Dr. Lupul blasts Reform Party's anti-multiculturalism platform

by Andrij Makuch

EDMONTON - Speaking on March 24 to an audience at the University of Alberta, Dr. Manoly Lupul, former director of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies and a long-standing proponent of substantive multicultural policies, examined the origins and ideological underpinnings of what he termed a contemporary "political attack on multiculturalism."

The specific occasion was the annual Shevchenko Lecture sponsored by the Ukrainian Canadian Professional and Business Club of Edmonton. The broader context, however, was the launching of a rounded rebuttal to a virulent assault on the concept of multiculturalism in Canada. The particular object of discussion was the Reform Party of Canada, which Dr. Lupul noted "is as badly misnamed as [are] Vladimir Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democrats in Russia."

For the record, Dr. Lupul's presentation was formally titled "Multiculturalism, Ethnic Studies, and the Present Economic Crisis in Alberta."

As a take-off point for his remarks, Dr. Lupul cited a Decima Research survey from 1993, which indicated that today a solid majority of Canadians are opposed to the concept of cultural diversity and feel that ethnic minorities should "try harder to fit into mainstream society." Most prominent among those voicing such opinions, claimed Dr. Lupul, were members of the Reform Party - the ultra-conservative political grouping that has developed a substantial following in English Canada.

The crux of the matter then followed. Dr. Lupul noted that the Reformers, even though formally constituted only at the federal level, were having a major impact at the provincial level (particularly in Alberta) because "their social philosophy has saturated Canada's political atmosphere and, as a result, right-wing values are now driving the political agendas of most governments in Canada..." The significance of this for ethnic Canadians (especially Ukrainian Canadians) is that the Reformers' political agenda "is inimical to the multicultural agenda at precisely its most vulnerable point, namely, the public validation of ethnicity through state encouragement and support," Dr. Lupul noted. As a result, ethnic Canadians have been placed on "a collision course" with the Reform-minded at a time when the latter are on the rise.

Underlying all this is a marked disparity in perception about the function of the state in respect to ethnic minorities. Dr. Lupul noted that the contemporary policy of multiculturalism developed out of "the need to have Canada's cultural diversity accepted as a part of the country's public philosophy" and that this need "be reflected in its public institutions." In this quest the state played a critical role in providing a favorable political environment in which cultural diversity could flourish and multiculturalism could attain an institutional reality.

Against this background, achievements including (among others for Ukrainian Canadians) the English-Ukrainian bilingual school programs in the prairie provinces, the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies and the Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village in Alberta, the Ukrainian Museum of Canada in Saskatoon, the Center for Ukrainian Canadian Studies in Winnipeg, and the Chair of Ukrainian Studies in Toronto, were realized.

In these, the state played a prominent role in providing full, matched or partial funding. More significant, Dr. Lupul pointed out, was the implicit acceptance that "it was time that the wider society, through the state, [recognize] and [meet] the cultural aspirations of all its peoples."

The Reformers, noted the speaker, see things differently. One of the "four great themes" on which they campaigned in 1993 was "the need to move beyond the old line parties," definition of Canada as a partnership of cultural and linguistic groups, to a new vision of Canada as a partnership of equal provinces and citizens. From this follows the Reformers' policy toward multiculturalism (cited from the party's Blue Sheet stating its "principles, policies, and [1993] election platform"):

"A. The Reform Party stands for the acceptance and integration of immigrants to Canada into the mainstream of Canadian life. The Reform Party would focus federal government activities on enhancing the citizenship of all Canadians regardless of race, language or culture.

"B. The Reform Party supports the principle that individuals or groups are free to preserve their cultural heritage using their own resources. The party shall uphold their right to do so.

"C. The Reform Party of Canada opposes the current concept of multiculturalism and hyphenated Canadianism pursued by the government of Canada. We would end funding of the multicultural program and support the abolition of the Department of Multiculturalism."

One ostensible starting point for this attack was the need to bring under control the state spending that (paraphrased by Dr. Lupul) "gave us our welfare state... including the spending which promoted the welfare of ethnic groups under the wasteful and unnecessary umbrella of multiculturalism." But the real reason, noted the speaker, is not just money: "it is a matter or principle."

According to Dr. Lupul, to find just what is at play one need only to look at the pronouncements of Reform leader Preston Manning and his father, Ernest Manning (the premier of Alberta from 1943 to I968), whose economic, political and religious outlook seem to have passed into his son. For decades the Mannings have been "urging a greatly diminished role for the state in all things - health, education, and, of course, multi-culturalism" (the latter even before the term was coined).

In 1967, the Mannings' "A White Paper on Human Resources Development" looked at the question of cultural diversity as being a matter "rightfully belonging to the private sphere...rather than public jurisdiction" and discussed it under the rubric of "A Separation of Race and State." Not surprisingly, this viewpoint was adopted as policy by the Reform Party in the late 1980s.

This viewpoint, Dr. Lupul observed, is driven by a fundamentalist religious ideology: "What really moved the Mannings - what makes them so certain, so sure of themselves, what makes them so righteous - is their religious belief. To them as evangelical preachers (Preston preached on his father's "Back to the Bible" program until 1988), ethnicity as a center of identity is a poor second to God." People "who know God's will, as do the Mannings," "know what is right and good morally" and "need only a minimalist state socially to ensure their welfare and security." In the classical philosophical division between individual and society (as well as heredity and environment) they side entirely with the individual and the "strong family units" that are provided by those who recognize "the Sovereignty of God."

There is also a general belief accompanying such a viewpoint that many of the ills of society - drug addiction, violence and crime, homosexuality, AIDS and so forth - are the results of individuals straying from the word of God. And it is that type that looks to government (through "welfare statism") "to furnish remedies for such evils on the backs of righteous Reformers and their tax dollars."

In effect, they believe that society as a whole would be better if individuals looked to God rather than "supportive economic and social environments" to "develop good human beings" and deal with the ills of society. This viewpoint is extended to the question of cultural pluralism: one should look to personal and corporate charity rather than state program or government subsidies for support.

"Thus," remarked Dr. Lupul, "the ideological roots of today's most trenchant opponents of multiculturalism run deep, and the withdrawal of state support for multiculturalism is part of a well worked-out position for a severely limited role for government in all areas of human life." He also noted ironically that the Party Reform opposed state aid for the cultural needs for "the very ethnocultural groups who usually have the strongest commitment to family [and community] values."

Dr. Lupul's presentation then moved on to a rebuttal of some of the premises upon which the Reform position is based. First and foremost is the question of an interventionist state, which, Dr. Lupul reminded the audience, has been an integral part of Canadian political culture as early as the days of the United Empire Loyalists: "the American habit of continually polarizing the individual and the state in a fundamental distrust of government is just not part of the Canadian tradition." This precept seems largely lost on "oil patch Albertans" who are the strongest backers of the Reform Party.

Subsequent points were phrased in a rhetorical manner, with the speaker asking why Canadian intellectuals, particularly those in academia (especially in Canadian - including ethnic - studies), have been relatively silent in responding to the challenge raised by the Reformers. The first matter addressed was "the fact that there is no real shortage of wealth in Canada," with the speaker suggesting that the current system of taxation could be overhauled in an equitable manner that could address concerns regarding deficit problems.

This issue was particularly salient to the province of Alberta (the focus of the presentation), which has a lower tax rate than other Canadian provinces (including no sales tax). As well, it is relevant to middle class Canadians, whose fury with successive waves of tax increase has helped fuel Reform success.

The next point suggested that commentators are ignoring the fact that the Reform attack on multiculturalism could very well be constituted as a new manifestation of the nativism that "periodically raises its head" in Canada, particularly in times of crisis. "Today the crisis is economic, and not surprisingly the cry against 'hyphenated Canadianism' is once again on the lips of many Canadians, led by our so-called Reformers." This observation was accentuated by a note that the region which has provided the strongest base of Reform support - southern Alberta - had been settled largely by immigrants predominantly from the "preferred" category in an "ethnic pecking order" of what had once been termed "desirable immigrant groups."

Finally, the speaker raised the fundamental issue of just what constitutes legitimate interests in a democratic society. The starting point for this discussion emerged from the observation that the Reform-minded "reject multiculturalism on the grounds that it favors special interests."

Dr. Lupul countered with the observation that "they should be reminded that in pluralistic, democratic societies all interests are special interests," including professions, labor, banks, churches, sports and artistic groups, environmentalisms, feminists, guns owners, and so forth.

To the Reformers, however, "the most special interests are mainstream interests," which can be defined largely as those interests the Reformers favor "and which others would also favor, if they ignored the views of political and intellectual elites and relied only on their common sense."

The speaker then noted that the Mannings should recognize that, as devout Baptists, they, as much as any ethnics, are members of a special interest group. And that they benefit from tax breaks for their Church and government support for their private religious schools (the later being a policy instituted by the elder Manning).

To deny comparable consideration to ethnic interests simply constitutes a double standard on their part. "State support which makes it easier for religious special interests to retain their religious faith is fine; but state support which makes it easier for ethnic special interests to retain their ancestral cultures or for racial special interests to overcome racist barriers through government equity programs is somehow preposterous. What incredible reasoning! As if the ethnics were mere rip-off artists and the evangelicals saints!"

Dr. Lupul then addressed the question of ethnic studies per se, with a note that the institutions dealing in this realm are generally small and fairly fragile. Bilingual education was singled out first, with the observation that when even official bilingualism programs are under attack, "what can the supporters of school programs in non-official languages expect?" Any outright assault on these could be challenged in the courts, but the process would be long and costly, and the programs might well not survive the ordeal.

On another matter, the projected budget cut of 20 percent for the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies "would be crippling at a time when the university's much larger budget would only be wounded."

In the last part of his address, Dr. Lupul dealt with the question of why the audience should be concerned about the Reformers. At one level, as a group of professional and business people, they might be concerned that future generations have equal opportunity to benefit from society as they had, particularly with respect to education. At another level, as Ukrainian Canadians, they "should take seriously the political threat to multicultural policies and programs," particularly since as a group Ukrainians were instrumental in initiating the policy.

His final point, however, was perhaps the most revealing. Dr. Lupul remarked that his comments were non-partisan and that he was not advocating support for any political party. His concern was for the respect of cultural diversity, a "fundamental reality of Canadian society" which "is now finally above politics."

"For some two decades all political parties have been working to maintain a positive social environment under which cultural diversity would thrive within the public fabric of Canadian society...I am glad that for the first time in Canadian history, people who are culturally different in religion, color and ethnic origin - and especially their children - can walk with greater dignity under the hard-won official umbrella of multiculturalism...," Dr. Lupul said. The Reformers "would reverse all this, and that is why they are so dangerous."

These closing remarks captured the tone of Dr. Lupul's presentation. The speaker left no doubt whatsoever as to his opinion of the Reform Party and its ideology. But more importantly, he placed his comments within the context of his view of multiculturalism and Canadian society.

The address contained several philosophical meanders that presented - perhaps for the first time so openly in public - a summation of Dr. Lupul's personal conception of multiculturalism. It was, in effect, a distillation of his own ideas on the subject. At the same time, it was a call for the community to recognize and deal with a group that would make Canada a "meaner" place and whose narrow-minded philosophy - if unchallenged - could run roughshod over multiculturalism as public policy.

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, May 15, 1994, No. 20, Vol. LXII

| Home Page |