Kelly, N, and M. Trebilcock. The Making

Kelly, N, and M. Trebilcock. The Making of the Mosaic: A History of Canadian Immigration Policy. University of Toronto Press, 1998.

One of the greatest initial strengths of the work by N. Kelly and M. Trebilcock called The Making of the Mosaic: A History of Canadian Immigration Policy, is the title of the book itself. Although this may sound like an attempt to damn a work with faint praise, in actuality the strength of the work is reflected in both author's choice of its title. The title stresses how a metaphorical attitude of a nation in shaping its immigration policy can formulate the way regional and ethnic diversity in the nation is viewed by the nation's population and political apparatus over historical time.

The most familiar metaphor for a multi-ethnic and a diverse country founded upon positive principles of immigration is the metaphor of the melting pot. This is the common metaphor for immigration in America, of course. The metaphor of the melting pot implies that prospective Americans come to the new nation of their citizenship and slowly shirk or melt away their cultural distinctions, forming one, unified American core identity. Of course, for America, this metaphor has proven problematic and far from perfect in explaining the diverse problems, ethnic textures, and racial divisions of the United States. Moreover, it is not the only metaphor that is useful or usable for the process of immigration and assimilation.

Another metaphor, more often used in Canada, is the metaphor of the country as a mosaic. Walk onto any street in Toronto in the Chinatown district and see street signs in Mandarin or Cantonese -- with no English characters in sight. The existence of Quebec, a French-speaking province that is one of the Canadian nation's economic and tourist powerhouses as well as a potent site of political division, is another powerful testimony to Canada's existence as a functional, or at least semi-functional mosaic of ethnic, regional, and even linguistic diversity. As noted in the "introduction" to this text, its metaphorical concept of immigration is key to any nation's view of its potential for positive forms of diversity. The metaphorical idea of the ethnic mosaic, as well as the interests, institutions, and specific issues that have shaped Canadian immigration policy since the founding of the nation, and even before the so-called icy wilderness became formulated into nationhood after 1867 has been shaped by the mosaic metaphor of incorporating ethnic and regional differences rather than asking individuals to shirk them.

Canada, often humorously known by its inhabitants as well as its detractors as 'The Land God Gave to Cain' in contrast to the relatively fertile and mineral rich United States, has existed as a patchwork of interests from its inception. This has been true since the French beaver trappers early on called Canada their economic home and destiny, while the English who later colonized the land also attempted to share in and exploit the wealth of its wilderness. Thus, rather than having a homogenous national identity, Canada has been known for its accommodating attitude to differences, because so many different nations and peoples have called it home, before it was colonized. Also, given that its Revolution from its eventual Mother Country England was peaceful and less ideologically driven and strident than the 1776 Revolution of the United States, this may be another reason it has been less riddled with ideological tensions.

Canada's more accommodating attitudes towards difference during the consolidation of the dominion, 1876 from 1896 and its subsequent period of industrialization, immigration, and the foundation of the national identity in the 20th century has also resulted in terms of speaking of Canada's national character and national political philosophy, not in the singular, as is common in the United States, but in terms of pluralism. Its overall immigration and integration policy has also remained pluralistic, because of the continued cultural memories of the many nations that had established it (memorialized in its dual-language framework) and the fact that rather than fighting for its identity, its political constitution was forged slowly over time, in dialogue, colonial and otherwise, with other nations.

Canada's expansive territory, the authors note, has also had an impact in terms of creating a more accommodating, mosaic-like tolerance of immigrant and ethnic and regional differences. The largeness of the nation and the lack of proximity in cities of many of its inhabitants have created an ethos of 'live and let live' regarding cultural attitudes not present elsewhere. Today, schoolchildren may still learn their native languages as part of their regional curriculum, for instance, as well as the English or French tongue. However, the fact that most children also have some versification in French as a matter of course in Canada also exists as testimony to the fact that not all components, ethnically and linguistically speaking, of the nation are entirely viewed as equal.

Furthermore, the authors do not stint that despite its overall history of relatively inclusiveness of new peoples, Canada has not been entirely absent of attitudes of cultural enclosure. The period of 1938-1945 during the Second World War was characterized by xenophobia even internment of groups deemed to be potentially dangerous to national security. Only since the era of the postwar boom, from 1946-1962 was there a kind of return to the open doors of the borders and to immigration. The immigration policy of 1963-1976 was characterized by a huge surge in sheer numbers of immigrants, fueled by the need to expand the urban and rural economies, and the influx of refugees, particularly from Asia, in light of the threat of Hong Kong being ceded back to the Chinese Mainland. This simultaneously created a new pluralism of cultures in the Canadian mosaic, stimulated the economy, but also instituted some new tensions within the diverse fabric of the nation.

Interestingly enough, the authors end with a chapter on what they term to be the "Fraying of the Consensus" of the Canadian mosaic in 1998. In the author's points-of-view, the mosaic is still the 'correct' method for Canadian immigration philosophy, combined with continued tolerance of regional diversity. However, the authors fear that if some integrative attempts are not made to create an expansive yet cohesive philosophy of Canadian identity, difficulties may result. It would be interesting to have read this conclusion, had it been written not in 1998, during the heightened period of the most recent Canadian economic boom combined with Asian influxes from Hong Kong, but after the recent SARS scare that has done so much to detract from recent tourism to Toronto, and has highlighted the tensions between the Asian and English-speaking countries of that nation.