Having worked with aboriginal (Native/Indian/First Nations) communities for an extended period of time both in an urban and rural setting and having worked for an even longer period of time with new immigrant/refugee communities in one of Canada’s cities, I am provoked into making a few comments on the subject by recent articles on the subject in various newspapers.

The significant difference between Sri Lanka and Canada in the matter of diversity is that there is still a very substantial body of opinion in Sri Lanka that operates within its own little stream of racism and flows from there into the river of megalomania. The constant references to Dutugemunu and the alleged perfection of Sri Lankan society prior to the arrival of "foreigners" of one description or another epitomizes this unsupportable version of Sri Lankan history. The fact that the current government dog is being wagged by its Jathika Hela Urumaya tail only tends to exacerbate this state of affairs.

On the other hand, Canada is a country that is, overall, distinguished by what can only be described as an attitude of "innate national modesty." The only time I recall a significant deviation from this modesty was during the years that the United Nations, applying a stringent set of criteria, determined that Canada was the best country in the world in which to live. At that time, there were (surprise! surprise!) politicians who sought credit for this state of affairs, particularly if they happened to be in authority in any of the four levels of government. Other than this little aberration, that "innate national modesty" is alive and well to the point of constantly being the source of quite an array of self-deprecating jokes.

The civility of Canadian society and the practical need for increasing the work force to cope with labour needs that outstripped natural population growth, particularly after the midpoint of the last century, resulted in an increasingly open immigration policy as well as the acceptance of refugees from the conflicts that proliferated as the last century drew to a close.

Canada and the world owes a debt of gratitude to the late Pierre Elliot Trudeau (and before him, Lester Pearson) who, as Prime Ministers of Canada over several terms, had the vision to develop the policies of bilingualism and multiculturalism that are totally at odds with the "Melting Pot" concept with which the USA sought to build a nation. Suffice it to say that Canada’s policy of integration worked and the USA’s policy of assimilation has resulted in a nation of hyphenated Americans.

Sri Lanka, thanks to the Constitutions imposed on it by a string of megalomaniacal politicians and the practice of governance that defies description within the democratic canon, has produced the antithesis of a "kinder, gentler nation." In fact, bully-boy politics has been institutionalized, the triumphalism of a religio-communalist nature has been actively encouraged and the best features of both western and eastern civilizations eschewed. And the interesting thing about this state of affairs has been that every political formation of Left and Right has contributed to this travesty of democratic behaviour while hypocritically invoking God (in his/her many manifestations), the Buddha and, latterly, even politicians of one hue or another!

In the circumstances, it would be difficult, indeed, to make anything but an invidious comparison with a country such as Canada which, I know for a certainty, has already been denigrated by one of Sri Lanka’s new environmental "experts" who made the "categorical" (what other kind of statement do people of his kind make?) statement that Canada would pay the price for participating in the destruction of the environment when the Arctic ice cap melted and submerged the city of Toronto. This prognostication was, apparently, based on the fact that, if one were to view a globe, Canada would be closest to the Arctic ocean!

In summary, while Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan politicians in particular, do have something to learn from the likes of Canada as far as civil, democratic discourse and governance within the context of population diversity is concerned, we would be at grave risk of asphyxiation in the event that we chose to hold our collective breath in anticipation of such an event occurring in the immediate future.

The real tragedy of this state of affairs is that this need not have been the current reality, but then "woulda, coulda, shoulda" is cold comfort in any circumstances.