Canadian dilemmas
By Mark Wegierski
web posted March 22, 2004
Canada today, despite its great over-all wealth, is a society of contrasts.
While the problem of Quebec separatism which was so central in Canadian history
since the 1960s appears to be fading, there are many new challenges arising.
While Canada is still, to a large extent, a more pleasant place to live than
the United States (especially when one compares life in the two countries'
large cities), there are many issues looming on the horizon which can prove
severe challenges to a safe, civil, prosperous life -- the permanence of
which all too many Canadians today take for granted. There are a number of
substantial differences between the Canadian and American societies today,
which may well have a profound impact on the type of future the countries
will have.
One important difference between Canada and the U.S. is the absence of a
more organized, coherent, political Right in Canada. While there are many
similarities between the left-liberal media, academic, cultural, judicial,
and governmental establishments in Canada and the U.S., Canada manifestly
lacks a rambunctious right-wing. In the U.S., there is a wide-ranging and
extensive debate among various groupings of the broader right-wing, including
paleoconservatives, neoconservatives, right-wing Greens, libertarians, paleolibertarians,
classical liberals, "social conservatives of the Left" (such as
Christopher Lasch), and religious conservatives (sometimes called "theo-cons").
On October 16, 2003, the prospects of the broader Right in Canada brightened
somewhat for the first time in decades. Overcoming years of negativity, the
Canadian Alliance (which had emerged out of the Reform Party of Canada in
1998-2000), and the federal Progressive Conservative party agreed to unite
themselves as the Conservative Party of Canada (the former name of the Progressive
Conservatives from decades ago). The agreement was indeed overwhelmingly
approved by the respective party memberships by December 12, 2003, launching
the new party's leadership selection process, which culminated on March 20,
2004. The union of the two parties will certainly stiffen the challenge to
Canada's perennially ruling federal Liberal Party (which had won elections
with comfortable majorities in 1993, 1997, and 2000) and had also been in
power from 1963 to 1984 (except for nine months in 1979-80), and indeed for
nearly all of the Twentieth Century.
There at least two major factors that contribute to a more politically conservative
U.S. -- the first being that, as "the one remaining superpower," the
United States cherishes and effectively maintains its military; and secondly,
the large presence of Christian religion in the U.S. (including both Protestant
fundamentalists and traditionalist Catholics).
It should also be remembered that taxation is low in the U.S., relative
to Canada; that U.S. gun-control legislation is minimal, relative to Canada;
and that the U.S. medical system is largely driven by free-enterprise, relative
to Canada. In regard to immigration, Canada has received since 1988 about
a quarter-million immigrants a year, after an average of about 130,000 immigrants
a year since
1965 -- about 75% of them from non-traditional sources. (The population of
Canada is now about 31 million.) Unlike the U.S., where there is some degree
of criticism of mass, dissimilar immigration permitted, this is virtually
a closed issue in Canada.
Canada has also been a pioneer in the area of multiculturalism -- the city
of Toronto today is probably the most diverse city in the world, with over
80 groups represented. All levels of government (federal, provincial, and
municipal) are required to support the cultural endeavors of ethnic groups,
to some extent. Ethnic groups also claim absolute cultural self-determination,
rejecting the earlier assimilation model. Multiculturalism today may really
be called multiracialism, as it is "visible minorities" (a
term officially used in Canada), rather than "white ethnics" such
as Ukrainian-, Italian-, Portuguese-, and Polish-Canadians, that are overwhelmingly
the focus of government, media, and corporate concern.
Related to multiculturalism is "employment equity" (the Canadian
term for affirmative action), which operates on behalf of the following "designated
groups" -- women, visible minorities, aboriginal peoples, and persons
with disabilities -- in all levels of government, as well as in much of the
private sector. In one major "pay equity" settlement, the Canadian
Human Rights Commission (a quasi-judicial tribunal) ordered the Federal Government
to pay $3.5 billion (Canadian) to women working or formerly working for the
Federal Government. (By contrast, the entire budget for the Canadian military
in the year 2000 was $10 billion.)
The aboriginal peoples of Canada (Indians, Metis, and Inuit) are now hoping
to wrest vast resources and territories from other Canadians, based on re-negotiation
of earlier treaties and claims of compensation for past abuse. In Canada's
Far North, a semi-sovereign entity called Nunavut has been created, and has
already received $580 million (Canadian) in about one year, to cover its
budget deficit. In attempting to explain how the money going to aboriginal
peoples has apparently not yet benefited the average aboriginal person, some
critics have suggested that a small circle of aboriginal leaders and activists
-- while living extravagant lifestyles themselves -- often does not pass
on many of the benefits to their group as a whole.
In August 2002, there was an attempt to further entrench "employment
equity" in the Federal Civil Service -- twenty percent of all new hirings
were to be visible minorities, and senior managers were to receive performance
bonuses depending on how many visible minorities they hired. Although there
were a few scattered voices of protest, this in fact seemed like a continuation
of policies that had been in place for at least thirty years.
As far as disabled persons, they have probably been included under employment
equity to give the policy an increased aura of "kindness" and "compassion." It
could be argued that there is not all that much being done for most disabled
persons today, apart from giving them disability support payments and some
subsidies for housing and assistive devices, which are not excessively generous.
However, the inclusion of disabled persons as a "designated group" inclines
this rather heterogeneous category of people (and their care-givers) to support
the current-day regime, and significantly increases the social stigma of
publicly challenging employment equity.
Canada is also permeated by the bilingualism (French and English) policy.
This means that Canada is an officially bilingual state, and that most positions
(and especially senior positions) in the Federal Civil Service require knowledge
of both French and English. The effect of this has been to increase the chances
of French-Canadians and members of Canada's liberal English-speaking elites
(more of whom tend to be bilingual) to obtain civil service positions. It
has tended to discriminate against ordinary, English-speaking Canadians.
New Brunswick, an Atlantic Maritime province with a French-speaking population
of about 35%, is fully officially bilingual, and Ontario, with a French-speaking
population of 5%, has very extensive bilingual policies, at the provincial level. However, the predominantly French-speaking province of Quebec, where
one of seven inhabitants doesn't have French as a first language, embraces
unilingualism in its government and official policy: French only.
Most government (typically white-collar) jobs at the federal, provincial,
or municipal levels are often considered to be relatively easy to do, with
comparatively large benefits (relative to private sector compensations),
so policies such as employment equity tend to exclude increasing numbers
of persons (especially able-bodied white males) from remunerative employment.
It now sometimes happens that persons are hired only if they bridge two or
three designated categories. The government sector is also clearly permeated
by varying degrees of political correctness, so a person with more conservative
or traditionalist views is unlikely to be hired, and, even if hired, they
may end up in a miserable situation, with constant stress and little chance
for advancement.
The intellectual, cultural, and academic life of Canada is clearly dominated
to a greater extent by political correctness than is the case in the United
States. Unlike the U.S., homeschooling is comparatively rare in Canada, there
are fewer private schools at the primary and secondary level, and there are
very few private, post-secondary institutions. The hundreds of private, more
traditional, usually religious-affiliated colleges in the U.S. allow for
the existence of a community of more traditionally-oriented scholars, that
can have some effect on U.S. politics. Intelligent persons of conservative
or traditionalist outlooks are almost completely isolated in Canada, and
have almost no hope of achieving the dream of a tenured academic appointment
-- or, for that matter, of obtaining a doctoral degree at a major Canadian
university. Policies similar to employment equity operate, de jure or de
facto, at virtually every Canadian university. These determine admissions
(to undergraduate, as well as graduate programs -- and especially to professional
programs like law and medicine); the disbursement of scholarships and other
aid to students; and the hiring of all academic faculty, librarians, library
assistants, and other academic and non-academic support staff.
The Canadian media, including the publishing world, is also more hostile
to persons of conservative or traditionalist outlooks than is the case in
the United States. The so-called "alternative media" and "alternative
publishers" in Canada usually embrace very left-wing outlooks and are
even more hostile to conservatives than the so-called mainstream publishers.
So, again, we see the Right being stymied in Canada. Even the sharpest and
most reflective persons of conservative or traditionalist outlooks in Canada
are highly unlikely to achieve the dream of becoming opinion-columnists in
Canadian newspapers, or acclaimed authors with books appearing with credible
publishers. Virtually the entire government-subsidized world of "CanLit" is
inimical to conservatism.
The atrophy of the broader Right in Canada means that Canadians are cut
off from many stimulating intellectual and creative ideas and political options.
It also means that any remaining socially conservative instincts of the general
populace are untutored, and therefore easily pejoritized as "bigotry" by
the left-liberal elites. Many people go through their entire lives in Canada
without ever hearing even one seriously-presented, conservative or traditionalist
argument. It could be argued that it is diversity of thought that
is the most important, and most Canadians of any cultural or social group
will never
get beyond the prevalent, politically-correct, dogmas and taboos.
Because of the near-atrophy of traditional religion in Canada, the gay rights
and radical feminist agendas have certainly advanced further than is the
case in the United States, especially with the recent endorsement of "gay
marriage" by the federal government. The birthrate in Canada has also
fallen far below replacement level, in marked contrast to the United States,
where even the birthrate of "non-Hispanic white" women is comparatively
high. At the same time, Canada has a very high rate of abortion. There is
a general climate of social decadence, ill-discipline, and a never-ending
war against the so-called "authoritarian personality."
Many Canadians are to some extent accepting of all these various Canadian
syndromes because they are linked to a very generous welfare-state. Apart
from the obvious "true believers" in the left-liberal cadres (most
of whom also clearly enjoy very comfortable lives), most ordinary people
also tend to fall into line, unwilling to jeopardize their public sector
job, or the government subsidy to their business, for the sake of what seem
like distant and questionable notions.
It should also be pointed out that Canada prides itself on its very generous
medical system. The issue of healthcare is growing increasingly salient in
Canada, especially with a rapidly-aging population. It seems that many people
would be willing to ignore virtually anything, if they could be guaranteed
high-quality medical care.
At the same time, Canada today fails to meet many of the traditional criteria
of a state. It fails to properly control its borders, and its armed forces
have been critically underfunded, to a point of near-atrophy. The federal
government has been able to achieve a budget surplus owing mainly to the
high income tax rates; the 7% Goods and Services Tax (which is levied on
virtually all economic activity); the reform of Unemployment Insurance (now
called Employment Insurance), which significantly cut benefits; the so-called
clawback of Old Age Pensions, over a certain, relatively modest income threshold;
and the reduction of federal transfer payments for healthcare to the provinces.
Prime Minister Jean Chretien, whose date of retirement was accelerated from
February 2004 to mid-November 2003, also ramped up so-called "legacy" social
spending in his last year in office, in order to be fondly remembered by
the population.
The Canadian Alliance (which arose out of the Reform Party of Canada in
1998-2000) had formed the Official Opposition -- the second-largest party
in the Federal Parliament -- electing 66 MPs in November 2000 -- while the
federal Progressive Conservative party had elected 12 MPs in that election.
It should be pointed out that the Reform Party of Canada, co-founded in 1987
by Preston Manning, was indeed much different from the U.S. Reform Party
(especially in its Buchananite incarnation). The frequent characterization
of the often very moderate Canadian Reformers as "far right" in
the Canadian and U.S. media is simply inaccurate. The Reform Party/Canadian
Alliance had also been perennially dismissed as merely a regional party,
since it drew most of its strength from Western Canada, and especially the
province of Alberta. It had also been significantly hindered by the continuing
presence of the "ultra-moderate" federal Progressive Conservative
party.
Since even the new Conservative Party may have a very difficult time winning
a majority in the Federal Parliament, the question which arises is if the
presence of a coherent, center-right alternative could perhaps nudge certain
factions of the Liberal Party in a more rightward direction. The ascent of
Paul Martin, Jr., formerly the Liberal Finance Minister (credited with the
federal budget surpluses of the last few years), to the leadership of the
Liberal Party, and the Prime Ministership, may create the possibility of
a more truly centrist Liberal Party.
There is also the fact that left-wing and far-left infrastructures such
as feminist groups (who are indeed often tightly enmeshed with governmental
bureaucracies) outweigh in resources such right-wing infrastructures (such
as, most notably, the almost entirely economically focussed National Citizens'
Coalition and Fraser Institute think-tank) by astronomical factors. It is
this lack of a major institutional infrastructure or framework (for example,
no galvanizing right-of-center magazine that could play a role like the early National Review in
the United States) -- that is probably the gravest weakness of the Canadian
Right. There is also a fundamental lack in Canada of something
like the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which publishes fine scholarly
quarterlies and books, and constitutes a good focus for a more elevated sort
of traditionalism and conservatism. The academic engagement and scholarships
offered by ISI have played a major role in the ongoing "culture wars" in
America.
Although there is a quite substantial amount of debate about economic issues
and economic conservatism, as far as social conservatism and right-wing patriotism,
these have almost no register on the Canadian political scene. Left-liberals
are quite content to allow the presence of a soulless "managerial Right" that
manages the economy -- so long as they themselves get to control all social
and cultural issues.
A major focus of the Right in Canada was, until recently, The Report (formerly
appearing under the names Alberta Report, British Columbia Report,
and Western Report) which had about 50,000 subscribers, mostly in
Alberta. However, the magazine has now folded. In March 2004, a new magazine
called Western Standard is being launched, which might be able
to grow to fill a role once held by the Report magazines. Some Canadian
newspapers, notably The National Post (formerly owned by Canadian-born
conservative press baron Conrad Black, who has now basically withdrawn to
Britain -- and is now embroiled
in a deep scandal of his own), had some degree of right-wing content, including
a few surprisingly acerbic columnists. However, the conservative presence
in The National Post (the newspaper had only been founded in 1998),
and other daily papers formerly owned by Black in the Southam chain has greatly
diminished after their takeover by the longtime prominent Liberal Izzy Asper
(the owner of a television network and several radio stations in Canada).
There are now a handful of conservative opinion-columnists, and a few prominent
conservative academics, especially in Alberta. There are also a few smaller
socially traditionalist publications, such as The Interim: Canada's
Life and Family Newspaper, and Catholic Insight (Toronto).
However, this is all very, very little, compared with the comparatively
massive right-wing presence in the United States. The presence of a large,
organized, political Right in the U.S., and its virtual absence in Canada,
will probably lead to increasingly divergent futures
for both countries. Many of the more pleasant aspects of life in Canada are
likely to disappear with the increasing triumph of ever-more-insistent, utterly
unchecked and unimpeded left-liberal and far-left policies. The political
situation in Canada, with the virtual non-existence of a serious, intellectual
Right, cannot be described as healthy for Canadian society.
Persons of traditionalist or conservative outlooks in Canada are faced with
the unappealing prospect of the spiraling into oblivion of many congenial
aspects of Canada, about which they can do virtually nothing. Their feelings
of chronic hopelessness may perhaps to some extent be assuaged by looking
to more hopeful developments in the United States, or in Europe and Russia.
If the center-right fails to ever achieve a majority in the Federal Parliament,
there will come increased calls for regional devolution, so that, for example,
Alberta or all of Western Canada may carry out social and economic policies
more congenial to itself. This regional devolution would also coincidentally
address many of the problems which Quebec has had with Canada, and possibly
reinforce the more traditionalist, more inward-looking aspects of Quebecois
nationalism. Such scenarios of regional devolution might, ironically, perhaps
be the best hope for some fragmentary survival of traditionalism and conservatism
in Canada.
Mark Wegierski is a Canadian writer and historical researcher.
Printer friendly version |
| |
|