The 2013 Ismaili Centre Lecture

DECEMBER 1, 2013

Good Afternoon. And thank you.

It's a pleasure to be here again in B.C. and a great honour to be invited by my friends and colleagues in the Aga Khan Development Network to deliver the 2013 Ismaili Centre Lecture.

I feel that when I am with followers and admirers of the Aga Khan, I am always in good company, although it is with some embarrassment and a request for forgiveness that I admit here publicly that this is my first visit to the glorious and, in many ways, historic Burnaby centre, nearly 30 years after its opening.

I have followed the Aga Khan network for many years. As a foreign correspondent in the 1990s, I reported on AKDN projects in rural Gujarat, the mountain villages of Gilgit in Pakistan's northern territories, and in the bustling slums of Nairobi. I've interviewed His Highness the Aga Khan, in Ottawa and Toronto. Earlier this year, I was fortunate to be invited to an evening with Kofi Annan and His Highness at the stunning Delegation of the Ismaili Imamat in Ottawa. And of course, as a resident of Toronto, I am watching eagerly as the centre in Don Mills takes impressive shape.

It is indeed fulfilling to be in the Burnaby Centre.

It is also with much thanks that I accept your invitation to share with you my views of Canadian pluralism, and how it has evolved in our lifetimes, particularly in the four decades since the deplorable expulsion of East Asians from Uganda, and the ensuing airlift of thousands of Ismailis to Canada, an event I would argue helped Canadians embrace our new role, indeed our post-British empire role, as a rights-based bastion of multiculturalism and tolerance. With the benefit of history, we can now start to see the events of the 1970s not just as a turn of history for the Ismaili people but as a genesis of an evolved Canadian state.

Let me share some personal perspectives. Around the time of the exodus from East Africa, I was an adolescent in Scarborough, Ontario, where an influx of Bangladeshi immigrants, following another debacle, the 1972 East Pakistan war, had incited serious racial tensions in what was then largely an Anglo-Saxon suburb. I still remember boys in my Grade 7 class, from a nearby government housing project, throwing stones at a girl and shouting "Paki."

How we have changed as a people. Of course, we have episodes of intolerance – indeed, far too many – but on the whole we are a model of harmony for much of the world.

This is not a subjective view, either.

By one measure, the Migrant Integration Policy Index, which was developed by the British Council to assess policy performance and openness to immigration in Europe and North America, Canada performs best among all Western countries. By a long shot. We are excellent in labour market mobility, education, family reunion, access to citizenship, anti-discrimination and long-term residence. The only measure by which we lag is, curiously, political participation.

If the Canada of 2013 is more tolerant and worldly – in short pluralistic – than we were in 1973, it is due in part to the leadership, by example, of the Ismaili community.

Just witness this building, and the message that the Aga Khan continues to deliver on Canadian soil. I was inspired this week to hear his remarks at the presentation of the Gold Medal by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, in Ottawa. In recalling those dreadful events of the 1970s, and the decision by much of the community to move to Canada, he said:

"There was unanimity that wherever we would settle we would never become a demotivated, marginalized minority and that we would, instead, demonstrate the will and the capacity to rebuild our future. We therefore decided to build new spaces for the gathering of our communities, and for the practice of their faith, in the countries that were welcoming us."

Witness this Centre, and its statement not just to the Ismaili people but to the world, reflecting what the Aga Khan described as "our aspirations for the future, rather than the tragedy of our recent past."

"We saw them," he said, "as structures where we could receive other communities and institutions in a dignified manner, and where we could demystify our faith – which was sometimes badly misunderstood. They would be symbols of new hope, replacing past pain."

That is a beautiful message, that idea of "symbols of new hope replacing past pain."

And it is in the shadow of those towering words, and in the glow of that simple message of hope, that I stand here today to try to share with you my views of pluralism, and how it is central to the Canadian identity – enshrined as it is in our laws and modern precedents.

I hope to reflect on the many symbols of hope across Canada that bring us together. I also aim to explore the forces, in our treatment of human rights and human development, that are challenging us anew, from the Parti Quebecois's dubious and cynical Charter of Quebec Values to the more insidious trends in economic and social development that may give rise in a generation's time to irreconcilable divisions in the status of our people.

Whether we admit it not, Canadians are at a crossroads, and the greatest danger would be for us not to recognize the choices that lie before us.

**************************

Allow me at this point to turn to some of the forces that unite and divide us.

We can probably agree on what unites us.

Hockey, maple syrup, perhaps comedy and a habit of saying "sorry" are all great Canadian characteristics. Universal Health care and peacekeeping may even be national projects.

But it is our collective ability to accommodate minorities – ethnic, religious, sexual minorities – that has made Canada a model, and was with us long before Prime Ministers Diefenbaker, Trudeau and Mulroney attempted to codify our national beliefs.

The idea of "minority rights, majority rule" was seminal to our creation, and has always been the Canadian way.

The victorious British, after the battle of the Plains of Abraham, did not cast out the defeated French. The settlers on the Prairies did not seek to annihilate the Cree. We, as Canadians, have repeatedly, through our history, found ways to reasonably accommodate all.

Last Monday evening in Toronto, I enjoyed a celebration of the Aga Khan, as he received an honorary degree from the University of Toronto's Trinity College. There could not have been a more suitable meeting place: U of T is one of the world's most diverse campuses, located in the heart of what is probably now the world's most diverse city.

That is not entirely new phenomenon, though the practice of diversity continues to rapidly evolve.

My own ancestors came to our shores in 1783, in New Brunswick, stripped of their land and expelled from the United States for their loyalty to the British crown and what it represented. The local residents fired cannons at the loyalist ships, not wanting them to land in Saint John harbour. So up the shore the newest Canadians went.

A century later, Trinity College's founder John Strachan, who was also bishop of Toronto, was a pioneer in reasonable accommodation. In the 1850's, Bishop Strachan was instrumental in the fight (and it was a fight) to keep slavery from spreading north and, furthermore, to ensuring escaped slaves from the US South could find a safe haven, a refuge, in Upper Canada. During one critical case, in which US authorities demanded the extradition of a slave, Thornton Blackburn, who had escaped from a jail in Detroit and fled across the river to Upper Canada, Bishop Strachan urged the Lieutenant-Governor to guarantee asylum, even if it risked American reprisals. So Blackburn stayed, and became one of the first black entrepreneurs in Toronto, eventually dying with an impressive real estate portfolio to his name.

That spirit, that belief in the inalienability of human rights, was fundamental to our emerging identity. It is that identity that, I believe, made Canada such a natural refuge and ultimately home for Ismaili refugees.

Our growth as a people is rooted in more than rights, as should be true globally. The Trinity College testimony to the Aga Khan made reference to his belief in "the need to uphold human dignity as well as respect for tolerance and pluralism." Of equal importance, the tribute referred to the Aga Khan Development Network's work in 30 developing countries. "The Network's underlying ethic is that of compassion for the most vulnerable in society and service to humanity without regard to faith, origin and gender."

Such values, in humanitarian good, individual enterprise, collective will and human growth from generation to generation – in short, what many of us call progress – are further common bonds of pluralism. Without that progress, human rights carry less meaning. The Aga Khan Network, and it would seem the people of Canada, seem to get that – the idea that pluralism involves both rights and development.

But those principles have been sorely tested already in the 21st century, in a decade of terrorism, international war, accelerated global migration and dizzying technological advancements. We've had to ask, again and again, what makes us modern and what makes us Canadian?

One answer was first suggested to me in early 2002, by the Aga Khan, when I interviewed him in Ottawa, by coincidence, the day after George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" message delivered in the State of the Union address. It was clearly a call to arms, and a further message to the world that you were with the United States or with the terrorists. Understandably, most governments, including our own, were reluctant to confront the wounded superpower. Yet in this charged political environment, the Aga Khan chose to speak of the need for restraint.

How can you label an entire people evil, he asked? How can you declare stark divisions in the world? And how does one ignore the due process of international justice that we expect all democratic governments to follow?

This, I thought, was one of his more important messages at the time, in response to the declaration of an axis of evil. As His Highness. said quite bluntly, "I will not stigmatize a whole population as being evil."

It was remarkably brave, and prescient, for him to urge caution, a message we need as much today as then. But it is also a valuable moment for us all to consider what is fair and just in a divided world. As we have learned yet again, our principles cannot be determined by the will of the few.

****************

Today, for the most part, Canada remains a model of diversity. Five of our 10 premiers are female Calgary, one of the country's fastest growing cities, is led by an Ismaili, the first Muslim mayor in North America. Ontario has a lesbian premier. One of the country's biggest corporations, Rogers Communications, is led by another Ismaili, Nadir Mohammed, who steps down today. Royal Bank of Canada, our biggest company, has a female executive chair of the board.

Look at the diversity our immigration, too. Across this huge country, about a quarter of our residents come from somewhere else, a greater share than France, Germany, the United Kingdom or United States. And the mix is changing, almost continuously. From Bangladeshis to Vietnamese to Tamils to Russians, we have seen source countries surge and stabilize. The Philippines is now our largest source of new Canadians. And yet that may change, as we now accept, every year, more Arabs than Indians or Chinese.

Greater Toronto is home to more than one million people born outside Canada – including five countries (China, India,Britain, Italy and the Philippines) that account for at least 5 per cent of the city's population, and another 17 countries that account for between 1 and 5 per cent. A pie chart of Toronto's foreign –born population has come to be called "hyper-diversity." There's no other city like it in the world.

Here in greater Vancouver, a city once defined by three dominant communities – Anglo-Saxon, Sikh and Chinese – we have a city with one of the largest Persian communities outside Tehran.

In recent years, we've also become a magnet for post-secondary students from around the world – young people who by and large could go to many other countries to study but choose Canada, in part because of our pluralistic ways. Since 2001 the number of international students in Canada has increased by 94 per cent to over 265,000 students.

Remarkably, these are largely all non-issues in Canada today, as they should be.

In a 2006 survey of immigrants in our three biggest cities, 87 per cent said they felt a "very strong" or "somewhat strong" sense of attachment to Canada. This is much higher than response rates to similar questions asked in Western Europe, and higher than the answer given by immigrants in the great melting pot of the United States.

So we have become a country that accepted the likes of my ancestors off a boat in Saint John harbour, one that opened its doors to millions more over the 20th century, and one that is confident in saying, hey, once you're here, you get all the rights and privileges that everyone else enjoys. Welcome aboard.

We know it is not that simple, or that rosy. Our success in attracting people to Canada, and integrating them in our economy and society, should not be taken for granted. Nor should our assumption that pluralistic views of citizenship have become universally accepted. There are threats to our political assumptions, and challenges to our economic success that should concern us all. To illustrate, I need only point to the Quebec Charter of Values, a plan that in an age of multiculturalism seems to yearn for a long-gone age of monoculture.

When I agreed to come here today to speak, I mentioned to the organizers that there may be no greater challenge right now to Canadian pluralism than the Quebec Charter. We can talk it down, or even dismiss it, as a cynical political stunt, a ploy to orchestrate the downfall of a minority government, to drive a wedge through the electorate, perhaps even to incite a Supreme Court challenge that would be win-win for the separatists – either the Canadian court upholds purported Quebec values or it tramples the democratic rights of Quebeckers.

The charter, as you undoubtedly know, seeks to ban so-called "ostentatious" religious clothing such as Muslim headscarves and Sikh turbans for public servants in schools, hospitals and government offices. The Parti Quebecois government makes this argument: that all citizens must be treated "fairly and equally" by the state. There must be no bias, real or perceived, in the delivery of public services, including education.

Bernard Drainville, the minister of democratic institutions, put it this way, in stressing that only "very visible" and "very obvious" symbols would be banned: "Political neutrality is already expected of public servants. We propose that religious neutrality apply to all people working for the state."

In an earlier interview with Le Devoir, last spring, he argued: "Quebec society is more and more multi-ethnic and multi-religious, which is an exceptional richness. But if we want to be able to properly manage this diversity, we will have to give ourselves rules and common values."

The argument is riddled with fallacies, in principle and in practice.

The Quebec Association of Health and Social Service Institutions has reported that none of its members have ever had any problem with staff who wear religious apparel. In 2007, the Bouchard-Taylor Commission looking into reasonable accommodation found – after examining 900 briefs and 13 academic studies – that the supposed crisis of religious accommodation was largely a "crisis of perception."

Charles Taylor, the prominent intellectual who co-chaired the commission, called the latest proposals "Putinesque."

"Hydro-Québec isn't Hydro-Catholic, Hydro-Muslim, Hydro-Atheist," he told the TVA network, putting one of our most cherished principles quite simply: "employees are individuals … they are free."

Let us remind ourselves this is not just about Quebec; it's about human rights, which are inalienable and universal across Canada. That's why we have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That charter is one of the reasons people move to Canada.

And so, my concern is not just with the Quebec charter, but with the reaction. Within Quebec, a large number of people – especially outside Montreal – support it. A Leger poll in late September found that 46 per cent of the province's adult population considered immigration to be a threat to "the heritage of Quebec society." The 46-per-cent figure shot up to 57 per cent in rural areas.

Many of us take comfort in the Canadian Charter, and the resolve of our courts to enforce its principles, which surly will stymie the PQ plot. Let us also take comfort in the courage of many Canadians to stand up for our beliefs, and it is not just political leaders, though they should be applauded.

You may recall when the Quebec Soccer Federation tried to ban religious head coverings. The announcement led to protests by young Canadian soccer players, including many Muslims, across Canada, and a brave decision by the Canadian Soccer Association to suspend the Quebec federation. Only then, in the face of national and international shame, did the Quebec federation reverse its position.

There is a simple yet profound message in these cases – we have legal instruments such as the Charter to protect and enhance pluralism, but it takes the diligence and the voice of everyone to make it work. If the legal minds in the room will forgive me for saying this, pluralism is too important to be left in the hands of lawyers. It must be assured in the hearts and minds of all.

Thomas Jefferson knew this when he drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedoms, in 1777. As he said then: "our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry." Moreover, the Virginia Statute states, imposing "punishments of burdens" on the free practice of religion tends "to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness."

I think back to the Aga Khan's description of this building as "a symbol of new hope," and see it in stark contrast to those legislative efforts to instill what Jefferson would have called "hypocrisy and meanness."

********************************

The Quebec charter is but one obvious challenge to Canadian pluralism. I'd like to highlight two subtler threats that lurk in the corridors of education and employment.

First, education.

We have the opposite experience to Western Europe:: Immigrants here do remarkably well in our schools, completing high school and university at rates unheard of in most Western countries, and well ahead of the non-immigrant population.

The first generation post-secondary participation rate is 57 per cent.

Second generation (i.e. born in Canada to immigrant parents) is 54.3 per cent.

And for third-generation and beyond: 37.7 per cent But here's a potential source of friction: the noticeable gap in education between immigrant communities. To put it bluntly. First- and second-generation Canadians from East and South Asia do exceptionally well. Those from Africa, the Caribbean and parts of Latin America – much less so.

For first-generation Chinese immigrants, the post-secondary participation rate is 88 per cent! For those from Africa: 65 per cent.

This disparity is doubly challenged by a concerning gap in primary and secondary school performance, based on location and income. In a recent series on income inequality, my newspaper revealed important links between income, neighbourhood and school performance.

According to data from the Toronto District School Board, nearly 60 per cent of the city's students who are enrolled in gifted programs came from the three highest income deciles, including 25 per cent from the very highest income group. Only 11 per cent come from the three lowest deciles, which in Toronto can be skewed toward new Canadians.

Since education is a key determinant of economic success, and in turn economic success increasingly determines educational outcomes, we may soon find ourselves in a country of self-perpetuating enclaves of success and stagnation, otherwise known as ghettoes, many of them characterized by ethnicity. It is hard to see that as a sign of pluralism, if one believes that the ideal is rooted in both rights and development.

That takes me to the other major challenge to the practice of pluralism, which is jobs and income. Don't get me wrong. I am very far from advocating some sort of socialist approach to the divisions in our society. When I moved to India in 1991, I got a good sense of what a state-directed society can look like.

Yes, Indian society at the time was more balanced, income wise – but that was because pretty much everyone was stuck below a global standard. That's not good.

A free market – including an open and competitive labour market – is essential, in my view, to a growing economy. So, too, is income mobility. We've heard a lot lately about income inequality. I would suggest we be more concerned about income mobility, the opportunity for people to move up (and yes, down) the income ladder. This is especially important right now in Canada, and for the 300,000 people who move here every year, literally seeking mobility.

First, some good news. Really good news.

New Canadians do fairly well for employment, and have done much better than non– immigrants since the recession of 2008. According to the Toronto Immigrant Employment Data Initiative, the unemployment rate for immigrant youth (15-24) is a full percentage point lower than for all youth in Toronto.

What that misses, of course, is the participation rate. According to Statistics Canada, the employment rate for immigrant youth was 44 per cent in 2011 – a full 14 percentage points lower than for Canadian-born youth. In other words, immigrant youth are too often excluded from the formal, or mainstream, workforce.

Also masked are important divisions between immigrant groups. The highest rate of employment is found among Filipinos, who tend to have post-secondary education and, for the most part, come to Canada under the live-in caregiver program, and therefore have stable, recession-resistant employment.

African-born immigrants–who make up nearly 10 per cent of the immigrant labour force aged 25 to 54–face a starker picture. In 2011, this group had the lowest employment rate and highest unemployment rate (at 12.6 per cent) of all immigrants. Unemployment for African-born immigrants aged 25-54 who have been here less than five years was dead last, at 21.3 per cent.

We are all aware of the risks of such divisions – just look at the United States and Europe – and should not assume the Charter is enough to bridge a divided society.

What can we do?

Let me begin to sum up my remarks by outlining four broad needs for the coming years:

1. Universal health care that innovates In health care, we have it. Let's not abuse it. Health care is the No 1 determinant of economic success, and among our greatest national assets. While there is plenty of room for innovation and efficiency, and better cost management, universal health care is critical to our sense of pluralism.

The proverbial fresh-off-the-airplane immigrant should have the same access to quality health care as me, the eight generation Canadian, if we are to have a healthy, educated society based on equality of opportunity.

The same is true of education, whether you are in Halifax or Prince Rupert. I've spoken of the challenges to schooling, and especially ensuring outcomes do not become too divergent or, worse, pre-determined.

That leads me to the next challenge ...

2. Education that integrates Schools need more than money. In a diverse society such as ours, they need cultural accommodation, especially in the early years.

The Oxford study of immigration and diversity among Western counties found Canada to be excelling in intercultural education, except on two counts – allowing schools to modify curricula and teaching materials for the local population, and adjusting daily life in school to the culture and beliefs of pupils. It's worth noting, the Toronto school board is now allowing and assisting school-driven diversity, led by principals, recognizing that children learn better when they are in familiar and comfortable milieus.

We can actually learn a few lessons from the Mumbai school system, which offers primary education in SEVEN languages, one reason that city has become India's pluralistic leader, the Shiv Sena notwithstanding.

This view of schools as welcoming and integrating environments should extend to campuses, too, where we may be seeing more divisions than we've known in the past.

We've had a historic leap in foreign student enrolment in Canada in the past decade, and a significant number of those students stay. That's good for Canada.

Across the country, the Chinese student population makes up over 30 per cent of the entire international student population and is greater than the percentage of students from India, Korea and Saudi Arabia combined. The South Asian student population, though, is gaining ground, growing 217 per cent in the past four years. But our campuses are not doing enough to integrate those students in a pluralistic society.

Consider a survey of international students and their attitudes: Slightly over half (55 per cent) indicated that their friends primarily consist of other international students. About one-third (34 per cent) of students are friends with a mix of Canadian and international students, and approximately 7 per cent are friends primarily with Canadian students. That does not reflect the culture that, I know, our campuses espouse.

3. A labour market that mobilizes If we are to maintain a pluralistic society, we all need to have access to a plurality of life and work choices. At the core of that challenge is labour mobility.

The United States was once the most mobile of societies, and its diversity showed as people moved south and west, and back north and east again, in search of opportunities, regardless of race, religion or personal choice.

Canadians today are increasingly mobile, led by new Canadians – and the country benefits. Look around us here in B.C. and you have proof positive, with residents who have moved here from every point east. In 2011, more than half the employment growth for Canada's landed immigrants was accounted for by immigrants living in the Prairies and British Columbia. While these immigrants made up 31 per cent of Canada's immigrant workforce, they accounted for 53 per cent of the immigrant employment growth between 2010 and 2011.

To ensure this trend continues and even accelerates, we need to address structural rigidities, including faster certification of overseas professional standards, a national skills program along the lines of what the federal government is currently pushing on reluctant provinces, and notably, an overhaul of the Employment Insurance program that gets in the way of a mobile society.

That may not sound like it has much to do with pluralism – but if we have chunks of our society stuck in one place, because of regionally-driven public policies, we stand greater prospects of division.

I was reminded of this recently at an editorial board meeting with Brad Wall, the progressive and conservative premier of Saskatchewan, who recalled flying over the high unemployment Maritimes to get to a trade fair in Ireland. Despite our unemployment rates, he and a private sector team had to leave the country to recruit thousands of young workers. Saskatchewan has since benefitted from a wave of Irish pipefitters, nannies and restaurant workers, while other parts of Canada stagnate.

Premier Wall made the argument that we cannot continue to flourish as a country, not just economically but socially, if we don't encourage Canadians, new and old, to move from province to province, and city to city.

4. Citizenship that both inspires change and withstands it As all of you know from Canadian history, we have enjoyed several waves of immigration, and have emerged in the 21st century with a stronger sense of citizenship that has value, integrity and a single national purpose. This is what the Quebec charter debate comes down to – our openness to others, with a law that treats us all the same.

Let's bear in mind our approach to citizenship is also aggressive, and is changing the country very quickly.

In the past decade, we have accepted about 70 new citizens for every 1,000 that we already have – well more than double the rate of other Western countries. About three-quarters of our foreign-born population are citizens. In Britain, it's less than half.

This is huge. It reduces the divide, the sense of us and them. And it gives this message that we're all Canadian, we're all here to stay, so we better get used to each other.

It also gives immigrants better access to institutions … to schools, courts, hospitals and the ballot box. To quote the Oxford University study of immigration and diversity: "It seems an obvious point but the more openness you demonstrate, the more immigrants feel welcome."

Dual citizenship is a more advanced, and debated, approach, but most countries now see it as – counter-intuitively – an effective way to build a unified and diverse country. We've seen that largely work out since the 1970s, and most countries have followed our path. Even Germany is now close to accepting dual citizenship.

The Oxford report put it quite well: "What is now generally accepted and understood is that people have multiple, overlapping identities, and that these can include a subjective identification with more than one nation or state."

I hope today, I have been able to lay out for you some ideas on how we can better prepare for the future. Our pluralism must be about more than open doors. We need to be steadfast in our commitment to both the rights and development that stitch together a diverse and progressive society. We have the Charter, of course, and must be mindful of perennial attempts to undermine it or negotiate away its principles.

We have excellent schools, colleges, universities, hospitals and health care, and need to appreciate how those are not just good in their own right but help reduce the socioeconomic divisions that can lead to racial, ethnic and religious tensions.

Lastly, we need to be mindful of the public policies and private sector practices that perhaps unintentionally limit access to schooling and post-secondary education, especially among some groups of new Canadians, and how that could lead to the ghettoization of entire groups of Canadians, based on, as Martin Luther King said of America in the 1960s, the colour of their skin rather than the quality of their minds.

We have what the world wants, and needs. We also know where we need to innovate – in cross-cultural schooling, in skills and training, in labour market mobility, in the integration of informal workers, especially those with skills and certification from other countries.

No country was better set for the 21st century than Canada.

I was reminded of this recently, taking my 13 year old daughter to a soccer game in Scarborough, near that place where racism boiled in the 1970s when I was her age. That part of Toronto now looks to have more mosques and temples than churches.

Islamic benevolent societies sit next to Rotary clubs. And hockey rinks have given way to soccer domes, where girls from every background imaginable compete on, literally, a level playing field.

It is the Canada we all cherish.

Thank you for helping build that country, and by listening today, I hope, volunteering to take on the challenges that lie ahead.

We are at a crossroads, where fundamental rights remain needlessly a topic of debate and where the basic elements of human development remain, it seems, negotiable. Each of us will be counted on to stand up to those challenges. I feel confident the Ismaili community, and this centre, will continue to be at the forefront.

It has been an honour to be with you today.

John Stackhouse is the Editor-in-chief of The Globe and Mail

Editor's note: An incorrect passage that said Vancouver has a gay mayor was removed.