We Are the World, But Is That a Good Thing?

  By Henry Srebrnik, [Saint John, N.B.] Telegraph-Journal

A century ago, Canada’s contacts with the rest of the world were almost wholly through Great Britain and the United States. Today, though, Canadian politicians, in particular Liberals, pride themselves on saying “we are the world,” and “diversity is our strength.”

But this also makes the country a zone of conflict. The world has many problems, and since Canada is now in effect a multicultural collection of ethnic and religious diasporas, these problems play out on the streets of the big cities and all the way into parliament.

Globalization and development in communication technology has brought diaspora politics to the forefront. Armenians, Bosnians, Chinese, Greeks, Haitians, Indians, Iranians, Jews, Lebanese, Palestinians, Poles, Tamils, Ukrainians, and different – sometimes antagonistic -- peoples from India and Pakistan, as well as many others, live here. The list goes on.

Not surprisingly, they show strong interest in, and advocate for, policies affecting their countries of origin, especially if these homelands are involved in war or human rights abuses. Some, though citizens, even live permanently in their original homelands, and Canada faces the task of helping them come back here when there’s trouble. This happened in Lebanon in 2006 and now in Israel and Gaza.

This complicates Canada’s foreign policy. It often seems as if that, too, is driven by politicians and organizations concerned with supporting their ethnic homelands (or opposing those of their overseas adversaries). The result becomes a patchwork of conflicting and incoherent sets of policies emanating from Ottawa.

Earlier this year, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s announcement that the government had “credible allegations” of a link between agents of the government of India and the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, an outspoken British Columbia supporter of a separate homeland, Khalistan, for the Sikhs in parts of the Indian state of Punjab.

This provoked a firestorm of angry denunciations from Indian authorities that fractured bilateral relations. India has long expressed concern to Canada about the immigration of Sikh extremists. But diaspora politics comes into play. In 2019, the government included 16 Sikh MPs, four of whom were cabinet ministers, along with their coalition partner, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh.

However, Canada’s Hindu Indian population finds itself on the opposing side in this, and India’s Minister of External Affairs, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, has accused Canada of giving “operating space” to terrorists and extremists “because of the compulsions of Canadian politics.”

Then there has been the embarrassment of Chinse interference in Canadian elections, which includes pressuring Chinese Canadians into supporting Beijing’s policies. Again, this is another case of an ethnic bloc that the Liberals have courted for votes, so it’s no surprise China might want to make sure that they in turn bring China’s concerns to the party. It’s only natural – after all, both sides find it advantageous to treat them as a cohesive, undifferentiated, whole.

Canada has a large Ukrainian diaspora and Chrystia Freeland, our deputy prime minister and finance minister, is of Ukrainian heritage and retains very close ties to that country. Canada suffered a major embarrassment in September during President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to Ottawa when the House of Commons unintentionally honored a 98-year-old veteran who fought for the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, a Nazi-controlled unit of Ukrainian collaborators during the Second War.

Sometimes Canadians even end up physically fighting other Canadians over disputes ongoing in their countries of origin. This was the case recently when groups of Eritreans in various cities clashed over Eritrean domestic politics.

Now we see foreign policy becoming a football among two dueling ethno-religious diasporas. Jewish Canadians face off against Arab and Muslim ones as the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas rages on.

The Liberal caucus includes many politicians of the Muslim faith, including Omar Alghabra, Yasir Naqvi, Salma Zahid, and Sameer Zuberi, and they are among the 23 Liberal MPS who wrote a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau calling on him to advocate for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

Other Liberal MPs, including Ben Carr and Anthony Housefather, who are both Jewish, have spoken against calls for a ceasefire, citing Israel's right to defend itself. (There are six Jewish Liberal MPs now, and 11 Muslim ones.) 

Trudeau finds himself having to placate the factions in his divided caucus, but all he could respond with was the usual pablum, reminding us that “this is Canada, and here our differences must and will remain a source of strength.” In fact it has made Canada seem adrift, as if it has outsourced foreign policy to those who are most affected by these events.

The “Trudeau Doctrine,” as one columnist derisively described it, is dictated by diaspora politics. Chinese, Sikh and Muslim voters, for example, are crucial in various British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec ridings, and they outnumber Jews.

What we are really facing is that events around the world increasingly foster sharp divisiveness in our ever more heterogeneous Canadian society. As our population gets more and more diverse, the multiplicity of views will grow.

In a country where no one speaks about the national interest, will a truly made-in-Canada foreign policy even continue to exist? Far-left ideologues have taken to referring to “so-called” Canada. Are they right? Is Canada slowly dissolving and becoming little more than a land mass?