Debating Canada's course

[attach]3880[/attach]Canadian multiculturalism: Is it a blueprint for harmony that the rest of the world can learn from, or are we in danger of failing miserably at it like much of Western Europe?

Toronto Star columnist Haroon Siddiqui argues that 40 years of official multiculturalism have given Canada a record of cultural accommodation that is closely studied and envied by other countries. Even the Aga Khan has chosen Ottawa as the site of a new multicultural research centre because “he thinks the world needs more Canada.”

Historian Jack Granatstein, on the other hand, thinks we need to heed the lessons of Europe and draft new rules to prevent the abuses of multiculturalism, which he said include ethnic ghettos, lack of common Canadian values and the importation of foreign disputes. He asks: “Why didn’t we make Canadians of the newcomers?”

The two Order of Canada recipients squared off in a debate on Feb. 22 at the Royal Ontario Museum’s History Wars series. The topic they were debating was “Multiculturalism has put Canada on the wrong course”.

A show of hands before the debate showed that half the audience of 300 was undecided about the value of multiculturalism, but there was a 4-1 margin against the proposition that it put the country on the wrong course.

After the debate the moderator, historian Michael Bliss, declared the undecideds had shrunk to about 15 percent. While 50 percent still opposed the proposition, those in favour had jumped to 35 percent, swayed by Granatstein’s arguments.

The historian, author of more than 60 books, including Who Killed Canadian History, cited recent statements by British prime minister David Cameron and German chancellor Angela Merkel that multiculturalism had failed in their countries. He called for a royal commission to determine the rights and obligations of holding Canadian citizenship.

“Why do we assume that immigrants raised under dictatorships will instantly understand our democracy?” he asked.

He said, “Canada is ours,” with Judeo-Christian values, and multiculturalism is a relatively new and troublesome concept. No federal money should be given to organizations to preserve languages or heritage other than English or French. He said employment equity on the basis of race should be abolished because it amounts to “quotas”, and we should stop apologizing for past abuses like the Chinese head tax or internment of Japanese or Ukrainian citizens during war time.

“Such apologies are for political purposes … In many cases they have nothing to do with the truth.”

Siddiqui countered that multiculturalism is rooted in Canadian history, starting with the Aboriginal concept of acceptance and accommodation, and “our Canadian response (to what’s happening in Europe) should be that they’re abandoning what they never had.”

He challenged Granatstein’s idea that all immigrants should adopt so-called Canadian attributes.

“Shall we write a list? We must eat at Tim Hortons, we must watch hockey, we must drink beer? That’s ridiculous.”
Immigrants, he said, “do not develop instant amnesia.”

“If they did, we would not have so much trouble with the English and French,” he said.

Granatstein made clear that he supports “practical multiculturalism”, which he said includes the diversity of our population and such practices as inter-marriage and great food, but thinks “political multiculturalism” is intent on “pulling us apart.”

He said the Canadian Forces is currently aiming to recruit 28 percent French, 28 percent women, 25 percent visible minorities and three percent Aboriginals.

“That means 84 percent of recruits are not supposed to be white Canadians,” he said. “That’s simply ridiculous.

“Quotas breed resentment. The purpose of an army is to fight, not to engage in sociological experiments.”

Siddiqui said it’s ironic that those most outspoken about multiculturalism are those saying free speech is being trampled on.

“They have a megaphone and they’re complaining?”