selves, native and newcomer alike wouldnfall within the varying degrees of successnor failures that attend us all. Thenjustification for government’s coercivenpower is to prevent one individual, innthe exercise of his fi-eedom, kotn infringingnupon the freedom of others. Whenngovernment uses that power to set onengroup above another group, to give onengroup an advantage at the expense ofnanother, or in any way to discriminatenbetween the people who consent to bengoverned, it disturbs the peace and ordernwhich it is government’s prime duty tonsecure.nIt used to be that the newcomer, havingnchosen to live in the new surroimdings,nwould adapt to them, becoming lessnand less conspicuous every day. Now henjoins others in groups of similar origin.nNo longer a minority of one, he has becomenone of the minority. The use of thengovernment’s coercive power to protectnminorities’ rights discourages themnfrom assimilating. The immigrants thennattract the hostility of the majority whondeveloped the traditions and customsnthat the newcomers reject.nYet, vwthout seeking the consent ofnthe electorate, 10 of Canada’s first ministersnimposed upon the nation a Charternof Rigjits and Freedoms which establishesndiscrimination as a part of Canadian life.nHaving declared that “Every individualnis equal before and under the law… withoutndiscrimination based on race, nationalnor ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age,nor mental or physical disability,” thenCharter immediately contradicts itselfnwith the statement that the previousnsection “does not preclude any law, programnor activity that has as its object thenamelioration of conditions of disadvantagednindividuals or groups includingnthose that are disadvantaged because ofnrace, national or ethnic origin, color,nreligion, sex, age or mental or physicalndisability.”nIn other words, the quota systemsnwhich are the inevitable consequencenof “any law, program or activity…” arennow instimtionalized in Canada. No poli­n48inChronicles of Culturentician or government official will admitnto it, but just as there are quotas fornFrench Canadians in Canada’s civil andnmiUtary services, to secure a representationnin proportion to French Canadiansnin the Canadian population, so will therenbe quotas for every visible minority innboth the federal service and in the servicesnof the provinces where visiblenminorities are most numerous.nHowever, the Parliamentary TasknForce will not limit its purview to visiblenminorities. The chairman intends “to interpretnhis mandate in the broadest possiblenway… so as to take in not only skinncolor and racial origin but any situationnthat would ultimately see an individualnor group of individuals being treated as anminority by the majority in which theynUve.” He seems to want to make it so thatnthere will be scarcely a Canadian whondares to claim membership in the fastndissolving majority lest he or she be accusednof discriminating against peoplenwho are members of a minority.nCanadians are sometimes accused ofnbeing rather a dull lot, not given to extremesnof opinion, and secure—evennsmug—in the possession of bountifiilnnatural resources. The accusation failsnto take into account the energy and initiativenof Canadians past and presentnwho converted, and still convert, thosenresources into tangible benefits. Whatevernthe cause, there has developed annational characteristic of inestimablenvalue: the courtesy and tolerance withnwhich Canadians look upon and dealnwith one another. A national governmentnwhich understood and appreciatednthat characteristic would seek to fosternit. But here we are met by a Canadiannparadox: that people who are courteousnand tolerant toward one another havenvoted since 1968 to be governed by anman who is neither courteous nor tolerant,nand who, in consequence, has stirrednnnup animosities in Canada that will take anlong time to heal.nCreating the Parliamentary TasknForce on Visible Minorities was an inevitablenoutcome of that unpalatablentruth. It derives from a perception ofnCanada and other nations as mere motelsnon the road to world government. Thenman whose policies have burdenednCanada with a proliferation of federalndepartments and Crown corporationsnlooks confidently toward a world thatnwill be run the same way: by a giganticnbureaucracy from which there will benno escape. Such a world, and its lucklessncitizens, will be bound by rules andnregulations designed to cover every fecetnof daily Ufe. The task of enforcing themnwill fell to armies of ofiicials for whichnCanada’s present committees and tribunalsnare models.nThat scheme cannot brook the differencesnwhich distinguish every individualnfrom every other. All must conform tonthe model: the productive and regenerativenmass that the central plan requiresnfor its fulfillment.nThe threat to individual freedom willnnot disappear from Canada with the departurenof Pierre Elliott Trudeau, thoughnit will subside for a while since the tidenof public opinion is flowing away fromnthe idea of the centralized all-powerfiilnstate that Trudeau p)ersonifies and dreamsnabout. But the idea will survive. Exposingnits fellacies is no easy task for politiciansnwho are subject to the temptationsnthat accompany the power of office. Is itntoo much to expect that some of thosenpoliticians will recognize the dangersnand see that government, when it usesnits coercive power to change the shapenof a mass that is made up of individuals,ncan no longer serve them? Canadians arenall different; all, so long as governmentnin Canada is limited by consent of thengoverned, are free. It is the attempt tonband some of those individuals into particularnmasses that changes the form ofngovernment from a limited one to an oppressivenone. Searching out and institutionalizingnminorities is a giant stepnalong that treacherous road. Dn