DEVELOPMENT OF MULTICULTURALISM THROUGH MULTI-PROJECT INVESTMENTS IN CANADA

With immigration progressively increasing in Canada, is Canada’s multicultural policy progressing in tandem with a rising number of immigrants? How do different actors develop and implement multicultural policies in Canada? This paper argues that Canada has embraced the policy of multiculturalism as a public response to the increase in immigration, and in its response, Canada has been developing heavy multi-level government intervention through infrastructural investments and programs.

First, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1971) was established to recognize the contributions of cultural diversity to Canadian society. Embedding the ideology of multiculturalism into the legislation enables the formal enforcement of such values, and thus encourages multicultural development within communities. Second, the introduction of settlement and integration programs has eased the transition of immigrants to functional members of Canadian society. The investment in public infrastructure is especially effective in cultivating intercultural interaction and tolerance. Third, the presence of strict antidiscriminatory legislation and the sparsity of right-wing extremism in Canada has also created a positive notion around multiculturalism. As such, it is without a doubt that multiculturalism in Canada is advancing through the government’ s multi-tiered approach to increased immigration. The following paper discusses the advancement of this multitiered approach of multicultural development through three diverging, yet interconnected perspectives, as described by K. Wood and Gilbert.

Before expanding on the arguments, it is important to define our understanding of the terms ‘diverse ’ and ‘diversity ’ as it is frequently used in this paper. Diversity (noun) is understood as the recognition of economic, social, or ethnic differences among individuals. This can be based to various indicators that include race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disabilities, religious beliefs, and much more. Diverse (adjective) is used to describe these differences depending on context. The above approach explains the development of multiculturalism as a public policy at the federal level. Canada, like many industrialized countries, was experiencing a limited availability of skilled workers among Canadian-born individuals, so skilled immigration was not an option, but rather, a necessary factor for economic growth (Ng and Metz 2014, 9). Therefore, multicultural policies were a response to the relatively open immigration policies that brought a diversity of immigrants in Canada (G. Reitz 2012, 521-523). In 1971, the policy of multiculturalism informally began being established within the Bilingual Framework that encouraged cultural expression by discouraging discrimination (Berry 2013, 664). Later, in 1988, the Multiculturalism Act gave concrete and formal meaning to ensure recognition for immigrant contributions to Canadian society and equal participation among all citizens (Berry 2013, 664).

There are two main reasons for formalizing the Multiculturalism Act as a public policy. First, it is used as a tool for nation-building. Multiculturalism is central to Canadian identity, for it recognizes diversity as an “invaluable resource, ” and encourages Canadians to “ preserve ” and “ respect” these values (Uberoi 2016, 277). Second, the Multiculturalism Act is served to create an accountability mechanism by reporting program delivery outcomes and program development initiatives to the policy ’ s emphasis on diversity and equity, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also promotes the values of multiculturalism.

The Charter is a fundamental legal guideline that aligns with values in the Multiculturalism Act. It upholds values of equality, mobility, democratic rights and freedoms, minority language educational rights, and its subsets (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982). Therefore, the importance of multiculturalism in public policy stems from the need to recognize diversity, promote intercultural interaction, and reinforce Canadian identity formation. For these reasons, the expansion of the policy took diverse routes in addition to its significance in legislation.

This approach discusses programs and public spaces that enable multicultural interaction on a local scale. In a social perspective, multiculturalism is a social construct related to immigration, integration of diversity, and adaption to a multi-ethnic society (S. Ng and Metz 2015, 256). In Canada, since the formalization of multiculturalism, institutions follow an ‘integration ’ approach rather than an ‘ assimilation ’ approach to retain skilled workers, who are integral members of the labor market in the country (S. Ng and Metz 2015, 257). The introduction of settlement and integration practices that include language training, fast-track citizenship, and human rights guarantees have transformed immigrants into functional members of Canadian society (G. Reitz 2012, 519 & 528). These settlement programs are administered by government-funded immigration settlement organizations (ISOs) (Zhu 2015, 9). On the Federal level, programs like the Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP) are funded by Immigration, Refugee, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). The RAP assists immigrants in English or French language training for integrating into the labor market, providing short-term shelter, or helping gain access to information (Bushell and Shields 2018, 18). On the provincial level, in Ontario, the Government of Ontario funds the Newcomer Settlement Program (NSP), which provides direct support as well as funding to ISOs to carry out specific projects (Bushell and Shields 2018, 20). The NSP includes orientation, job counseling, and job-specific training and development of newcomer workers (Bushell and Shields 2018, 20).

Along with integration methods, settlement programs also help achieve the political goals of nation-building in Canada. By implementing language support (only English or French) and workforce development (creating additional skilled workers depending on market requirements) initiatives through settlement programs, governments systemically invest in nation-building (Uberoi 2016, 268-277). Additionally, local governments like Toronto ’ s municipal involvement in settlement services are outstanding due to the establishment of the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council (TRIEC) (Bushell and Shields 2018, 35-37). TRIEC ensures coordination among multi-level government efforts. The City of Toronto provides “ social services vital to immigrants ’ settlement process, such as social assistance, social housing, childcare, and public health” through central municipal agencies like Toronto District School Board, Toronto Public Health, Toronto Public Libraries, and the Toronto Police Service (Bushell and Shields 2018, 35-37). Through these agencies, Toronto can develop a collaborative urban framework and coordinate efficient settlement service delivery (Bushell and Shields 2018, 35-37). The above initiatives improve civic participation and remove barriers to societal participation among new immigrants.

In Canada, immigrants are encouraged to retain their cultural heritage and ancestry and be tolerant of their host countries ’ culture to encourage the co-existence of various cultures (S. Ng and Metz 2015, 262). Multicultural policies are a means to facilitate interaction between natives and immigrants. An important way to ensure interaction among the different social groups is through the creation of public spaces. This enables the testing of new social theories, unspoken political ideals, and cultural exchange; for example, this concept is epitomized within Toronto’s ethnic neighbourhoods (Little India, Little Italy, Little Portugal, etc.) where community residents are able to express their culture through restaurants, small businesses, street vendors, etc. (K. Wood and Gilbert 2005, 686-687).

Even with cultural contrasts within ethnic neighbourhoods, Torontonians can co-exist in a regional setting. These spaces increase tolerance and acceptance of nondominant cultures or religions. Apart from implementing national policies and programs, Toronto has invested in local public projects that enable interactions among different groups (Galanakis 2013, 70-77). This is deemed more effective and normalizes the differences by making them ‘ routine ’ (Galanakis 2013, 70-77). The investment in ‘ routine ’ spaces for the purpose of social interaction enables diverse groups to interact and form connections (K. Wood and Gilbert 2005, 686). These public spaces include local businesses, community centers, and religious spaces along with incidental spaces like bus stops, public transport, the public library, and so on (Galanakis 2013, 76-77). Interactive spaces often release tensions among different social and cultural groups. For example, there are ongoing negotiations with local authorities to make Dufferin Grove Park more accessible, inclusive, and fit for recreational activities for the public (Galanakis 2013, 76). Another example is Thorncliffe park which is in a predominantly immigrant residing area. Park development and enhancement projects are usually undertaken in collaboration with the Thorncliffe Park Women’s Committee (Galanakis 2013, 8081). From the above examples, we understand how public spaces can be designed to facilitate group interactions and develop a sense of collective belonging in Canadian society.

Federal laws like the Canadian Human Rights Act apply to banks, transportation, telecommunications, etc. (Sheppard 2020, 10). While provincial and territorial laws cover human rights codes that apply to businesses, educational institutions, and entities regulated by regional governments; any grievances are settled through local tribunals (Sheppard 2020, 10). These legislations also apply to hate crime, hate speech, discrimination of any kind, harassment, or violence that have penalties. For example, according to sections 318-319 of the Canadian Criminal Code, it is an offence to advocate or promote genocide or hate propaganda and it is punishable for up to 5 years in prison; the Criminal Code further states that public incitement of hatred and the wilful promotion of hatred carries a maximum sentence for up to two years (Criminal Code, 1985). These institutional mechanisms build resistance to immigration opposition and aim to decrease direct, indirect, and systemic discrimination (Ambrose and Mudde 2015, 229; Sheppard 2020, 10). In addition to legislation, there are complaint and enforcement mechanisms that mediate or punish far-right extremists (Sheppard 2020, 11). Apart from complaint-based remedies to discrimination, Canada has adopted a proactive approach to combat systemic discrimination on the federal and provincial levels, for example, through the Employment Equity Act (1986), or the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Sheppard 2020, 10-15). The above Acts provide a mechanism that proactively identifies employment barriers and resolves systemic inequalities among minority groups. Given these measures seek to improve tolerance in a diverse society, there is, comparatively, higher tolerance of multiculturalism among right-wing extremists or parties in Canada as compared to the rest of the world.

While Canada draws its foundational culture from West European countries, the adoption of far-right politics remains weak (Ambrose and Mudde 2015, 217-221). The sparsity of extreme far-right parties in Canada is a result of the robust multiculturalism policy in Canada and in turn promotes the development of multicultural policies (Ambrose and Mudde 2015, 213). The inadequacy of the extremist right influence also results in less right-wing terrorism and violence (Ambrose and Mudde 2015, 215). In fact, there are two main factors that cause less influence of the far right. First, the tolerance of Canadians towards immigrant and minority groups is 84% compared to 61% as reported by the OECD (Ambrose and Mudde 2015, 222). This tolerant attitude reduces the demand for far-right representation since Canada has one of the highest immigration rates in the world and foreign-born population residents (Ambrose and Mudde 2015, 218). Second, the sanctions on right-wing extremism are high. Sections 318-319, as discussed in the previous paragraph, of the Criminal Code reduce the motivation to practice xenophobia, racial discrimination, or any form of exclusion in Canadian society (Ambrose and Mudde 2015, 221-224). Canada is relatively tolerant as compared to other countries in the world, however, there are a few notable exceptions to this claim.

While there is a minority opposing multiculturalism that leads to ideological differences at the national level, the scale of impact is not profound. Despite the positive development of multiculturalism in Canada, this paper acknowledges gaps in its acceptance by briefly discussing the foreign credential recognition dilemma and Quebec nationalism. First, while there has been an influx of skilled workers, Canada has not utilized these workers ’ skills due to a gap in recognition of foreign education and work experience (S. Ng and Metz 2015, 261). Immigrants are usually at an economic disadvantage due to improper translations by employers regarding the foreign qualifications necessary for Canadian employment. This often leads to underemployment, settling for precarious jobs, or unemployment (S. Ng and Metz 2015, 261). This is a threat to multiculturalism because it downgrades immigrants ’ socio-economic status as compared to their country of origin. Second, multicultural policies are implemented throughout Canada with the notable exception of Quebec. As quoted by Louise Beaudoin, a Parti Quebecois member of parliament, multiculturalism is “ not a Quebec value ” (Ambrose and Mudde 2015, 226). Additionally, Quebec nationalism has led to the implementation of assimilation laws like Bill 21 – which bans wearing religious symbols at work –and Bill 96, which would make French the only language needed to work in the province. These laws challenge Canada’s official multiculturalism and question Quebec’s position in Canada’s multicultural identity.

Despite the recent uprisings with Quebec nationalism, there is net support for multiculturalism in Canada. Overall, multiculturalism is embraced by Canadians because of heavy institutional intervention in the development and implementation of multicultural policies and programs. First, this support is achieved through effective public policy (Canadian Multiculturalism Act – 1988) and the codification of inclusive Canadian identity. Second, as a result of laws and rights (antidiscriminatory laws) that deter far-right extremists ’ sentiments, policies that promote multiculturalism remain supported. Finally, multiculturalism is generally supported as government programs (for settlement and integration) and investment in public spaces provide a channel for immigrant expression and cultural interaction. While there is support for immigration in Canada, there will be continuous efforts to improve civic participation, immigrant integration, and nation-building through multiculturalism policies.

Ambrose, Emma, & Cas Mudde. (2015). Canadian Multiculturalism and the Absence of the Far Right. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 21(2), 213-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537113.2015.1032033

Berry, John W. (2013). Research on multiculturalism in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 663-675. DOI - 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.005.

Bushell, Riley, & John Shields. (2018). Immigrant Settlement Agencies in Canada: A Critical Review of the Literature through the Lens of Resilience. Migration and Resilience in Urban Canada, 1-70. https://bmrcirmu.info.yorku.ca/files/2018/10/ISAs-A-Critical-Review2018-JSRB-edits-Oct-9-2018.pdf

G. Reitz, Jeffrey. (2012). The distinctiveness of Canadian immigration experience. Patterns of Prejudice, 46 (5), 518538. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2012.718168.

Galanakis, Michail. (2013). Intercultural Public Spaces in Multicultural Toronto. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 22 (1), 67-89. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26193926

Government of Canada. “Guide to the Canadian Charter of

Rights and Freedoms.

” https://www.canada.ca/en/canadianheritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadiancharter-rights-freedoms.html

K. Wood, Patricia, & Liette Gilbert. (2005). Multiculturalism in Canada: Accidental Discourse, Alternative Vision, Urban Practice. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29 (3), 679-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14682427.2005.00612.x S. Ng, Eddy, & Isabel Metz. (2015). Multiculturalism as a Strategy for National Competitiveness: The Case for Canada and Australia. J Bus Ethics, 128, 253-266. DOI 10.1007/s10551-0142089-8

Sheppard, Colleen. (2020). The principles of equality and nondiscrimination, a comparative law perspective – Canada. European Parliamentary Research Service, 1-64. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/6 59362/EPRS _ STU(2020)659362 _ EN.pdf

Uberoi, Varun. (2016). Legislating Multiculturalism and Nationhood: The 1988 Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 49 (2), 267–287. doi:10.1017/S0008423916000366.

Zhu, Yidan. (2015). Brokering Identity and Learning Citizenship: Immigration Settlement Organizations and New Chinese Immigrants in Canada. Journal of Social Science Education, 14(3), 9-19. DOI 10.2390/jsse-v14-i3-1403