Ontario election proved funding of religious schools too close to segregation end of continuum

When John Tory was head of Rogers Cable, a job he handled with great aplomb, he supported the growth of third-language television services. Known as the "ethnic services" in CRTC-speak, he grew the carriage of the popular Asian Television Network (Indian languages) and Fairchild TV (Cantonese) among others. He was also a strong supporter of the Rogers-owned OMNI, the multilingual station, then only operating out of Toronto. He believed in the need to provide those services, but also believed in what the multilingual station brought to the Rogers broadcasting empire. Since then, Rogers' marketing strategy has very successfully expanded its cable customer base, by targeting particular ethnic communities, and highlighting the plethora of Canadian and foreign services in a multitude of languages. (Interestingly, something its counterparts, Shaw, Videotron and Cogeco have not done with the same zeal.) Was this the same philosophy that guided Tory's support for the faith-based schools? I don't know. But there are certain admirable commonalities. One, give Canadian minority groups what they want in order to maintain their culture, language and/or religion. Two, accord minorities the same rights and access as majority communities. Three, make the brand more consumer-friendly to a diversity of people, especially if your image has been relatively uni-cultural. On the surface, it would seem that what worked in cable didn't work in politics. But is it also possible that the political result is a harbinger for change? For several months leading up to the Ontario election it seemed that voters were almost evenly split between the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals. The strong conclusion about the election result now seems to be that this was one of those rare elections where a minor issue became the ballot question. Naturally, all federal parties will be trying to read the tea leaves to figure out what this means for them in the next federal election, and really whether the result bodes well for Stephen Harper or Stéphane Dion is anyone's guess. Parties have their own analyses and their own spin. An interesting analysis came from Salma Siddiqui of the Muslim Canadian Congress, the leading moderate Canadian Muslim organization. She said the controversy "should be a lesson to all Canadian politicians who seek ethnic votes by pandering to clerics and self-styled community leaders. may have worked in the past, but will not in the future." And in the post-election analysis, Lorrie Goldstein of the Ottawa Sun was doing a happy dance on the grave of multiculturalism, in a column slamming what he likes to call "government-imposed multiculturalism." Then, in an unrelated attack on the policy on the day Ontarians were voting, Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe attacked the federal multiculturalism policy saying that Ottawa's approach promotes the preservation of various ethnic heritages rather than focusing on integrating immigrants. This line of attack is of course part of a new strategy of playing to cultural insecurities in Quebec being articulated to the provincial commission on reasonable accommodation. A SOM poll released the previous day had shown a high degree of rejection among Quebecers, especially older francophones, of a series of accommodations, including the use of turbans in the RCMP, an issue that was "settled" ages ago following a controversial debate mostly in western Canada. The decision of the Mulroney government to allow turbans in the RCMP in 1990 was one of the sore points that led to the growth of the Reform Party as it tapped into public resentment. Duceppe is now trying to position his party as the only federal one that can protect Quebec's cultural identity. Before he joins Goldstein in the dance, it may be that they will be dancing on the grave that has yet to be dug. While multiculturalism certainly began with a focus on preserving cultural heritage, it has for many years been focused exactly on what Goldstein and Duceppe say it should be, namely, integration. A useful way of analysing the issue is to examine diversity along a continuum with segregation on one end, assimilation on the other, and integration somewhere in the middle. Multiculturalism evolved from segregation to integration many years ago, even though some critics missed the memo and keep flailing at the dead horse like a Don Quixote on steroids. Look at police forces, schools, community centres, health centres, factories and ... political parties. The successful ones are those that place integration high on the agenda. The ones that integrate diversity in a respectful manner cope better. (That is of course easier said than done because there are many views on what is respectful and reasonable, and this varies from issue to issue.) As the Ontario election proved, funding of religious schools was too close to the segregation end of the continuum. The status quo version approach to multiculturalism, of bringing kids of all faiths together in one system, while respecting their heritage, was the way most Ontarians wanted to go. And what is really important to observe is that the Liberals did best in the most heavily multicultural ridings in the big cities, and elected 10 visible minority members–the only party to elect any non-whites. This was not about white anglos being against the ethnics. The support for a united system was equally shared in the majority society as it was by minorities. It seems "minorities want in." To the extent there might have been an element of not wanting to fund Muslim fundamentalist madrassas, it came from many quarters. And what of the Roman Catholic separate system. It's part of our history and really most Ontarians seem to respect the fact that Canada does have a Christian history and is a predominantly Christian country. And the Catholic system has become pretty mainstream, it's not fundamentalist. No big deal. So what of the federal parties? Clearly, Duceppe has laid down his gauntlet, regardless of how outdated it might be. Expect the other parties to handle this one very, very carefully, but handle it they will have to. With the all the hullabaloo in Canada's two biggest provinces, it will surface in the upcoming federal election. Veils at the voting booth was just the first federal issue. More will follow. It's also time to think harder about bringing diversity into the mainstream of our television world, rather than increasing the number of third-language and foreign channels. First, it may be what minority viewers want and second, shouldn't we be concerned about the most powerful media in our society catering to integration rather than segregation? Andrew Cardozo chairs the New Canada Institute. He was a CRTC commissioner from 1997 to 2003. news@hilltimes.com The Hill Times

Ontario election proved funding of religious schools too close to segregation end of continuum

The status quo version approach to multiculturalism, of bringing kids of all faiths together in one system, while respecting their heritage, was the way most Ontarians wanted to go.

To keep reading, subscribe and become a political insider.

Only $7.76 a week for an annual subscription.

Become a Political Insider

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10