A short essay such as this lends itself poorly to the provision of a lengthy definition for this uniquely Canadian concept. Suffice it to say that the notion of Multiculturalism refers to a vision of Canada according to which the essence of our country cannot just be the reflection of its two largest communities, the English and the French, but is rather the result of the juxtaposition of many immigration waves. From such a perspective, the vision of Canada as a cultural "mosaic" appears legitimate. During the 1970s, believers in this theory benefited from a significant boost when Pierre Trudeau decided that the central government would actively and financially support diversity within this mosaic.

Today, while the federal government tends to refer to Multiculturalism in politically correct terms, insisting on the need to promote Equity or Diversity instead of explicitly using the word "Multiculturalism" in its pamphlets and official publications, Pierre Trudeau's legacy in this area lives on. Without any further delay, let us try to determine the extent to which the concept he was proposing has impacted unity in the country.

Canadian Multiculturalism Report Card

The balance sheet of Canada's multiculturalism achievements presents an extremely contrasted picture when it comes to Canadian unity, and the interpretation we give to this balance sheet depends to a large extent on the values which we individually hold dear. This having been said, arguments in favour of this entrenched governmental principle have been eloquently stated.

• One of the arguments most often repeated portrays multiculturalism as a trait that helps differentiate Canada from its American neighbour. The giant to the South is reputed to assimilate immigrants as soon as they set foot on American soil by means of its famous "Melting Pot". Canada on the other hand strives to treat new comers more patiently and as potential contributors to its mosaic.
• Moreover, here in Canada, multiculturalism has become synonymous with tolerance. And the tolerance for diversity, which characterizes so many of our fellow citizens, offers a model to be followed by the rest of the world, illustrating how several ethnic groups can reside, cooperate and prosper on the same territory.
• In addition, multiculturalism tends to make life in Canada more exciting than in more homogeneous lands, where everybody dresses, behaves or thinks almost in the same manner. Apostles of the multicultural doctrine argue that they can walk in a neighbourhood, delight in smelling a variety of fragrances, enjoy different foods, experiment unusual flavours, and that inevitably, this wonderful cacophony makes our society richer and more vibrant.

This enchanting portrait of multiculturalism regrettably must be counterbalanced by less flattering observations.

• Firstly and paradoxically, multiculturalism isn't that popular amongst the immigrants themselves. New Canadians, who would be chiefly concerned by that governmental policy, have a single purpose in mind upon arriving in this country. And it is to join one or the other of our two linguistic groups, and to fit in. Typically, their children very early on learn to adore fast food and, in most of cases, will adopt Canadian traditions instead of remaining tied to the ones of their country of origin.
• Canadian diversity, which is gaining so much prominence in large urban centers, does not originate with multiculturalism as a government policy. The result which we observe daily in our streets has more to do with the fact that potential immigrants perceive Canada as a prosperous country and one of the few places on earth where land is still available. A city such as Toronto today presents a striking resemblance to the city of New York of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the rate of assimilation in both places being absolutely comparable.
• What is most distressing about multiculturalism is the fact that it tends to negate the importance of the contract which binds the English-speaking majority and the French-speaking minority. As soon as Francophones in Canada are placed on the same footing as more recently arrived ethnic groups, they risk feeling devalued and deprived of their inherited rights. There is no doubt that multiculturalism increases the feeling of alienation amongst Canadians of French extraction, particularly if they are placed in the same basket as immigrants of China, Pakistan or Poland (who, incidentally, have no objections to the being placed in any non offensive basket).
• Finally, to the extent that Multiculturalism, using taxpayer money, encourages certain ethnic communities to live in a closed and inward-looking society, it can hardly be considered as positive force for the unity of the country. In fact, it may well be achieving the opposite effect. One has only to think of the financing of certain schools where the main language of interaction is neither English nor French, or the subsidized creation of Community Centers exclusively devoted to a particular ethnic group.

Conclusion

Clearly, Multiculturalism will continue for the foreseeable future to raise controversy from East to West. What seems to emerge however, is doubt concerning the compatibility of the 30 year-old concept with the cause of Canadian unity. Once again, everything depends on the perspective one will adopt. But at this point in time, the determining factor for the survival of the Canadian federation no longer seems to lie in the promotion of our differences. On the contrary, it is a safe bet that, at the end of the day, the fate of our political and sociological experiment will be decided more conventionally through the recognition of our duality and our willingness to accommodate First Nations members.