Canadian Multiculturalism: A Work in Progress

As we mark fifty years since the adoption of Canada’s federal multiculturalism policy, human rights advocate AMIRA ELGHAWABY celebrates its merits and reflects on the work that is yet to be done when it comes to inclusion, acceptance, and fighting systemic racism in our country.

I’ve often joked that many of us have drunk the Kool-aid, one with a distinctly Canadian flavour called “multiculturalism.”

In fact, the sentiment that people of a variety of backgrounds, beliefs, and cultures could happily fit into Canada while holding on to, even celebrating, the aspects of their identities that make them who they are has long informed my life’s trajectory.

Multiculturalism has marked many of my formative experiences growing up as the daughter of Egyptian immigrants. In elementary school, I was encouraged to share information about my faith and culture with my peers. In high school, I was the president of the multicultural club at our incredibly diverse school overseeing an annual cultural showcase that attracted hundreds of young people and their families; families who were thrilled to see their home countries celebrated by their teenagers on stage.

While it has become a somewhat contentious concept over the years, multiculturalism remains a cherished belief for me, and for so many people who have long called this country home, or who have arrived more recently to build, or rebuild, their lives here. And yet, looking at the history books, one could easily assume that Canadian multiculturalism happened by accident.

In 1963, then Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson was trying to figure out how to stave off a national unity crisis threatening to tear society apart across linguistic lines. At the core of the crisis was mounting resentment by Quebecers toward Anglophone dominance, concerns about the preservation of their culture and language, and growing separatist sentiment.

Pearson created the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism “to explore issues relating to the languages

and cultures of the English- and Frenchspeaking ‘ founding peoples’ of Canada.” But that narrow vision didn’t go over well with members of Canada’s ethnocultural groups, and so commissioners were also asked to “report on the cultural contribution of other ethnic groups and how to preserve this.”

The concept of Canada as a “mosaic” rather than a “melting pot” had been posited early on in author John Murray Gibbon’s award-winning book Canadian Mosaic: The Making of a Northern Nation, published in 1938. Gibbon imagined various cultures holding on to their identities while contributing to the country’s progress. This thinking was furthered by Canadian sociologist John Porter in his study The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada.

As for the notion of an American melting pot, it emerged from a play by that name first staged in 1908 in Washington, DC. It depicted the story of a Russian Jewish family that survived a pogrom and immigrated to the US, longing for a society where identities melt away so as not to cause the types of deadly divisions experienced back home. The concept became synonymous with cultural assimilation.

So, while bilingualism was embraced, the Royal Commission rejected the idea of “biculturalism,” which was defined as referring to the existence of two principal cultures in Canada, those of the French and English—indigenous and other communities were rendered practically invisible.

Instead of biculturalism, the commission helped to usher in a different kind

Half a century on, Canada as a mosaic continues to exist in the popular imagination of many of the first-generation immigrants who arrived in the initial waves of immigration following the policy’s establishment.

of consciousness based on the mosaic: ethnocultural communities should be encouraged to maintain and celebrate their cultural heritage, while fully participating in Canadian life. The commission put it this way: “man is a thinking and sensitive being; severing him from his roots could destroy an aspect of his personality and deprive society of some of the values he can bring to it.”

These reflections nurtured the eventual articulation of a multiculturalism policy in 1971, exactly fifty years ago.

That policy, the first of its kind in the world, would shape the country in ways that have both garnered worldwide admiration and attracted some criticism throughout the decades.

Half a century on, Canada as a mosaic continues to exist in the popular imagination of many of the first-generation immigrants who arrived in the initial waves of immigration following the policy’s establishment. Indeed, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, under whose watch the official policy came into effect, has long been a revered figure for many immigrant communities for the promise that the policy held for them and their families. It became a vision of Canada that was shared across a variety of partisan lines and promoted by various provincial governments, though was politically rejected in Quebec. (Quebec historian Gérard Bouchard instead introduced the concept of “interculturalism” as an alternative model for integration and the management of ethnocultural diversity. Within the intercultural model, cross-cultural engagement and acceptance are still respected and encouraged, but with French as the common language binding all groups.) Following the adoption of the federal policy, Canada came to be considered worldwide as a country of immense potential, hope, and freedom; a place where families and individuals could hold on to who they were without having to assimilate into one narrow frame of what it meant to be “Canadian.” Today, over 20 percent of the country’s population is foreign-born, with more and more people arriving in the country due to evolving immigration policies that have sought to make it easier to attract talented and skilled workers and their families.

“Canada rightly prides itself on its evolutionary tolerance for diversity and pluralism,” reads an excerpt from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling involving a couple’s faith-based marital dispute. “This journey has included a growing appreciation for multiculturalism, including the recognition that ethnic, religious or cultural differences will be acknowledged and respected. Endorsed in legal instruments ranging from the statutory protections

found in human rights codes to their constitutional enshrinement in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to integrate into Canada’s mainstream based on and notwithstanding these differences has become a defining part of our national character.”

It would sadly take decades for the irony of the treatment of Indigenous children and communities to break through the public consciousness in the same way—the realization that, while a mosaic was upheld as a part of Canadian exceptionalism, in essence Canada was founded with the same assimilationist attitudes that characterized the colonial mindset evident throughout European settlement and colonization.

Furthermore, while the mistreatment and abuse of Indigenous communities and the genocide committed against them remains a horrific and painful legacy, one that begs sincere reconciliation and repair, it was in fact Indigenous teachings that helped nurture the view that we should see the “other” as part of an interconnected whole.

As former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson noted in her book Belonging: The Paradox of Citizenship, the testimony of Chief John Kelly at the 1977 Royal Commission on the Northern Environment attested to this grand design.

“[. . .] as the years go by, the circle of the Ojibway gets bigger and bigger,” he said. “Canadians of all colours and religions are entering that circle. You might feel that you have roots somewhere else, but in reality, you are right here with us.”

Being “right here” together has indeed translated into better outcomes for immigrants to Canada who seem to integrate far more quickly than their American counterparts. That being said, there are some signs that people here in Canada are becoming increasingly aware we are far from living in a multicultural utopia. On the one hand, there are polls like one released earlier this year by Ipsos, which asked people representing the demographics of the general adult population in twenty-eight countries, “to what extent do you agree or disagree that [your country] is divided by ‘culture wars?’” Only 28 percent of people who responded in Canada identified a divide; we did far better than many other countries on this front. Up to 46 percent of respondents in Belgium, 38 percent in France, and 32 percent in Great Britain saw division. In the United States, over 50 percent of Americans said they believe their country is divided by culture wars.

Yet, Canadians have nothing to be smug about. We’ve also seen disturbing surveys like one released a few years ago by Angus Reid and CBC that found that 68 percent of Canadian respondents thought people should assimilate rather than keep their own customs and languages.

A study by EKOS in 2019 found that while opposition to immigration remains low, there has been some ideological and partisan polarization on the issue, reflecting a shift toward “ordered populism,” which includes hostility to “outgroups” (i.e., immigrants) and “rests on the belief in a corrupt elite, and the idea that power needs to be wrested from this elite and returned to the people.”

This is evident in the growth of white supremacist groups, which have become increasingly active both on and off-line. It’s also evident in how people continue to be denied job opportunities and housing, and continue to be harassed, assaulted, and even killed because of their faith and racial identities.

The most significant threat to multiculturalism—declared dead in some parts of Europe— may be populism, which is on the rise here at home and globally. Nevertheless, considering how reliant this nation remains on the arrival of people from around the world to continue to build and strengthen this country’s economic and social fabric, there is little doubt that Canada’s ever- growing circle must be one that is based on mutual respect and free from racism and discrimination.

I believe we can get there, despite the history we must confront, the reconciliation we owe Indigenous communities, and the ongoing work we will need to undertake to address the systemic racism plaguing our institutions; systemic racism which continues to prevent the full and equal participation of far too many of our friends, neighbours, colleagues, and fellow residents of Canada. For many of us, this has been our life’s work, fuelled by the hope that we will one day live in a country that truly honours all of us. Please pass the Kool-aid.