On multiculturalism

I read this article this week reflecting on the supposed failure of multiculturalism and I was shocked at how shoddy the piece was. Given that it was an opinion piece in the National Post, perhaps I shouldn’t be that surprised.

It came at an interesting time, as it echoes comments made by Gordon Brown a few years ago and referenced by Alberto Manguel in his wonderful 2007 Massey Lectures which I’ve been re-listening to this week. I liked his discussion of the issue, which discusses a similar pronouncement as the above article. Even including the use of the past tense in describing multiculturalism.

Manguel said:

[Gordon] Brown proposed unity at the cost of multiplicity, identifying a national 'Us' as a means not to identify with 'Them' - whoever the other might be. The point Brown missed is that it is not the 'separateness' that is detrimental to unity, but the labelling of the 'separate' others as inimical..."

This is exactly right, and his labelling of the new immigrants where Joans writes: "No: The new type was a conqueror whose quest was to alter Canada to suit him and his tribe."
Thereby labelling all the new immigrants as problematic, no matter where they come from, no matter who they are, no matter what they bring to the country.

He also goes beyond this in response to a question about identity. For some reason it struck a chord with me as I listened this week in a way it had not before. His passion for Canada is obvious in the answer, but it also strikes me as something amazing about Canada. Canada allows one to have an open identity. Canadians aren’t forced to choose their identity in the way they might be in many other countries. Or more accurately to have an identity imposed on them. Often it is the labelling that causes problems and challenges, especially when done from the outside.

We have found a way to live together in a world without labelling each other by race or creed. I’m always astonished at the degree to which this makes some people uncomfortable, particularly conservatives. Perhaps it comes from a desire to see things in black and white which I also have a tendency to see among conservatives.

I see this reflected in the way that Barack Obama is forced to choose to identify as black, despite his bi-racial heritage. It becomes obvious in reading his book Dreams of my father that the question is largely settled for him though perhaps he struggles with it at times. What is so interesting is to compare his experience with that of growing up biracial in Canada as highlighted in Black berry sweet juice,. Which chronicles the experience of Insert name here, and to my mind highlights the difference here in Canada, and the fact that one does not have an identity or a label imposed on them.

George Jonas’s article is ridiculous, from the way the opening section highlights the complaints of a Korean immigrant asking “where all the nice white people went”, to his suggestions that multiculturalism was a secret plot to get rid of the influence of the church, to his linking of Trudeau’s policies to today’s Islamic terrorism.

First of all, multiculturalism removed barriers on immigration that restricted it by race. In response people from around the world chose to immigrate to Canada. One thing that has to be remembered is that immigration is a choice made by people. All immigrants to Canada chose to come here. No-one forced them, and certainly Canada did not go around rounding up people from all over the world and force them to live here, as is suggested by the tone of the article.

Second it is amazing to imagine that the country does not change according to its ethnic make-up. This is the lie Manguel so rightly points out in his lecture. To imagine that there ever was such a thing as an unhyphenated Canadian belies the point that the definition of who is Canadian changes over time. On the prairies the influx of Ukrainians in the early part of the 20th century was greeted with much suspicion, and yet despite the last names, many of their descendants would not be distinguishable from your ordinary average Canadian.

The black and white nature of this analysis is highlighted by Manguel, where he says:

"For Brown or [Nicholas] Sarkozy, assimilation or exclusion are the only methods to ensure the sruvival of a society's identity. A social policy of open identity in a society that accepts the evolution is in their eyes too dangerous because that society might then be transformed out of all recognition"

This highlights the problem I see in a lot of conservative analysis. It posits simple black and white problems and pretends that it covers everything. Those that oppose such empty ridiculous notions, or suggest a more nuanced approach are labelled as elitists, or worse traitors.

This isn't to say that there are real challenges. The new immigrants are doing worse that the previous generation of immigrants, taking longer to get up to the Canadian average in terms of wages, despite being more educated. A big problem relates to credentials, and the problem of getting "Canadian" experience.

Canada will continue to exist, depsite what George Jonas says, but perhaps he won't recognize it. I'm sure glad Canada has changed since the 1950s, even if it scares many conservatives.

Election(s) time

Well it seems like there are potentially a lot of changes coming on the Provincial scene here in Canada, with I think 6 or 7 elections this fall, and the choosing of a new premier in Alberta, usually more consequential than their elections. The interesting thing is that there are likely a few big changes on the horizon, potentially in Ontario and in Manitoba in particular both of which might go Conservative.

That would feed into the emerging narrative in some circles in which there is an emerging governing coalition in Canada in which the West and Ontario have now become Conservative. This means that it is now possible to govern federally without winning many seats in Quebec.

Although it appeared for a long time that the Progressive Conservatives (yes they still exist provincially in Ontario) were heading towards a victory, the polls have been tightening for a while now and the latest numbers show the Liberals ahead. That would be a big blow to the idea that Ontario has been trending conservative, but we’ll have to await the results to see what happens. It appears to be turning into a close race. I

Recent comments by the Tories about “Foreign workers”, may end up being the wedge issue that allows the Liberals to govern. These comments are despicable and ridiculous. They come after the Liberals announced some funding to employers to hire new immigrants in their fields of study helping them to get their credentials recognized. I was surprised that Hudak even when given the chance, refused to back away from his “foreign workers” line. Playing up the xenophobia in my books is despicable. Foreign workers are different from immigrants, and he should know better.

I think it will be interesting to see how long it takes those commentators like John Ibbitson who write
things like this “What matters most is that Canada appears to have grown out of the era of earth-shaking federal-provincial conflicts. The will to struggle has faded, replaced by the will to accommodate.” See here here. It doesn’t take much to stir the federal provincial pot, and even Ibbitson acknowledges that the 2014 Health Accord negotiations may be somewhat acrimonious.

Federal provincial relations seem good these days because the federal government is withdrawing from many areas of provincial jurisdiction (many in areas of social policy), while concentrating on areas of Federal jurisdiction. We’ll see what kind of things happen though if the National Securities regulator supreme court reference goes the federal government’s way how calm the relations will be, as the federal government moves to occupy an area that arguably should always have been federal, but had been occupied by provinces.

One final challenge I think facing Canada will be in a few years when the federal government emerges from the current economic malaise and finds itself in a more powerful position vis a vis the provinces, especially as Ontario and Quebec face significant challenges on the fiscal and economic front. I think that it will be hard for any government to ignore their challenges, particularly if the federal government is relatively stronger in a few years time.

I think we are in a bit of lull period, where everything seems quiet on the federal-provincial front but one never knows or can predict how things will turn out. If as Ibbitson suggests a Conservative government emerges in Ontario, thing will likely be more difficult, as traditionally the worst relations between Toronto and Ottawa have been when parties of the same stripe are in power.

The decline of an important institution?

I was listening to a podcast from Australia this week in which they debated the question " Both Major Parties are Failing the Australian People".

It was an interesting debate, and many of the themes were the same as those being expressed in Canada.

Themes such as:
• Concern about diminishing numbers of members
• Increasingly controlled by leaders and by small numbers of people
• Concern about the role of parties in engaging people in discussion about issues and bringing people together

Here in Canada, an organization called Samarra released its own report about Canadian political parties called It's my Party: Parliamentary Dysfunction Reconsidered The report is part of a series based on "exit interviews" with Parliamentarians.

What struck me as I heard some of the coverage of the release of the report, was how toxic the relationship between the Members of Parliament(MPs) and their party had become. The report itself states that "the consistent observation from the MPs that the greatest frustrations they faced during their political careers came from within their own political party."

As in Australia, there were comments about the small number of behind the scenes officials running the party, and tension around the amount of control being exercised by the political party.

Both these views from Australia and especially from the insiders in Canada, seem to suggest that political parties as an institution are no longer performing as well as they used to. Their ability to engage the general public and serve as an aggregator of interests, seems to be diminished, in part due to declining membership, particularly among young people.

This raises some interesting questions about how to engage citizens in the political process. If young people in particular are abandoning political parties, how do we engage them in the formal political process. They seem to be moving towards membership in advocacy organization outside the formal process, joining NGOs, starting NGOs and advocating their beliefs this way.

This shift towards being involved in ways that are outside the political process poses two problems, one it leaves a smaller tent, more filled with true believers and ideologues within the traditional party, while also leaving those involved outside, as frustrated by the lack of movement on their issues.

I have wondered what a political party would be like if it could include all those who criticize from the outside, were actually involved in building the parties from within. Part of the cynicism that seems to be increasingly to be a part of our political culture relates to the fact that there are so many outsiders taking shots and attacking political parties.

In the end political parties are an entrenched part of our political system, and we need them. They need to modernize to be sure, but they also need people within them to push them in that direction. Perhaps now is the time given the NDP and Liberals are under interim leaders to think more about ways to properly engage people outside the current parties and figure out a way to bring in new and future leaders.