|
"CULTURL DIVERSITY AND THE
CHALLENGE OF CANADIAN UNITY"
NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS AT
THE
COLLÈGE UNIVERSITAIRE DE ST-BONIFACE
ST-BONIFACE, MANITOBA
MARCH 13, 1997
First of all, I want to thank the representatives from the First Nations, Métis,
Franco-Manitoban, Ukrainian, and Jewish communities for sharing their views on
cultural diversity and national reconciliation.
Listening to all the panelists, I am struck by
the fact that, despite the problems of our country's past and the challenges we
still face today, we have also got a lot of things right in Canada, which we
must celebrate.
In many countries, just having a dialogue like
this between different ethnic groups would be impossible.
Everybody around this table could give examples
of times when his or her own group was not treated well in Canadian history,
whether of Métis facing hostile settlers in the Red River colony, or of
Franco-Manitobans losing their education rights, or of Ukrainians being interned
during the First World War, or of Jewish people being kept out of Canada during
the Second World War.
Achieving national reconciliation means learning
from this history. But we must also consider what we have done well in our
history, as well as those events that we later come to regret.
Canada is a unique success story in the world. We
are far from perfect, but we have perhaps gone further than any other country in
terms of achieving the universal ideals of openness, tolerance, and respect for
diversity.
If we compare Canada with our neighbours to the
south, we find a much lower incidence of violent crimes involving arms or drugs.
We have fewer examples of overt racism in our past.
The attitudes of Canadians reflect this spirit of
tolerance. For example, 13% of Canadians say they would object to having their
children marry somebody of a different race, compared with 32% of Americans. In
a survey of 19 countries, Canada had the second lowest rate, next to
Switzerland, of people who said they would object to having somebody of a
different race as a neighbour. In Canada, 5% said they would object, compared
with an average of 10% in the other countries.
I have said before that there is perhaps no other
country in the world where a human being has a better chance to be respected
simply because he or she is a human being, regardless of race, religion, or
culture.
When the great writer the Baron de Montesquieu
wrote that, "I am of necessity a man and only fortuitously a
Frenchman," he was expressing a very Canadian point of view.
Even the darker chapters of our past show us that
what we have achieved today as Canadians has taken many decades of difficult
struggle, and that what we have built together is worth fighting to preserve.
Your communities have all played a crucial role
in building this province and this country, and that is why you have an
especially important role to play in preserving Canada as a positive example to
the whole world of the recognition of the inherent dignity of the human person.
As Mr. Jedwab explained, this event today was
modelled after a successful initiative organized by the Jewish, Italian, and
Greek communities of Montreal and Toronto to emphasize the importance of
Canada's diverse cultural communities in building our common national unity.
It is especially appropriate that we are
continuing and expanding this initiative here in Winnipeg.
Here we are, almost at the geographic centre of
Canada, in a city which is in many ways the crossroads of Canada.
The history of Winnipeg, and Manitoba, has been
shaped by First Nations and Métis people, French and English colonists, and
successive waves of immigrants from Eastern Europe, and more recently from the
Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. Each of these groups has contributed
something to this city and this province which has made a whole far greater than
the sum of its parts.
Winnipeg is undoubtedly one of the most diverse
and interesting cities in Canada. But if we are to understand this diversity, we
must first understand our own history.
What we celebrate as multicultural diversity or
the cultural mosaic is not something which has simply come about by accident.
Nor is this diversity new for Canada. It is not true that Canada or Manitoba was
a monolithic white Anglo-Saxon society that has only recently become more
diversified. No, our diversity is at the very roots of Canadian and Manitoban
history.
The pattern for our cosmopolitan diversity of
today was established by the relationships between the first inhabitants of
these lands, First Nations people, and later the French and the English.
This history has many lessons to teach us,
lessons of cooperation, and lessons of conflict. Canada's future as a united
country will require us both to rediscover what is best in our roots and to
learn from the mistakes our ancestors made.
When we consider the case of Louis Riel, the
founder of this province, we see examples of both the best and the worst in
Canadian history. As Riel himself said when the Manitoba Act was passed in 1870,
"Let us hope that the lessons of the past will guide us in the
future."
Riel's leadership of the Métis people led to the
passage of the Manitoba Act, which was a model of liberality and cultural
accommodation for its time. It included guarantees for the Métis people,
including schooling and religious rights, as well as the recognition of both
French and English linguistic rights.
Despite differences of language, religion, and
culture, the Métis and the other early settlers of the Northwest learned to
live together in a bilingual climate. This could have been a model for all of
Canada.
Sadly, as we know, these noble precedents were
not always followed. The Riel Rebellion shows us what the possible consequences
are if the rights of minorities are ignored. The Manitoba Schools controversy
shows us that majorities can be forgetful of the promises they have made to
linguistic and cultural minorities, in this case Franco-Manitobans, at an
earlier point in history.
Some of the sad lessons of Manitoba history could
have been avoided if only the original settlement of 1870 had been safeguarded.
As Sir Wilfrid Laurier said of the Government's actions against the Métis in
1886: "Had they taken as many pains to do right, as they have taken to
punish wrong, they never would have had any occasion to convince those people
that the law cannot be violated with impunity, because the law never would have
been violated at all."
Even today, it is important to be sensitive to
these echoes of the past. That is why, when B.C. Métis leader Jody Pierce
pointed out to me that the rope allegedly used to hang Louis Riel was still on
display at the RCMP museum in Regina, I took the matter up with my colleague
Herb Gray. He agreed with me that this may be inappropriate, and he has had the
display taken down, and the RCMP Museum has agreed to consult with Métis people
on the proper way to remember these events in our country's history.
To my fellow Francophone citizens of Manitoba,
who rightly remind us of the injustices of the suppression of French rights in
the late 19th century, I want to say here, especially in this historic community
of St. Boniface, that we must judge those dark pages in our history in
comparison with attitudes elsewhere.
In the 19th century, most countries pursued a
policy of assimilation, centralization, and authoritarianism. According to the
linguist Jacques Leclerc, this consisted of "imposing a single language
throughout a territory and ignoring linguistic pluralism." A number of
countries, including France and the United States, adopted an active policy of
cultural assimilation, notably through their state education systems.
Fortunately, Canada rejected this system. It is
true that Canada did not allow as much pluralism in education and government
services as perhaps we might have wanted today, but compared with the rest of
the world, Canada learned to become a model of diversity and pluralism. Things
are not perfect even now, but our progress has been remarkable.
Now, some may think this discussion of the Riel
Rebellion or the Manitoba Schools Act may seem like dwelling on the past. I am
often asked why, in a multicultural society, in a city like Winnipeg with 20 or
30 cultural groups from all over the world, is it still relevant to talk about
the status of First Nations or Métis people, or the language rights of
Francophones?
It is relevant because the spirit of tolerance
and mutual recognition which took so much struggle to achieve between French and
English Canadians, or natives and non-natives, is the same spirit which has
allowed us to open our borders to welcome other groups into this country.
Again, in this city, consider the contribution of
Ukrainian-Canadians. Ukrainians were among the first to take up Laurier's
challenge to settle the rich agricultural lands of Canada's prairies, and they
have made their presence felt.
Like other groups, they have faced episodes of
discrimination, but they have also been able to keep a strong sense of their
identity due to the Canadian spirit of tolerance.
Ukrainian-Canadians were instrumental in
encouraging the recognition of the multicultural nature of Canadian society
through the work of the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission in the 1960s.
Often in the United States, and even here in
Canada, you will hear critics of multiculturalism saying that it encourages
ghettoization, that it divides society.
On the contrary, the evidence is that it enriches
society, even in very practical ways. For example, the tenacity of
Ukrainian-Canadians in Manitoba and elsewhere in maintaining their culture and
their connections to their land of origin has led to surprising new
opportunities for commercial and cultural exchanges with the newly independent
and democratic Ukraine, a development that could not have been foreseen even ten
years ago.
Last week, the Ukrainian Foreign Affairs
Minister, Mr. Hennadii Oudovenko, was here with Lloyd Axworthy. Thanks to the
efforts of Ukrainian-Canadians, Canadian businesses today have a unique
opportunity to develop exports and investment in this emerging free-market
economy.
So multiculturalism is not simply a humanitarian
ideal, but can also be a practical competitive advantage in the world of global
trade.
This is an advantage that Canada enjoys today
because we have learned the lessons of our past, because we have allowed our
original experience of accommodation between the dualities of French and
English, native and non-native, to expand to embrace the multicultural diversity
that we see today in cities like Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal.
I am convinced that our multiculturalism can be
an asset for Canadian unity.
Quebec separatist leaders say that Quebecers face
a dichotomy: that they can be Quebecers or Canadians, but not both.
But the groups around this table are proof that
multiple identities are not a contradiction. People are no less Canadian because
they are Métis, or Ukrainian-Canadian, or Franco-Manitoban.
Consider my friend Jack Jedwab here, who helped
organize this event. He is of Jewish faith and ancestry, fluent in English and
French, a Montrealer, a Quebecer, and a Canadian. As a Quebecer, he is proud to
be part of a society in which French is the language of the majority. Yet he is
also proud to be a Canadian and proud of what this country has achieved. He does
not want to be forced, and most Quebecers do not want to be forced, to choose
between these different identities, which are all important and valuable.
For the ideal of multiculturalism is not an
attempt to marginalize or diminish the importance of Francophone culture, as
some Quebec separatists claim.
Rather, it shows that our Canadian ideals, of
embracing diversity, of saying that equality does not mean uniformity, that all
people can have their own ways of being Canadian, are continuing to grow and
develop.
To say that Canada is multicultural, that all
cultural groups have something important to contribute to Canada, does not mean
denying the special contribution of First Nations, or of French and English
Canadians at our country's beginning.
We can never use modern multiculturalism, the
fact that we have many diverse groups today and not just two or three, as an
excuse to restrict the use of French or the rights of Aboriginal peoples. For if
it was not for our original experiences of accommodating differences,
undoubtedly the experience of more recent immigrant groups to Canada would be
one of more forced assimilation and Anglicization. The fact that Canada has long
been bilingual has helped it to become multicultural as well.
It is absurd to oppose the linguistic duality of
French and English in Canada in the name of diversity, for without that duality,
we would not have had the experience that has allowed us to embrace an even
greater diversity.
There is no contradiction between French and
English duality and multicultural diversity, but a powerful complementarity.
We need to send a signal that all of Canada's
diversity is accepted. We need to accept that there are different ways of being
Canadian.
The 1982 Constitution made much progress in this
regard, recognizing the multicultural heritage of Canadians, the existence of
Aboriginal rights, and protecting the rights of French and English speakers to
government services.
None of these recognitions has harmed Canada or
divided it. On the contrary, they have strengthened and enriched our country.
Today, we must consider adding another
constitutional recognition, a recognition of the distinctive character of Quebec
society because of its French majority, its culture, and its civil law.
It is my conviction that this recognition, like
the recognition of Aboriginal rights and our multicultural heritage in 1982,
will also strengthen Canada, and should be embraced by all citizens, especially
those who understand the desire to have multiple identities yet remain proud
Canadians.
So let us take this opportunity, whether we are
English or French speaking, whether our parents came to Canada as immigrants or
our ancestors have lived here since time immemorial, to learn from each other
and reconcile with each other.
If a community as diverse and varied as Winnipeg
can learn from its past and find ways of living together, surely that sends a
message of reconciliation to all Canadians, including Quebecers, that is an
essential step to building national unity.
Finally, we must consider what message we send as
Canadians to the world and to future generations. If a country like Canada, with
all of its wealth, with all of its history of tolerance, breaks apart, what do
we say to the world?
What do we say to countries like Zaire, with
perhaps 450 tribal and ethnic groups, that are in the middle of civil unrest?
What do we say to other countries that are facing the challenge of recognizing
minority rights?
There are some 3000 recognized ethnic and
cultural groups around the world that could call themselves "peoples"
or "nations", but fewer than 200 states. If we accept the ideology
that each people must form its own state, this planet will explode.
Laurier once said that the 20th century would
belong to Canada. Whether or not he was correct, I can say this: in the 21st
century, the whole world must become more like Canada is today.
Check against delivery.
|
