An unfriendly future?

Editorial

As much as British Columbians detest the fact, most major political decisions in this country emanate from Quebec and Ontario. So it is with some interest that we should be observing recent developments in those two provinces, which may have portents for the future of multiculturalism in Canada.

In Ontario, the provincial Liberal party was recently reelected, in a landslide, after a campaign dominated by the issue of parochial schooling. The Conservative party, led by the aptly named John Tory, proposed at the outset of the campaign that Jewish, Muslim and other religious schools should have the same, full funding levels as public and Catholic schools. In Ontario, the separation of education systems between general and Catholic schools has roots back to the time of Confederation. Because of minority concerns (of Protestants in Quebec and Catholics in Ontario), a compromise was created in the British North America Act whereby separate school systems were created in both provinces for Catholic and Protestant students. As multiculturalism grew, provinces responded differently. In Ontario, the Protestant school system evolved into a secular public system, integrating waves of immigrant children, while the Catholic system remained both Catholic and public. (Most provinces, including British Columbia, provide partial funding to Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Sikh and other faith-based schools, but do not cover the entirety of the budget.)

But the issue caught fire in ways Tory – and political observers – did not expect. The incumbent Liberals exploited the issue, warning that encouraging separate schools would be divisive to society. It is safe to say this was the most dynamic issue in the election and the results have been interpreted as a referendum on faith-based school funding. Last week, Tory declared the issue dead, based on the unambiguous message he got from the electorate.

Jewish and other faith groups are not so sure. Canadian Jewish Congress, Ontario Region, has invested massive amounts of political capital in this issue. They seem unlikely to walk away from it after a single election setback. (It will be interesting to see how this provincial election impacts on the federal Conservative party's outreach to the Jewish community, given that it could be argued this core issue advanced by the Jewish community was responsible for tanking the provincial Conservative campaign.)

The most likely resolution now is that faith groups will go to the courts for remedy. Given the strength of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is hard to imagine how a province could justify before the courts the funding of one religious group's education system, but not that of others.

These details aside, the election result (and the campaign that preceded it) was not reassuring to Canadians who cherish multiculturalism. There was, based on the election's outcome, a message that equal funding for non-Catholic schools was not something Ontarians would consider a reasonable accommodation.

Reasonable accommodation, meanwhile, is the top issue playing out in Quebec right now, too. Given a series of incidents that brought the issue of reasonable accommodation to the fore, the province appointed a commission to review attitudes. It's not encouraging.

Respected Quebecers Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor are travelling the province gauging the public's willingness to accommodate cultural difference, such as the wearing of religious or cultural garments and the provision of certain services to minority groups.

The first hint that things were going to turn ridiculous came before the Bouchard-Taylor Commission even began, when the council of the small town of Hérouxville, which boasts almost no immigrants whatsoever, passed a "code of life" setting out parameters under which immigrants would be welcomed to their community. The list of prohibited behaviors included public stonings, burnings and female circumcision.

These acts are already forbidden under Canadian law; there was no need for reiteration by the burghers of Hérouxville. The code was not an act of good faith by a people genuinely concerned about their community. This was a provocative act driven by impulses not of the positive sort.

The commission, for its part, is being received by Quebec society as a carte blanche to set free its erstwhile latent intolerance. To hear the litany of xenophobia and hysteria demonstrated by ordinary Quebecers makes one fear for the future of multiculturalism.

It has always been a legitimate fear that multiculturalism would prove to be more an illusion conjured by federal legislation than a genuine and essential thread in our social fabric. Recent events in Ontario and Quebec suggest respect for cultural difference may not be as deeply rooted as we'd like to think. This is not to say multiculturalism should always be problem-free. But it appears that, when asked what "accommodations" are "reasonable," a huge number of Canadians are ready to answer: none.

^TOP