lives of individual Afghans by building schools and improving agriculture (see “Might Is Wrong,” April). Which side is right Only time will tell, but perhaps ndp leader Jack Layton was correct when he called on Parliament to debate the issue—something it has never done.
Multifarious Multiculturalism
Allan Gregg has mixed feelings about multiculturalism (“Identity Crisis,” March). I want to say “and rightly so” but can’t, at least not for the reasons Gregg provides. Multiculturalism is not perfect, but what Canadian multiculturalism requires is a debate that advances our democratic ideals while addressing our weaknesses. Unfortunately, Gregg does neither.
First, we need to discuss multiculturalism in the proper context. Reading “Identity Crisis,” one might think that Canada has always been a happy, pluralist country but this is simply not true. Multiculturalism did not continue a tradition of pluralism but was part of a process in which an older, overtly racist series of public policies (internments, segregation at the municipal level, head taxes, etc.) was replaced by the ideal of equality.
Next, we need to avoid extreme extrapolations and focus on reality. Gregg predicts that it is only a matter of time before the violence that rocked Paris and London makes its way here. At the very least, he believes ethnic diversity will fracture national identity. But we’ve heard all of this before. Critics have prophesied doom since official multiculturalism was first introduced in 1971, and yet doomsday hasn’t come to pass. As Will Kymlicka, whom Gregg cites favourably, notes in Finding Our Way, Canada does well by international standards on virtually every scale of ethnocultural integration.
Our naturalization rates are high, official-language learning is astronomical, and even ethnic intermarriage (not a policy but surely a sign of tolerance) is very high in Canada.
We also need to understand multiculturalism’s objectives. Gregg seems to be hunting a paper tiger. If we are going to get rid of multiculturalism or modify it in some fundamental way, what will replace it Our past can’t provide a model, so we need to think concretely about the future. I would bet that integration, individual rights, and support for official languages will be part of whatever model we create. All three are parts of multiculturalism as it now stands.
I suspect the new Conservative government will re-examine multiculturalism as public policy. A number of Conservative supporters appear to have qualms about it. I hope that those qualms are grounded in reality, because working with an imagined past, problematic reasoning, and a failure to engage with what multiculturalism actually is will not get Canada very far.
Dr. Andrew Nurse
Director, Centre for Canadian Studies
Mount Allison University
Sackville, New Brunswick
