Who are we as “Canadians”? Immigrants and Our Values

Patrick Gossage • November 22, 2023

Justin Trudeau, when he is speaking emotionally about acts of racism, misogyny or recently antisemitism, is given to using the following formulation: “We're seeing right now a rise in antisemitism that is terrifying. Molotov cocktails thrown at Synagogues. This is not who we are as Canadians. This is something that is not acceptable in Canada, period."

It’s been tough for the Prime Minister to find the right words about a hugely domestically divisive Israeli Hamas conflict. Perhaps it’s time to deconstruct his favorite phrasing and explore who we are if - as he suggests - there are virtuous characteristics that we all share. 


The most prevalent and traditional attitude held by multi-generational Canadians is that we are a welcoming society, our arms are open to all kinds of newcomers that have made Canada one of the most diverse “tossed salad” societies in the world. Yes, “diversity is our strength” is a watchword of the Liberal government. But is this really shared as an article of faith by the majority of Canadians? Is that an important facet of who we are?


The faith in immigration producing a unique diverse society has deep roots. The 1988 Canadian Multiculturalism Act institutionalized a growing political sense that the huge influx of postwar immigrants produced unity in diversity and promoted integration and accommodation rather than the melting pot found south of the border in the USA. Multiculturalism replaced the French-English duality of the country and became a defining and desirable national characteristic. For many years there was a Minister who doled out modest sums to immigrant communities to maintain their cultural celebrations. 


The benefits of a diverse multicultural society were perhaps best expressed by Pierre Trudeau who clearly influenced his son: 

“Uniformity is neither desirable nor possible in a country the size of Canada. We should not even be able to agree upon the kind of Canadian to choose as a model, let alone persuade most people to emulate it. There are few policies potentially more disastrous for Canada than to tell all Canadians that they must be alike. There is no such thing as a model or ideal Canadian. What could be more absurd than the concept of an ‘all-Canada’ boy or girl? A society which emphasizes uniformity is one which creates intolerance and hate.”


If there is general agreement with these sentiments, is there equal faith in the economic and social benefits of continuing to support increased immigration? The current affordability and housing crisis runs into strong new arguments that current rates of immigration (running to 500,000 a year in 2025, double the level of 2015) will put severe pressure on our health care and ability to house these newcomers. Add to these numbers over 800,000 foreign students and 2.2 million temporary foreign workers and our wide-open door policies that seem to lack back-up plans are rightfully in question. These two latter groups have fueled population growth, particularly in Ontario where, some economists say, it stokes the housing crisis.


Recent polls suggest that a plurality of Canadians want lower levels of immigration. The most important of this data is from Environics who state from recent polls: “Canadians are now significantly more likely than a year ago to say there is too much immigration to the country, dramatically reversing a trend dating back decades. For the first time, a growing number of Canadians are questioning how many immigrants are arriving, rather than who they are and where they are coming from.”


The other unfortunate finding of our current immigration policies is that a large number of immigrants are not tradespeople or professionals but workers who end up in low paying jobs. Or most troubling, refugees who cannot be housed in overcrowded shelters in Toronto and end up on the street or in church basements. This is a serious failure of our governments.


The other dark side of our multicultural society is that some diaspora communities bring their very traditional cultural racial history and prejudices with them. This is what is fueling violence against Jews by the Palestinian diaspora and the very difficult situation with Canadian Sikhs who want an independent homeland in India. This is where the idea of maintaining the culture of immigrants breaks down when the least attractive features of that culture offend Canadian values. Politicians who seek the vote of these communities are sometimes reluctant to be too openly critical. Justin Trudeau is caught in this no man’s land as he tries to balance support of Israel with the very real toll the Hamas war is causing on Palestinian civilians. 



Nevertheless, tolerating and even celebrating differences that don’t impinge on others’ rights to be free and live safely remains desirable characteristics of our immigrant society – apart from the indigenous population - we are all immigrants. And all of us are actively responsible for calling out racial hate and violence, which can be a by-product of our very open immigration policies. We must not let falsehoods and hate go unchallenged; we must enforce anti-hate laws, value the differences in others and support those who act to bridge cultural divides. 

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

By Patrick Gossage April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.
By Patrick Gossage March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts