"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.

Return to regular web page:
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?Language=E&Page=pressroom&Sub=Speeches&Doc=19970313_e.htm