Multiculturalism is a complex concept, which depending on how and in what context it is used, would impart a different meaning. In a multicultural society, people with different ethnic, racial, religious or cultural background co-exist in harmony. Canada is often described as a multicultural nation. It means that Canadians are living in a vast diversity of cultural heritages and racial groups. This multicultural diversity is a result of centuries of immigration.[1] When we look at the history of Canada, we will find that immigration always has played, and continues to play, an important role in shaping the character of Canadian society. The concept of immigration in Canada back to almost 500 years ago, when Europeans arrived in what would eventually become Canada [2]. Multiculturalism has been at the centre of political debate for a long time. Today, multiculturalism is one of the remarkable and major, social issues that many scientist and sociologist are talking about it. In this paper, I will provide some explanations to answer the following questions: What is multiculturalism? And what precisely is meant by the expression ‘Canada is a multicultural society’? When did it originate? And how has it evolved over time? And finally I will pay attention to this question: has multiculturalism accomplished its promise and potential in making Canada a better place to live?
In the first part I will give some general definitions of multiculturalism along with specific explanation of the definition of multiculturalism in Canada. In the second part I will argue the history of multiculturalism along with a brief overview of Canadian immigration policy and acts and will examine the effect of the policies, which was introduced by the Liberal Party of Canada under the leadership of Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
In the third part of the paper, I will provide some different points of view, positive and negative with regards to the efficacy of the multiculturalism in Canada and will draw a conclusion.
Multiculturalism, as a philosophy, began as a movement at the end of the nineteen century in Britain and United States, whereas, politically and culturally it started at the turn of the twentieth century. Since then, many philosophers, psychologists, historians and also sociologists have written, discussed and developed the concepts of cultural pluralism, which we understand today as multiculturalism.[3]
Although we can find so many definitions for multiculturalism in the world’s literature, this concept in Canada has a special meaning and plays a vital role in nation building. Fleras in his book implied that “for some multiculturalism is synonymous with Canada’s official multiculturalism”.[4] In general, multiculturalism, means human diversity, by willingly promoting legal, social, and political recognition of cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and religious differences. It can imply “everything, or nothing; it can empower and enable, or it can disable and disempowered”. [5] Gunew suggests that we can consider multiculturalism as an empty category that can “absorb many things as context dictate.” [6]Todd Gitlin ( 1995, p228) argues that: “The word is baggy, and is a mélange of fact and value, current precisely because it is vague enough to serve so many interests. Partisans may use the term to defend the recognition of difference, or to resist policies or ideas imposed by conquerors, or to defend cosmopolitanism- the interests and pleasures that each may take in the profusion of humanity. The purists of identity politics use it to defend endless fission, a heap of monocultures. On the other side, multiculturalism and its demonic twin, “political correctness,” serves conservatives as names for a potpourri of things they detest- including an irritating insistence on the rights of minorities”.[7]
Multiculturalism is an “article of faith” in Canada and a “norm of Canadian social policy”, yet no one has ever succeeded in defining it.[8] The authors argue that multiculturalism has many dimensions and we can look at it from different perspective: cultural identity, economic, political, social justice, citizenship, national unity, and ideology. They suggest that although multiculturalism is vulnerable to various criticisms and is full of political and economic contradictions, it gives us a new vision to see and think about the world and society through the real experiences.[9] As public policy, “multiculturalism is concerned with the management of cultural differences”. [10] Bharucha (1999) argues that multiculturalism is a word that we “must use” in modern cultural debates. Savard and Vigessi have also emphasized multiculturalism as the “most widely discussed phenomenon in the modern world.” [11] Multiculturalism also defined by Berry, as a “complex and multidimensional concept with varying reference, perspectives, and levels of meaning[12], while Martiniello defines it as a society which contains different cultures that interact in a different kinds of ways.[13]Kymlicka describes multiculturalism as a set of demands made by ethnic and cultural groups, upon the state.[14]
In addition to those broad definitions, there are other definitions which are more specific. For example, we could say that multiculturalism in Canada is a set of policies and practices which have been defined by government to promote respect, diversity and equality to this country’s cultural, political and social order.( Wilson, 1995;Annual Report,2000; Fleras and Elliott, 1999)[15] An attempt at trying to arrive at a specific definition of multiculturalism, as related to Canadian society, would lead to potential debate and diversity of opinions. Kymlicka, (1998) argues that the adjective ‘multicultural’ is not an appropriate definition for Canadian society and suggests that Canada is a First Nation state, composing of, Anglophone Canadian, Francophone Quebecois, and other ethnic groups, from around the world . Some historian (Vasta and Castles, 1996; Copeman and Scollen, 1999)[16] have also described Canada as a country, which has a mono culture agenda (keeping minorities in place), rather than actively engages in diversity. Contrary to this assessment and definition, others look upon the Canadian multiculturalism with admiration and call it “the most successful pluralist society on the face of our globe.” (Agha Khan, the 49th Imam of the Ismaili Muslims, in a 2002 interview with Globe and Mail). In order to be able to argue the two contradictory assessment and perspectives one needs to has examine in detail, the information regarding the past and present policies of multiculturalism.
Without question “Canada is one of the few countries in the world that has an active immigrant and refugee admission policy and program.”[17] Samuel (1990) in his study claims that for centuries Canada has been identified as “ a nation of immigrations”. [18]In examining the Canadian history, we will find that even before 1860, immigrants and refugees from different part of the world arrived in Canada and made it their home.[19] In fact studies show, that although the first Canadian Immigration Act was established a formal policies in 1906, Canada had immigration laws as far back as 1869.[20] A study conducted at Mount Alison University on multiculturalism, claims that Canada is often described as multicultural nation, which means that Canadians today are not from only one specific culture and are from varieties of race, heritage, and cultural background, which have come together as a result of centuries of immigration. According to this study approximately 500 years ago, the first Europeans arrived on the shore of the land that today is known as Canada, and that this migration was continued, in large part of the next 150 years. The major bulk of the immigrants came from Great Britain; including English, Scots, Irish and American.
Isajiw in his study confirms that the history of immigration in Canada extends from 1600s. He indicates, the years 1600-1759 as the period French people immigrated to Canada, during which time English, Scottish, and German immigrants, along with many refugees and exiles from American Revolution, also settled in Canada.[21] Isajiw also describes the 1880s as a “unique” period of time that Canada needed more labour force in its farms and industries, which were expanding as a result of the construction of the railway system.[22]
Bolaria and Li[23], in their study indicate that, between 1881-1885 the immigration of Chinese to Canada was actuated, which was as the result of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It has been reported in some historical studies that between the two world wars, 1919-1930, there were restriction and reduction in immigration to Canada. During this period of time, Canadian government preference was more towards accepting European immigrants rather than immigrants from the other nations. Simmons (1990) in his study, claim that prior to 1968, Canada’s immigration law was based on a “nationality preference system” ,supporting European immigrants.[24] Comack in her study, calls Canadian immigration law as a “White Canada” policy, which was influenced by a racist notion.[25]. Anne Westhues, also in her study, pointed out that Canadian government restricted immigration from non- European countries as well as restraining the arrival of the families of the immigrants, already in Canada, by introducing restrictive measures for joining their families. [26] This policy is further substantiated in another document where it is noted that Canadian immigration policy until 1967, has been highly discriminatory with preference towards accepting immigrants from European background.[27] (Abu-Laban, 1998; Green & Green, 1996; Henry et al., 2000; Isajiw, 1999) This discriminatory and “preferential treatment” according to ( Adelman, 1991; Richmond, 1994)was extended to Canada’s record accepting refugees.[28]
During the first half of the 1960s, government policy towards a more liberal immigration policy began to change, insofar as, according to some historians, a remarkable movement towards removing some of the restrictions on nationality-based immigration, but the preference for Caucasian immigrants was still practiced. [29] In 1967, the government of Canada started to apply the new immigration policy ( Isajiw, 1999)[30] According to some historians, the Canadian immigration policy, in this period of time, was more influenced by economic, cultural, and population’s rate factors.[31] Based on this new immigration regulation, racial discrimination was eliminated[32] and for the qualification of the immigrants the points system was introduced. (Isajiw, 1999).[33] Additionally the visitors to Canada were given the right to apply for immigrant status while living in the country, and according to Janet Dench, Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees the sponsored family class was reduced.(The Making of the Mosaic: A History of Canadian Immigration Policy,1998)
Simmons called the points system a “non- discriminatory” policy. (Simmons, 1990) [34]. Based on this new immigration policy, Canada could select its citizens based on specific characteristics included training and education; demand for the individual’s occupation in Canada; personal qualities such as motivation, adaptability, and initiative; occupational skill; arranged employment; relatives in Canada; and knowledge of English or French (Isajiw, 1999)[35]
During the period of 1968-1976, while the new policy was in force, official multiculturalism in 1971 was widespread by Pierre Elliott Trudeau through the Canadian history. He appeared on the political scene, while not everyone liked his brilliant social vision. Although, the review of history of Canada shows that multiculturalism was practiced in Canada before Pierre Trudeau’s vision of a multicultural Canada, “his contribution was to institutionalize the principle of multiculturalism as a blueprint for an inclusive Canada.” [36] At the time that Trudeau introduced official multiculturalism, Canada was in danger of losing its unity by the rivalry between the French and the English people. In reality, the official multiculturalism was an attempt to promote principles of bilingualism and multiculturalism.[37]Pierre Elliott Trudeau believed that with a multicultural policy within a bilingual framework, Canada could become a special place: “ We become less like others; we become less susceptible to cultural, social, or political envelopment by others.” [38] The introduction of this new multiculturalism policy was not enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms until 1982 and the Multiculturalism Act in 1988, however Canada was known as the first and only country in the world that have an official policy framework of cultural and racial diversity. [39]In Trudeau’s vision, this new policy considered “the most suitable means of assuring the cultural freedom of Canadians.” [40] According to this federal multiculturalism, French and English were announced as the official languages of Canada and no cultural superiority of one over the other was recognized.[41] This policy would help the immigrants to Canada learn at least one of Canada’s official languages in order to receive full participation in the Canadian society at large.[42] This notion of multiculturalism also dictated that all the ethnic groups in the country, have equal rights, and no group has priority over any other and the government would assist members all cultural groups to overcome cultural barriers to fully participate in Canadian society. The government was fully responsible for providing the freedom of choice and the overcoming of “cultural barriers to full participation in Canadian society” for all members of society.[43] This multiculturalism based on Trudeau’s notion was based on removing prejudice and discrimination of all kinds, and equality between all cultures . He was promoting a “one Canada perspective” by allowing all minorities to equally participate in Canadian society. He also believed in individual freedoms and equal rights without any prejudice towards the culture, language, ethnicity, or race.[44] This notion enshrined the principal that individuals, rather than groups, have a major role towards facilitating and making a just society. Individuals were absolutely free to express their cultural elements by contributing to the multicultural concept.[45]. As Nemni argues, in the “Just Society” as described by Trudeau, individuals would be able to participate fully and equally in the mosaic of Canadian society[46]. As a matter of fact, the Constitution, the Official Languages Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Multiculturalism Act, all participated in creation of this pan-Canadian solidarity. Another legacy of Trudeau is the idea that each individual should be freely involved in Canadian society as a self-defining agent.[47]
Trudeau opposed the notion of a Canada polarized between two main stream of, English and French, nations, and he introduced the preservation of ethnic identity as a “voluntary matter”. [48]
As referred in the earlier part of this paper, in the Multiculturalism Act we read that “the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage.” [49] Based on this definition, individuals and groups from different ethnic backgrounds are free to choose whether or not to maintain their distinctive ethnic identity; however, if they desire to preserve their ethnic cultural heritage, funding for these multicultural programs will be provided by different Governmental Departments.[50] Bharucha, states that living together with differences, more and more countries endorse multiculturalism as official policy by accepting the diversity of their nation at the same time strive to preserve a nation.[51] Official multiculturalism introduced the way of managing conflict in a society, comprising of different ethnic groups and Canada ,as a first multicultural country has become a model for the rest of the world. Canada could claim that people with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds could enjoy the same citizenship rights regardless of their origin, color, or creed, with high degree of tolerance for the other citizens.[52]
Isajiw comments that since the introduction of the Multiculturalism Act and some remarkable changes to the Immigration Acts, which has followed, a marked reversal in the flow of the immigrants from those of white origin to non-white immigrants has been witnessed. [53] This change in trend has been accompanied by an increase in the quota of the arriving immigrants. For instance, Usha George in her study pointed out to the Act 1976,which was enforced in 1978. The Act incorporated important changes, which were as the result of the pressure from various groups and NGO’s.[54] The incorporated changes were based on some fundamental principles such as, non discrimination , family reunion, humanitarian concern for refugees, promotion of Canada’s social demographic, economics and cultural goals.
This act basically classified four groups of individuals, who are eligible for landed immigrant status: family class, humanitarian class including refugees who defined in the 1951 United Nation’s Convention, independent class, and assisted relatives.[55] To date, this Act has had several overhauls, by introduction of a number of regulations.[56] The 1993 amendments in the Act were associated to the labour market needs and population. It confined three classes of immigration which were family class, refugees, and independent immigrants including business immigrants, skilled workers, and assisted relatives. This new classification resulted in the flow of ever- increasing numbers of immigrants from non- traditional source countries.[57] Usha George also states in her study that after the immigration Act 1971, the United Nations’ Convention on Refugees in 1970, was endorsed by Canada, as a consequence a number of refugees from Tibet, Vietnam, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Uganda, and Cambodia arrived in Canada.[58] According to Simmons’s study, during this period some 2.8 million people from Asia, Africa, and Latin America migrated to Canada.[59] Daiva Stasiulis and Yasmeen Abu- Laban also in their study pointed out that during the 1970s and particularly through the 1990s, the demographic trends of immigrants of European origin declined, while during the same period a huge increase in the number of immigrants originated in the Central and South Americas, Caribbean, the Middle East, Africa and specially Asia, were recorded. Between 1991-1996 , 57 percent of the immigrants were from Asia,[60] and according to Citizenship and Immigration Canada,2001,during year 2000,China, India, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Sri Lanka, United States, Iran, Yugoslavia, and Great Britain were the top ten source countries.
According to the study conducted by the Government of Canada approximately 200,000 immigrants a year from all over the world continue to choose Canada, due to its quality of life and its reputation as a peaceful, democrat and caring society that tolerate and welcome newcomers and their diverse values.[61] In 1990s , which described as the decade of immigration, Canada had on average some 200,00 arrivals per annum more, which was the highest number in the Canadian history. [62]In another study conducted by Dolin and Youn, it is stated that Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world, insofar as in 2001, 250,640 people immigrated to Canada with majority coming from Asia.[63]
In order to fully understand the concept of multiculturalism in Canada, it is necessary to examine and analyze the debate, which is continuing at the present, amongst the experts in this field. This discussion necessitates the enumeration of the factors, underlies the immigration policy in Canada. Some historians consider two main factors, while others, enumerate three main competing factors that determine who and how many immigrants admitted to Canada. Elliott and Fleras, argue that, the main three factors, which have shaped the objectives of immigration laws and policies, could be summarized as; ideological and political considerations, international obligations, and economic requirements”.[64] Two major factors that historians claim, that have shaped the history of the immigration in Canada, which has been the main prime-mover for Canadian government, to be sensitive about immigration’s policies, and try to modify and change any flaws are: population concern and labour market.
Canada’s natural population growth has been always a major concern of the Canadian Government. As studies shown, the population of Canada has declined three percent from the 1950s to less than one percent in the late 1990s.[65], which constituted the concern that continuation of this trend would endanger the foundation of the Canadian nation. As Knowles has observed, “should this low fertility rate continue- and all the indications are that it will, immigration will become essential for this country’s healthy growth and even, perhaps , for its survival.” [66].This concern has been acknowledged officially by the Government and set out to promote its immigration policy. In 1947, Mackenzie King in his speech in the House of Commons indicated that growing the population of Canada is the goal of immigration. He also indicted: “The policy of the government is to foster the growth of the population of Canada by the encouragement of immigration. The government will seek by legislation, regulation, and vigorous administration, to ensure the careful selection and permanent settlement of such immigrants as can advantageously be absorbed in our national economy.” [67]. The longevity of life in Canada, on the other hand, leads to the increase in the aging population, which according to Grant, by the year 2011, one quarter of the population will be older than sixty-five years.[68] This overpopulation of aging citizens needs to be balanced by younger population, and is archived by welcoming younger immigrants into Canada. These two factors of aging population and declining birth rate dictates the immigration policy and Canada is very much is dependent on it. [69]
The second important factor, which necessitates the immigration, is the ever increasing need for skilled workers. This factor has been embossed on the face of the Canadian history for over a century ago, when over 1500 Chinese worker were recruited from China to build Canadian Pacific Railways in the 1880s.[70] This practice was repeated in recent years for the acute need for skilled labour for Canada’s expanding industrial and high-tech industry.
Simmon reaffirms this process of immigrant inflow and argues that, the admission of immigrants is dictated by the demand of the labour market, pointing out that the Canadian Government has increased the inflow of immigrant workers during the expansion of economy, and more selective inflows of skill workers immigrants, entrepreneur and visa workers during the economic recession.[71]
Tepper, agrees with this argument and adds that, “Immigrants create jobs, provide markets for Canadian goods, and pay taxes to fund social services for an aging population.” [72] Another expert in the field of immigration comments that the immigrants collaborate on the Canadian economy, by not only filling the shortages of labour and skill workers, during the stage of economic expansion, but they are willing to work in workplaces that many born Canadians are not willing to work.[73]
Arat-Koc, in addition to the two factors discussed earlier, enumerates the third factor in immigration policy. This factor is nation- building, to develop the country as a settler colony in the image of Britain.[74]
As this brief has outlined, we noticed that since 1971, Canada adopted a policy of official multiculturalism, first by the federal government and then widely copied for other levels of government, and eventually enshrined in law in the 1988 Act. This Act has four goals: (1)to help people with different cultures overcome barriers to full participation in Canadian society,(2) to promote cultural exchange among all ethnic cultural groups, (3)to support ethnic cultural groups,
to develop their culture, (4)and to assist new members of Canadian society to learn one of the two official languages, either English or French.
Today a great deal of attention is paid to the feasibility of multiculturalism, however, no one can deny the historical makeup of Canada, where the multiculturalism was at its core and helped in definding: the present day Canada. Multiculturalism is now a central debate in Canadian society. Since Canada internationally has been recognized as a multicultural society, Canadian always have been very sensitive and worried towards adoption of the notion of multiculturalism, lest adapting this approach, could lead to igniting ethnic separatism and conflict.[75] For instance, some English speaking Canadians worried that multiculturalism would divided Canadian rather than unite them. Some critics also have argued that federal multiculturalism policy ignites the fire of racial tension and hatred, rather than leading to a harmonious society.[76] Elliott and Fleras, in their study indicate the reasons for this fear, personal threat and a threat to society, a complete contrast to the supporters of multiculturalism who believe that the diversity of the society is a “valuable resource for society as a whole.” [77] In the opinion of Kymlicka the main reason for the concerns and critique of the opponent of the multiculturalism is because of they are not being informed about the consequences of the policy of multiculturalism. He blames the federal government as a main offender of this misunderstanding because it did not clearly define multiculturalism in a Canadian context.[78] Neil Bissoondath, one of the most noted critics and opponents of multiculturalism in Canada, has argued that multiculturalism policy hardens the hatreds, and is a cause of disintegration rather than adherence of the society.[79] He also in his book, Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada, indicates that official multiculturalism amongst other things, limits the freedom of minority, by holding them in a dominant culture. He argues that culture is a very complex subject that we couldn’t define only in holding national festivals of a specific ethnic group or having specific restaurants serving ethnic cuisine. He believes that multiculturalism is promoting isolation instead of integration and tends to push the immigrants to alienate themselves from the mainstream of the society. [80]Gwyn is also another critic who explains his views in a publication Nationalism Without Walls: the Unbearable Lightness of Being Canadian (1995). His views are not unsimilar to those of Bissoondath. Both believe that multiculturalism has promoted ethnic separatism, rather than unity among immigrants.[81]
Daniel Stoffman, is another critique of multiculturalism, in his book, Who Gets In, regarding Canadian multiculturalism, points out to some cultural practices, which are incompatible with Canadian and Western culture. He also refers to linguistic barriers of the recent immigrants, will lead to their isolation and cause them not to integrate linguistically into Canadian society. In the opinion of Stoffman, multiculturalism is not working in practice and is a mere theory.[82] Gunnar K.A.Njalsson also sounds his criticism of multiculturalism and looks at it as a “utopian ideology” with an optimistic view of human nature. He believes that, in a multicultural society, sub- cultures may change the value system of the larger society. [83] Zolf expresses his voice as an opponent of multiculturalism by explaining that despite the definition of multiculturalism and the benefits, it is claimed to enshrine, in Canada all the ethnic groups don’t have equal rights. He divided Canada to three major ethnic groups of British, French, and the rest whom he calls “ethnic third”. He believes that the success of the third group, due to their lack of knowledge about the institutional processes, is limited and this group hopes to “make it someday”.[84]
To continue on the same theme, Bibby believes that multiculturalism nurtures separatism, ethnocentrism, and cultural isolation.[85] This non conformity is also expressed by Wood who suggests that multiculturalism will threaten the democracy and take away the belonging feeling among the ethno-racial groups toward Canada.[86] However, based on analysis of the 2001 Census confirms that ethno-racial differences are little, when it comes to a felt sense of belonging and attachment to Canada. In fact, visible minorities have a strong sense of belonging and attachment to Canada, whereas, at the same time they also can be proud of their ethnicity[87].
Kymlicka, in referring to Bissoondath and Gwyn’s suggestions expresses that their claims is not substantiated by any empirical evidence. He argues his collected empirical evidence in order to show that multiculturalism has promoted ethnic unity and encourages the immigrants to integrate themselves in their new society. He starts with the basic integration factors; the rate of naturalization of the immigrants, which is a voluntary decision. According to him since 1971 this rate has increased, [88]negating the argument forwarded by two previous critiques and immigrants who choose to be a citizen of Canada, after their naturalization show interest and participate in the political life of the country. [89] Additionally he argues that statistical evidence shows that the highest rate of naturalization of the immigrants were from non-traditional source countries, rather than to those immigrants who came from United State or United Kingdom.[90] He also argues the political participation as Bissoondath and Gwyn mentioned is a symbol of one’s interest to the society. He mentioned that as evidence shows not only is there no decline since 1971, but also since then the number of MPs from different ethnic groups were increased. This participation in the political life of Canadian society does not have any form or shape contributed to formation of an ‘ethnic Party’, but these MPs have integrated fully in the mainstream of the Canadian political parties. In contrast to this integration, the only main political parties were created by French and English ancestries and no other ethnic groups.[91]
Kymlicka, claims that, in the 1995 referendum, most of the ethnic voters expressed their commitment to Canada and did not support the separation of Quebec. He continues his argument in the support of multiculturalism and shifts to social integration, which he considers an important factor in the fabric of a multicultural society and refers to official language skill and intermarriage rates. He mentions that if immigrants groups as Bissoondath and Gwyn claimed were ‘ghettoized’ and ‘alienated from the mainstream’, then the rate of people who are interested in learning an official language should decline or at least wouldn’t show the remarkable increase. However, the demand for classes in English and French as a second language has never been higher than today.
Another social indicator that Kymlicka has paid attention to is the intermarriage rates, which have been consistently increased since 1971 whereas endogamy, both for immigrants and also for their native- born children has declined. Mixed marriages have also dramatically increased, though in 1968 the majority of Canadians (52 percent) disapproved of Black and white marriages in 1995, a majority of 81 percent approved it. Then he argues that even though intermarriage implicitly, is not official goal of government, however could have an effect on social relationships in the society, which will result in helping the immigrants to integrate faster, and for the Canadian to more accept the diversity of the community. Kymlicka, then compares Canada and United States using the same criteria as discussed earlier in the paper. Canada’s naturalization rates are almost double than that of US and as far as political participation, official language acquisition, and intermarriage approval rate is concerned the Canadian rates are higher.
Kymlicka reaffirms his argument for success of multiculturalism policy in Canada, is based on a survey that was conducted in 1997 on twenty countries, comparing the effectiveness of multiculturalism in consolidation of a nation in Canada, USA, and France. According to the result of this study, 75 per cent were in a favour of Canada, while 58 per cent vote for USA and 51 per cent for France. He goes on to conclude, there is no evidence to substantiate that multiculturalism is not an effective method of nation building or it promotes ethnic separatism or indeed, make it difficult for the immigrants to integrate in the social and political life of their newly adopted country.
He believes that the ambiguous definition of tolerance and integration, and not showing its limits make some Canadians dislike multiculturalism. The Government must take the role of the custodian and a greatest perpetrator of this policy and must provide clearer explanations about the multiculturalism terms, as well as it’s aims of demonstrating the success of this program to reduce public anxiety. Kymlicka, after reviewing the policy of multiculturalism argues that, logically the ethnic groups clearly do not constitute a danger as far as separatism or developing a national minority, is concerned. He believes that multiculturalism promotes integration within the diverse ethnicity of people by accepting the principals the state imposes, however the renegotiating of the terms of integration should be reconsidered.[92]
Conclusion:
Thus far in this paper it has been argued that multiculturalism does indeed work in Canada. This paper was constructed in the following manner. Firstly the definition of multiculturalism was presented. Secondly, a brief review of the history of multiculturalism in Canada was discussed. This review shows that the experience with diversity has made this country more creative and strong, insofar as it still remains as a source of strength and plays a vital role in making Canada a modern and fare country, economically and socially. Furthermore Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s vision of an official multiculturalism was presented to show how Official multiculturalism makes Canadians more tolerant and open. After conducting a thorough study of such background information, the counter arguments were presented. This part was presented by a brief review of those against multiculturalism and believes that notion will nurture separatism, ethnocentrism, and cultural isolation. Critics argue that multiculturalism policies have promoted ethnic separatism, hardened hatred, and discouraged integration rather than adherence of the society. Finally , the main argument supporting multiculturalism was presented by providing evidence of basic forms of integration which is the decision of an immigrant to become a Canadian citizen. Then presented was the naturalization rates within the political participation and two important indicators of societal integration: official language; and intermarriage rates. As it has been suggested in this paper, despite the arguments of critics, all those rates have shown an increase.
In summary the idea that multiculturalism promotes ethnic separateness is not proved. In contrary we can suggest that official multiculturalism makes Canadians more tolerant and open people. With globalization and increasing movement rates of people from one country to another, the need for tolerance and openness will increase, and multiculturalism could be a solution to make these two adjectives true. In other words, multiculturalism could make our dream of having a board less world true.
Bibliography:
Adelman, H. (1991). Canadian refugee policy in the postwar period: An analysis. In H. Adelman (Ed.), Refugee
policy: Canada and the United States. Toronto: York Lanes Press.
About Canada, Multiculturalism in canada Retrieved March 03, 2009, Web site:
http://www.mta.ca/about_canada/multi/index.htm
Bissoondath, N. (1994). Selling illusions: the cult of multiculturalism in canada. Toronto: Penguine.
Bolaria, B. Singh, and Peter S. Li (Eds.) (1988). Racial oppression in canada(2rd edition.). Toronto: Garamond
Press.
Bolaria, B. S., & Li, P. S. (1988). Racial oppression in canada (2nd ed.). Toronto: Garamond Press.
Breton, E. (2000). Canadian federalism, multiculturalism and the twenty-first century. International Journal of
Canadian Studies, 21, Spring
Comack, E. (2006). Locating law,race,class,gender, sexuality, connections(2nd edittion).Winnipeg,Manitoba:
Fernweed Publishing Company Limited.
Canadian integration and immigration policies at the millennium. Canadian ethnic studies, 30(3).
Dua, E., & Robertson, A. (1999). Scratching the surface:canadian anti-racist feminist thought.NY, USA: Canadian
Scholars Press.
Elliot, J. E., and Fleras, A. (1996). Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race and Ethnic and
Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada (2nd ed.). Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Fleras, A. (1998). Working through differences:the politics of isms and posts in newzealan. New Zealand Sociology,
13(2), 56-87.
Fleras, A., & Elliott, J.L. (2002). Engaging diversity.Toronto: Evelyn Veitch. pp. 15.
Roth, L. (1998).History and perceptions of Canadian multiculturalism. Canadian Journal of Communication. 23, No. 4, 2.
Friesen, J. w. (1993). When cultures clash, second edition. Calgery, Alberta: Detselig Enterprises Ltd. pp. 19.
(Bibby 1990).
Fleras, A., & Elliott, J.L. (1992). Multiculturalism in canada.Scarborough, ontario: Nelson Canada.
Gwyn R. (1995). Nationalism without walls: the unbearable lightness of being Canadian. Toronto: McClelland and
Stewart.
George, U., & Fuller- Thompson, E. (1997). To stay or not to stay: Characteristics associated with newcomers
planning to remain in canada. Canadian journal of regional science,, 1(2).
George, U., (2006). Immigration and Refugee Policy in Canada: Past, Present, and Future. In Westhues, A. Canadian social policy issued and perspectives. pp. 349-374.Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Green, A., & Green, D. (1996). The economic goals of canada’s immigration policy, past and present. (Research on
Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis,Working Paper Series, no. 96-04.
Gunew, S. (1999). Colonial hauntings: the (post) colonialism of multiculturalism in Australia and Canada.
Australian-Canadian Studies, 17(2).
Henry, Frances, Talor, C., Mattis, W., and Rees, T. (2006). The colour of democracy: racism in canadian society
(3rd ed.). Toronto: Harcourt Brace and Company.
Halli, S., Trovato, F., and Driedger, L. (1990). Ethnic demography: Canadian immigrat, racial and cultural
variations. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.
Henry, F., Tator, C., Mattis, W., & Rees, T. (2000). The colour of democracy: racism in canadian society (2nd ed.).
Toronto: Harcourt Canada.
Isajiw, W. W. (1999). Understanding diversity: Ethnicity and race in the Canadian Context. Toronto: Thompson
Educational.
Kymlicka, W. (1998). Finding our way. Ontario: Oxford University Press.
Knowles, V. (2000). Forging our legacy: Canadian citizenship and immigration, 1900-1977. Public Works and
Government Services Canada.
Malarek, V. (1987). Hawen’s gate: canada’s immigration fiasco. Toronto: Macmillan.
Multiculturalism. (2009). In Wikipedia [Web]. Retrieved March 16,09, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism
Martiniello, M. (1998). Wieviorka’s views on multiculturalism: A critique. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21(5).
Nakhaie, M.R. (2006).Contemporary realities and future visions: enhancing multiculturalism in canada . Canadian Ethnic Studies. 38(1), 149-158. Retrieved from Thomson Gale.
Simmons, A. B. (1998). Economic globalization and immigration policy: Canada and Europe. Journal of
contemporary international issues, 1(1).
Savard, P., & Vigezzi, B. (1999). Multiculturalism and the history of international relations from the 18th century up
to the present. Ottawa: Carleton U Press.
Statisitics Canada. (1996). Census: immigration and citizenship
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/971104/dq971104-eng.htm
Vasta, E. (1996). Dialectics of dominion: Racism and multiculturalism. In E. Vasta & S. Castles (Eds.), The teeth
are smiling: The persistence of racism in multicultrural Austalia (pp. 48). Sydney: Allen & Unwin
Zolf, L. (1982). How multiculturalism corrupts. Maclean’s November 15.
[1] About Canada, Multiculturalism in canada Retrieved March 06, 2009, from Web site: http://www.mta.ca/about_canada/multi/index.htm
[3] Multiculturalism. (2009). In Wikipedia [Web]. Retrieved March 16,09, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism
[4] Fleras, A. (1998). Working through differences:the politics of isms and posts in newzealan. New Zealand Sociology, 13(2), 56-87.
[5] Fleras, A., & Elliott, J.L. (2002). Engaging diversity.Toronto: Evelyn Veitch. pp. 15.
[6] Gunew, S. (1999). Colonial hauntings: the (post) colonialism of multiculturalism in Australia and Canada. Australian-Canadian Studies, 17(2), 11-31.
[7] Cited in Fleras, A., & Elliott, J.L. (2002). Engaging diversity.Toronto: Evelyn Veitch. P. 15-16
[8] Ibid at 2
[9] Ibid at 6-12
[10] Vasta, E. (1996). Dialectics of dominion: Racism and multiculturalism. In E. Vasta & S. Castles (Eds.), The teeth are smiling: The persistence of racism in multicultrural Austalia (pp. 48). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
[11] Savard, P., & Vigezzi, B. (1999). Multiculturalism and the history of international relations from the 18th century up to the present. Ottawa: Carleton U Press.
[12] About Canada, Multiculturalism in canada Retrieved March 06, 2009, Web site: http://www.mta.ca/about_canada/multi/index.htm
[13] Martiniello, M. (1998). Wieviorka’s views on multiculturalism: A critique. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21(5), 911-19
[14] Kymlicka, W. (1998). Finding our way. Ontario: Oxford University Press. pp. 25.
[15] Cited in Fleras, A., & Elliott, J.L. (2002). Engaging diversity.Toronto: Evelyn Veitch. p. 16.
[16] Vasta E., & Castles, S. (Eds.). (1996). The teeth are smiling: The persistence of racism in multicultural Australia .Sydney: Allen & Unwin.; Copeman, R., Scollen, R. (1999). Of training tokenism, and productive misinterpretation: Reflections on After China Project. Journal of Australian Studies and Australian cultural History, pp. 35-43. Special joint issue.
[17] George, U., (2006). Immigration and Refugee Policy in Canada: Past, Present, and Future. In Westhues, A. Canadian social policy issued and perspectives. (pp. 349).Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
[18] Samuel, T. J. (1990). “Third World Immigration and Multiculturalism.” In S. Halli, F. Trovato, and L. Driedgar (Eds.), Ethnic Demography: Canadian Immigrant, Racial and Cultural Variations. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. pp. 383.
[19] George, U., & Fuller-Thompson, E. (1997). To stay or not to stay: Characteristics associated with newcomers planning to remain in Canada. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 1(2), 181-193.
[20] Knowles, V. (2000). Forging our legacy: Canadian citizenship and immigration, 1900-1977. Public Works and Government Services Canada.
[21] Isajiw, W. W. (1999). Understanding diversity: Ethnicity and race in the Canadian Context. Toronto: Thompson Educational. pp. 80.
[22] Ibid p. 82.
[23] Bolaria, B. Singh, and Peter S. Li. (1998). Racial Oppression in Canada (2nd edition.). Toronto: Garamond Press. pp. 105.
[24] Simmons, A. B. (1990). New Wave’ Immigrations: Origins and Characteristics. In S. Halli, F. Trovato, and L. Driedger (Eds.), Ethnic Demograpy: Canadian Immigrant, Racial and Cultural Variations. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. pp. 141.
[25] Fakubowski, L. M., (2006). “Managing” canadian immigration: racism, ethnic selectivity, and the law. In Comack, E. Locating law,race,class,gender, sexuality, connections(2nd edittion).(pp. 97). Winnipeg,Manitoba: Fernweed Publishing Company Limited.
[26] George, U., (2006). Immigration and Refugee Policy in Canada: Past, Present, and Future. In Westhues, A. Canadian social policy issued and perspectives. (pp. 353).Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
[27] Ibid. pp.353-365
[28] Adelman, H. (1991). Canadian refugee policy in the postwar period: An analysis. In H. Adelman (Ed.), Refugee policy: Canada and the United States. Toronto: York Lanes Press. pp. 173-223.
[29] George, U., (2006). Immigration and Refugee Policy in Canada: Past, Present, and Future. In Westhues, A. Canadian social policy issued and perspectives. (pp. 353).Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
[30] Cited in Westhues, A. (2006). Canadian social policy:immigration and refugee policy in canada:past, present, and future. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. pp. 353.
[31] Ibid. p.353.
[32] Although there is a contemporary debate which argued that in immigration policy, racism and ethnic selectivity have not disappeared, rather it still exist more systemic and subtle. Cited in [32] Comack, E. (2006). Locating law,race,class,gender, sexuality, connections(2nd edittion). ( pp. 103). Winnipeg,Manitoba: Fernweed Publishing Company Limited.
[33] Ibid. p. 354.
[34] Cited in “ Comack, E. (2006). Locating law,race,class,gender, sexuality, connections(2nd edittion). (pp. 95). Winnipeg,Manitoba: Fernweed Publishing Company Limited..”
[35] Cited in Westhues, A. (2006). Canadian social policy:immigration and refugee policy in canada:past, present, and future. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.pp. 353.”
[36] Fleras, A., & Elliott, J.L. (2002). Engagin. g diversity.Toronto: Evelyn Veitch. pp.54.
[37] Ibid at 54.
[38] Roth, L. (1998).History and perceptions of Canadian multiculturalism. Canadian Journal of Communication. 23, No. 4, 2. (Porter, 1987)
[39] Fleras, A., & Elliott, J.L. (2002). Engaging diversity.Toronto: Evelyn Veitch. Pp.58.
[40] Ibid at 3.
[41] Flerals, A., & Elliott, J.L. (1992). Multiculturalism in canada.Scaarbrough, Ontario: Nelson Canada. pp. 73.
[42] Roth, L. (1998).History and perceptions of Canadian multiculturalism. Canadian Journal of Communication. 23, No. 4, 2. (Multiculturalism Canada, 1984)
[43] Flerals, A., & Elliott, J.L. (1992). Multiculturalism in canada.Scaarbrough, Ontario: Nelson Canada. pp. 73.
[44] Fleras, A., & Elliott, J.L. (2002). Engaging diversity.Toronto: Evelyn Veitch. pp. 55-57
[45] Breton, E. (2000). Canadian federalism, multiculturalism and the twenty-first century. International Journal of Canadian Studies, 21, Spring, 160- 75.
[46] Cited in Fleras, A., & Elliott, J.L. (2002). Engaging diversity.Toronto: Evelyn Veitch. pp. 55. (Nemni, 2000)
[47] Cited in Fleras, A., & Elliott, J.L. (2002). Engaging diversity.Toronto: Evelyn Veitch. pp. 55. ( Breton, 2000; Siddiqui, 2000)
[48] Roth, L. (1998).The delicate acts of “colour balancing”:multicultualsim and canadian television broad casting policies and practices. Canadian Journal of Communication. 23, No. 4, 4. (Kallen, 1982)
[49] Ibid , ( Multiculturalism Act [1988] s. 3.1.a.)
[50] Ibid at 6 (Kallen 1982)
[51] Flera, A., & Elliott, J.L. (2002). Engaging diversity.Toronto, Ontario: Evelyn Veitch. p. 57. (Bharucha, 2000)
[52] Ibid at 57. (Jelloun, 1999).
[53] Isajiw, W. W. (1999). Understanding diversity: Ethnicity and race in the Canadian context. Toronto: Thompson Educational. pp. 85.
[54] George, U., (2006). Immigration and Refugee Policy in Canada: Past, Present, and Future. In Westhues, A. Canadian social policy issued and perspectives. (pp. 355).Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
[55] Ibid at 354. (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2001a)
[56] Ibid at 354. (Simmons 1998).
[57] Ibid at 355. (Isajiw 1999).
[58] Ibid at 355. (George)
[59] Simmons, A. B. (1990). New Wave’ Immigrations: Origins and Characteristics. In S. Halli, F. Trovato, and L. Driedger (Eds.), Ethnic Demograpy: Canadian Immigrant, Racial and Cultural Variations. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. pp. 141.
[60] Statistics Canada, 1996 Census: Immigration and Citizenship
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/971104/dq971104-eng.htm
[61] http:// www.pch.gc.ca/progs/multi/respet_e.cfm
[62] George, U., & Fuller-Thompson, E. (1997). To stay or not to stay: Characteristics associated with newcomers planning to remain in Canada. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 1(2), 181-193.
[63] Multiculturalism. (2009). In Wikipedia [Web]. Retrieved march16,09, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/multiculturalism. pp. 4. (Benjamin Dolin and Margaret Youn, Las and Government Division, 2004-10-31. Canada’s Immigration Program. Library of Parliament. Retrieved on 2006-11-29).
[64] Elliot, J. E., and Fleras, A. (1996). Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race and Ethnic and Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada (2nd ed.). Toronto: Oxford University Press. pp. 290.
[65] Knowles, V. (2000). Forging our legacy: Canadian citizenship and immigration, 1900-1977. Public Works and Government Services Canada. pp. 4.
[66] Ibid at 4.
[67] Ibid at 67.
[68] Grant, K. (2000). Health care in an aging society: Issues, controversies, and challenges for the future. In B. Singh Bolaria (Ed.), Social issues and contradictions in Canadian society (3rd ed.). pp.363-390.
[69] Flerals, A., & Elliott, J.L. (1992). Multiculturalism in canada.Scaarbrough, Ontario: Nelson Canada. pp. 112. (Tepper 1988).
[70] George, U., (2006). Immigration and Refugee Policy in Canada: Past, Present, and Future. In Westhues, A. Canadian social policy issued and perspectives. (pp. 350). (Bolaria & Li 1988; Henry, Tator, Mattis, & Rees 2000).Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
[71] Simmons, A. B., (1992). Canadian Migration in the Western Hemisphere. Paper prepared for the workshop Canada’s Role in the Hemisphere: Setting the Agenda. University of Miami: North-South Centre, March 27-28. pp.13.
[72] Flerals, A., & Elliott, J.L. (1992). Multiculturalism in canada.Scaarbrough, Ontario: Nelson Canada. pp. 112. (Tepper 1988).
[73] Ibid at 112. (De Vorets 1988).
[74] Dua, E., & Robertson, A. (1999). Scratching the surface:canadian anti-racist feminist thought.NY, USA: Canadian Scholars Press. pp. 207. (Arat-Koc ).
[75] Kymlicka, W. (1998). Finding our way: setting the record straight. Ontario: Oxford University Press. pp.15.
[76] Elliot, J. E., and Fleras, A. (1996). Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race and Ethnic and Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada (2nd ed.). Toronto: Oxford University Press. pp. 347.
[77] Fleras, A., & Elliott, J.L. (2002). Engaging diversity.Toronto: Evelyn Veitch. pp. 18.
[78] Kymlicka, W. (1998). Finding our way: setting the record straight. Ontario: Oxford University Press. pp.16.
[79] Elliot, J. E., and Fleras, A. (1996). Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race and Ethnic and Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada (2nd ed.). Toronto: Oxford University Press. pp. 347. (Neil Bissoondath).
[80] Multiculturalism. (2009). In Wikipedia [Web]. Retrieved March 16,09, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism. pp. 11.
[81] Gwyn, R. (1995). Nationalism Without Walls:The Unbearable Lightness of Being Canadian. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Pp. 98-110-111.
[82] Multiculturalism. (2009). In Wikipedia [Web]. Retrieved March 16,09, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism. pp. 11. (Stoffman 2002).
[83] Ibid at 12.
[84] Zolf, L. (1982). How multiculturalism corrupts. Maclean’s November 15, pp.21.
[85] Friesen, J. w. (1993). When cultures clash, second edition. Calgery, Alberta: Detselig Enterprises Ltd. pp. 19. (Bibby 1990).
[86] Ibid at 19. (Wood 1980).
[87] Nakhaie, M.R. (2006).Contemporary realities and future visions: enhancing multiculturalism in canada . Canadian Ethnic Studies. 38(1), pp.151.
[88] Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Statistics. Ottawa: Public Works, (1997). Table G2 and Table 1.
[89] Kymlicka, W. (1998). Finding our way. Ontario: Oxford University Press. pp. 17-18.
[90] Ibid at 18.
[91] Ibid at 19.
[92] Ibid at 19-38.