I had the honour of speaking with Dr. Salim Mansur, a political scientist and author of The Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism. As we mark over 50 years of official multiculturalism in Canada, this conversation was long overdue—and deeply illuminating.

Dr. Mansur opened by reminding us that Canada is unique in having embedded multiculturalism into its Constitution through Section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While multiculturalism remains an ideological debate in many Western nations, in Canada it has become a legislative and political reality.

But what is multiculturalism really doing to Canada?

According to Dr. Mansur, “multiculturalism as a policy was never fully thought through. It sounded good—like candy. Delectable. But its implications for liberal democracy are far more corrosive than Canadians realize.” In essence, multiculturalism moves us from a system built on individual liberty to one that emphasizes group identity. In doing so, we trade the idea of equal citizenship for the idea of equal cultures—a shift that has profound implications for justice, governance, and social cohesion.

From the policy’s inception in 1971 under Pierre Trudeau to its later codification in 1988, multiculturalism was embraced as an inclusive project. But Dr. Mansur traces its deeper roots to the B&B Commission on bilingualism and biculturalism in the 1960s. He argues that multiculturalism was not merely about celebrating diversity—it was a political compromise meant to absorb the backlash from immigrant groups who felt excluded by the English-French binary. And over time, it became something more: a tool for political consolidation and identity management.

One of the most provocative ideas discussed was the shift from liberty based on individual rights to justice based on group recognition. Dr. Mansur warns this leads to the erosion of liberal democracy itself. “A good society,” he said, “is one that protects the ultimate minority—the individual. But multiculturalism subordinates the individual to the collective.”

To put it plainly, if all cultures are equal under law, then there’s no room to interrogate harmful practices within cultural groups. Worse still, the state becomes the arbiter of cultural recognition—deciding who gets funded, protected, or prioritized. The consequence? The very concept of a shared Canadian identity dissolves.

Dr. Mansur argued that multiculturalism weakens our sense of nationhood. “Justin Trudeau was not wrong when he said Canada has no core identity,” he said. “He was simply stating the result of decades of policy designed to erase national coherence.”

And we’re seeing this confusion play out in real time. In cities like Toronto, rapid demographic change—particularly due to international student arrivals and precarious work like Uber food delivery—is straining the social fabric. Canadians message me daily asking: Why aren’t we allowed to talk about this? Why is it taboo to ask whether our policies have gone too far?

The tension between immigration, identity, and cohesion is no longer hypothetical. It is tangible. It is political. And it’s deeply personal for many Canadians who feel unheard.

We also explored the idea that multiculturalism was, in part, a political tool. “It wasn’t just idealism,” Dr. Mansur noted. “It was a play for votes—a way to secure the loyalty of immigrant communities who felt seen and valued by the Liberals.” This makes the policy hard to critique without being seen as regressive or racist, which silences necessary public debate.

But perhaps the most sobering part of our discussion was about institutional power. In Canada’s constitutional monarchy, with weak checks on executive authority, policies like the Emergencies Act can be passed and implemented with frightening speed. Unlike the U.S., where courts and Congress serve as powerful counterweights, in Canada, the Prime Minister with a majority can often act without sufficient scrutiny.

So what does all this mean?

It means we must revisit what kind of country we want to be. Are we a nation built on universal liberal principles—freedom, equality, rule of law? Or are we a nation of fragmented cultural enclaves, each vying for state recognition and protection?