Return to a Sensible Multicultural Policy in Canada

Recent events in our largest metropolitan area involving the arrest of homegrown terrorists, the wearing of burquas in the streets; the apparent honor-killing of a young woman by her father; the practice of government-supported polygamy; the establishment of an all-black public school; the recommendation by a senior cabinet minister of a former provincial government that Sharia law be accepted in Ontario; the conclusion by the most senior authority at Elections Canada that it was perfectly acceptable for some people to vote while concealing their faces; as well as the public forum on reasonable accommodation in Quebec, have all served to spotlight the subject of immigration and how, officially, Canada currently views immigrants in the context of its multiculturalism policy.

There can be little doubt that there is an ELEPHANT loose in the country, trampling our historical vision of Canada. Unfortunately, many are now wary to even identify, let alone confront the beast because, like witch-doctors, we have established rituals and institutions that make it taboo to do so. There appears to be a perverse unwillingness, bordering on culpable ignorance, to admit the well-known fact that transplants can kill the recipient patient. But common-sense Canadians are just not prepared to wait for death while another Commission is belatedly established to properly diagnose the cause of the debilitating illness in our body politic. But how did we get so sick?

Section 27 of the Constitution Act of 1982 states that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. So, what is this heritage?

Canada acknowledges that, while immigration is a benefit to the country, it is a privilege, not a right. Canada, therefore, decides who may enter, and who may not. The problem arises with obligations. What are Canadas obligations to immigrants, and vice versa? These changed drastically (but experimentally) in 1971 when the government announced a multiculturalism policy that reversed the previous expectation of assimilation for immigrants; and substituted support for the preservation and development of cultural pluralism that would distinguish Canada from the melting pot society in the United States. This was of course highly controversial, but it was felt that given the growing shift in their source of immigrants, Canadians would accept the policy as a way to minimize racial prejudice and discrimination and thereby ensure equal access to jobs, housing and education that continued to plague life south of the border.

In growing numbers, Canadians are now saying loudly and clearly that the experiment, though well-intentioned, has failed. It is fracturing their concept of a unified Canadian identity, without any evidence of a redeeming quality on the down side. Canadians want to be able to proudly join the parents, especially the mothers of our brave men and women in uniform, and assure them that THIS (the 1971 experiment) is NOT the Canada we are asking them to be prepared to die for. So everyone is asking: What can we do?

Since interpretation of the Charter has to be consistent with the multiculturalism policy, and recognizing that it is virtually impossible to change the Constitution, the simplest solution seems to be to get the government to admit that the experiment has failed and, thus, we need a change in the policy. How do we persuade the government to announce that henceforth, immigrants will be expected to adapt to Canada? Well, presumably, politicians are elected to govern for our well-being. Maybe, just maybe, if a sufficient number of us shout loudly enough, they may sit-up and take notice. Surely we dont have to resort to rioting and burning buildings to get attention.

How would the changed policy read?? The new policy should stress that, legally, Canada stands for equal access to jobs, housing and education; that while we welcome immigrants from around the world looking for a better way of life, we are not inviting the establishment of mini-nations here; that immigrants would remain free to choose Canada with its laws and customs, or return to their former lives. This has to be seen, not just as reasonable accommodation, but also as sensible policy.

If you are one of those clamouring for Canada to switch from a policy of inevitable balkanization to an integrated Canadian identity with the rights and privileges noted above, I ask you to number and sign your name below, so that we can give the Prime Minister some indication of the urgent need for a change in direction if we are going to rescue Canada.