Maybe it's aging, maybe it's because I am a writer. Whatever the reason, I find I am questioning of late, the "true" meaning of words that I have been hearing and using all my life. The first time I had "word shock" was a few years ago when I went in to see my doctor.

Years before this appointment of note, I had been diagnosed with a disease I will fight for the rest of my life. After a lengthy period of treatment, my doctor told me that I was responding particularly well to the therapy and that I was one of few that did not develop side effects. As my doctor is an in-demand specialist, I see him only when necessary. He is a very busy research scientist. Six months after hearing about how well I was doing, I managed to get another appointment with him, simply to find out what I was doing right. I wanted to know why I was doing so well in case I could do more of whatever it was. He told me that he didn't know why, but if he had to guess, it would be because of my "attitude."

I left that appointment thanking him and grateful for the answer. But, by the time I arrived home, I was confused. What, I wondered, did he mean? What is "attitude?" When it really mattered, I found I did not really know what the word meant. What attitude do I have? It is such a simple word. A word we all use often, but suddenly it seemed meaningless and yet its meaning remained an important personal quest. My doctor was implying that I had a good attitude. But about what? What did he mean? The day after that appointment, I called back to his office to find out what he meant by "my attitude." I waited another six weeks.

My most recent experience with "disappearing meaning," happened while attending a Canadian national conference on "diversity." Five hundred of us were invited to Ottawa from all over Canada to discuss "diversity" in Canadian arts practice. The conference was topical. In 2001, UNESCO, the European Union and La Francophonie (a forum of French-speaking nations) all adopted a Declaration on Cultural Diversity, and the Summit of the Americas focused on Cultural Diversity in its Declaration and Plan of Action.

I first attended a local round table on the subject of "diversity" in the Fall of 2002, hosted by Heritage Canada and its minister, the Honorable Sheila Copps. By the time of the national conference, in April 2003 and after five regional Round tables, my understanding of the word "diversity" was as problematic as my understanding of "attitude" once was. What does "diversity" mean? What does it represent? And more important than anything to me, was the question: What are arts organizations expected to achieve by their "diversity" initiatives? The conference, I hoped, would answer these questions.

On my arrival in Ottawa, looking at the conference agenda, I was sure that my major question would be answered. On the afternoon ahead of the conference opening, we were asked to consider the following questions in order to prepare for the break out sessions.

Day one of the conference had me understanding "cultural diversity" to be about "access" - access to power, grants, juries, jobs and spaces; in particular, access for marginalized people. And who feels marginalized? Young people, gay people, women, people of colour, rural people, First Nations people, and people with disabilities all feel under-represented in the social programs and policies of the communities in which they live.

The night before the conference, I found a definition of cultural diversity in the background materials provided to conference delegates.

"If we combine the concept of multiculturalism with gender parity, develop an anti-racist framework, and create a context of inclusion for equity-seeking groups, and then combine this mixture with diversity (an all-encompassing diversity including geographic location, youth, sexual orientation, languages, etc.), we can arrive at a practical working definition of the term "cultural diversity": a cultural diversity that is simultaneously specific and expansive."

The conference was hosted by the Department of Canadian Heritage. In the Government of Canada publication, "Who We Are, What We Do." (Catalogue number CH4-51/2002) Canadian Heritage lists among its priorities, "to build capacity" and "to connect Canadians to one another." In explaining what "to build capacity" means, Canadian Heritage says, "To promote and help sustain Canada's cultural diversity?." This means, to me, that first and foremost, that Canada is committed to allowing for, and maintaining, cultural differences. On the other hand, Canadian Heritage wants "to connect Canadians to one another." Their text goes on to explain that they want "to help Canadians overcome differences and distances to better understand one another and increase our appreciation of the values that we share as Canadians." This is an assimilation policy.

In a paper available as pre-reading, Monika Kin Gagnon and Scott Toguri McFarlane consider the paradoxical desire of a government, that wants to both sustain and overcome cultural differences. This, they point out, makes the Department of Canadian Heritage responsible for both the maintenance of cultural difference and the assimilation of those differences into a "broader, multicultural vision of Canadian collectivity."

In current government policies, there is a desire to build "diverse" audiences, administrations, staff, and boards of directors for the arts producers they currently fund (the galleries, concert facilities, theatres, and museums etc). At the same time, I see public policy at the Canada Council and Heritage Canada moving toward providing access to artistic expression from cultures and in languages other than Canada's two dominant cultures. In the visual arts, this has Canada funding agencies supporting galleries supporting exclusively the artistic products of First Nations artists. At the same time, and as the conference I attended repeatedly brought out, Canada wants to see all of the public galleries of Canada open to First Nations artists. Is there a conflict here as Gagnon and McFarlane suggest? I think not.

Diversity is a complex issue. I was lucky to have the privilege of being paid to attend the conference - to have three days to think about nothing else, well supported, and with background information from very divergent points of view. Do I know what it means now? I know much more than I did, but I am reminded of when I was learning French. Once I became bilingual, the more I learned, the more I learned there was to learn. It is the same with this learning experience on diversity.

In the end, Lillian Allen, an invited speaker, said it best. "Multiculturalism + Gender Parity + Anti-racism + equity-Seeking Groups = Diversity (differences and variations) = Cultural Diversity." Once you understand it, you have to live it and represent it. When I look at our local performing and visual art boards, donors, artists and audiences, I see mostly the people of our dominant culture in a city of tremendous diversity. One wonders how and when that will change.