Content uploaded by Ho Hon Leung
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ho Hon Leung on Sep 04, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
HOHON LEUNG
Canadian Multiculturalism in the 21st Century:
Emerging Challenges and Debates
Abstract
The purpose of the paper is to re-examine the value of multiculturalism and develop an argument
that it is a key policy not only for nation-building, but also for ensuring a more inclusive, equal and
democratic society for Canadian citizens. First, the paper introduces the historical development of
multiculturalism, emphasizing the evolving meaning of multiculturalism. A meaningful evaluation
of multiculturalism requires us to reframe the understanding or interpretation of the policy in the
twenty-first century Canadian context where the domestic and international situations have
changed tremendously in the last forty years. With this context in mind, the paper explores in what
directions multiculturalism should be developed along with other Canadian values such as equal-
ity and democracy. Finally, a working argument is put forward with a vision to broadening the scope
of multiculturalism, with strong emphasis on ethno-religious diversity, to include all types of cul-
tures, so that every citizen is drawn into an inclusive and collective process in which Canada charts
its discourse of national identity and nationalism.
Résumé
Le but de cet article est de réexaminer la valeur du multiculturalisme en soutenant qu’il forme une
politique essentielle non seulement pour l’édification de la nation, mais aussi pour garantir qu’une
société soit plus tolérante, égalitaire et démocratique. L’article présente en premier lieu le
développement historique du multiculturalisme, en particulier en mettant l’accent sur l’évolution
de ce qu’il signifie. Évaluer sérieusement ce qu’il représente nous oblige à reformuler la com-
préhension ou l’interprétation de sa politique dans le contexte du Canada du 21esiècle, où les si-
tuations nationales et internationales ont considérablement changé au cours de ces quarante
dernières années. Dans un tel contexte, nous examinons ici dans quelles directions le multicultu-
ralisme devrait se développer de concert avec d'autres valeurs essentielles au Canada, telles que
l'égalité et la démocratie. Finalement, nous proposons d’élargir sa portée, tout en défendant vive-
ment et strictement les questions de diversité ethnologique et religieuse, afin de pouvoir y allier
toutes sortes de cultures, de façon à ce que chaque citoyen y soit accueilli dans un processus
inclusif et collectif, constituant la base sur laquelle le Canada établit son discours sur l'identité
nationale et le nationalisme.
INTRODUCTION
The official multiculturalism policy adopted by the Canadian federal state in 1971
and multiculturalism entrenched in the constitutions in 1982 have attracted many
Canadian Ethnic Studies,vol.43-44, No. 3-1, 2011-2012, publication
date March 2013
controversies and heated debates, not only in Canada but also in the rest of world. Yet,
multiculturalism has also earned Canada a leadership role in the world’s eye as an
attempt to create a nation with a higher level of inclusion. Multiculturalism turns
forty in 2011. As Canada takes this issue seriously, it is meaningful and necessary to
revisit this policy periodically so that the goals and the implementations of the policy
may be evaluated and improved for the future. The purpose of the paper is to re-
examine the value of multiculturalism and develop an argument that it is a key pol-
icy not only for nation-building, but also for ensuring a more inclusive, equal and
democratic society for Canadian citizens. First, the paper introduces the historical
development of multiculturalism, emphasizing that the meaning of multiculturalism
has been evolving along with the political, economic, social and cultural develop-
ments of the Canadian society. In order to engage in a meaningful evaluation of mul-
ticulturalism, we need to reframe our understanding or interpretation of the policy
in the twenty-first century Canadian context where the domestic and international
situations have changed tremendously in the last forty years. With this context in
mind, therefore, the paper explores in what directions multiculturalism should be
developed along with other Canadian values such as equality and democracy. Finally,
a working argument is put forward with a vision to broadening the scope of multi-
culturalism, with strong emphasis on ethno-religious diversity, to include all types of
cultures, so that every citizen is drawn into an inclusive and collective process in
which Canada charts its discourse of national identity and nationalism.
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND THE MEANING OFMULTICULTURALISM
It is difficult to aim at a moving target. Multiculturalism is neither a static concept
nor a simplistic idea. It is not only a moving target, but it is also a multidimensional
entity. In order to understand what it is and criticize its policies, there is a need to
acknowledge its complexity. The ontological meaning of multiculturalism may not
be as straightforward as desired. Its initial defined meanings and purposes were con-
textualized in the specific historical, political, social and cultural conditions at the
time it was created. The establishment of multiculturalism proposed by Prime
Minister Pierre Trudeau forty years ago was situated within a bilingual framework of
the English- and French-speaking elements of Canada. Trudeau stated his position
on multiculturalism in the House of Commons on October 8, 1971,
It was the view of the Royal Commission, shared by the government and, I am sure, by all
Canadians, that there cannot be one cultural policy for Canadians of British and French
origin, another for the original peoples and yet a third for all others. For although there are
two official languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take prece-
dence over any other. No citizen or group of citizens is other than Canadian, and all should
Canadian Ethnic Studies/Études ethniques au Canada
20 |
be treated fairly…. Sometimes the word ‘bi-culturalism’ is used, but I don’t think that it
accurately describes this country. I prefer multiculturalism (Fleras and Elliott 1992a, 281).
At the time, the demographic composition of the Canadian population contained only
three percent of non-European origin (Jansen 2005, 26). Therefore, some scholars view
this policy as an attempt to manage the ethnic relations between the English- and the
French-Canadians for the best (see Jansen 2005, 26); some view it as a policy to under-
mine the Quebecois claim to a special status in Canada (see Uberoi 2009, 807-809).
Although the 1971version of multiculturalism could and should include the aboriginal
population, this minority group was largely excluded from the making of this policy.
At the time, this version of multiculturalism could be understood as bi-culturalism.
As the Canadian immigration policies changed in the 1960s from race-based to
a merit-based point system that welcomes immigrants who can meet Canadian eco-
nomic development needs according to their level of education, occupational skills,
knowledge of English and French and other merits, immigrants from non-tradi-
tional sources (other than Europeans) have been added to the Canadian ethnic land-
scape. The official website for Toronto, the most populated city in Canada, proudly
announces the fact that it is one of the most multicultural cities in the world and is
still ranked as the safest large metropolitan area in North America by Places Rated
Almanac. The city is also home to residents who speak over 140 languages and
dialects, and half of Toronto’s population (1,237,720) was born outside of Canada,
up from 48 percent in 1996 (Toronto’s Racial Diversity n.d.). Although minority cul-
tures and differences were recognized and celebrated within the bilingual framework
during the multiculturalism policy of the 1970s, minorities continue to be excluded
from full equality and equal participation in the mainstream society. Racial and eth-
nic stratification remains. Fleras and Elliott observe that
Compared with whites, people of colour occupied an unequal status in society above and
beyond the ‘initial adjustment’ [original] phase. Therein lay the discriminatory compo-
nent: discrimination was institutionalized in that it was supported by cultural values and
social practices, reflected normal functioning of societal structures, and persisted as a
pervasive feature of interpersonal contact (1996, 115-116).
Racial discrimination becomes the obstacle in Canada that prevents citizens from
actualizing themselves. This does not meet Canada’s commitment to individual rights
and formal equality as prerequisites for national unity and identity (ibid., 115).
A position put forward under the rubric of the multicultural movement focuses
on combating racial discrimination. This was evident in a shift in program empha-
sis from language and culture to group understanding, declared by the Honorable
John Munro who was Minister of Multiculturalism in 1975. It was a response to
Ho Hon Leung | 21
spokespersons for visible minorities that included Chinese, West Indians, and south
Asians. These spokespersons argued that the earlier implemented programs under
the multicultural policy did not put enough emphasis on eradicating racism in
Canada (Kallen 2004, 88). This was a shift in policy focusing on the needs of visible
minority immigrants from the European orientation (Driedger 1996, 56).
Furthermore, Canada institutionalized multicultural policy in the 1980s.
Multiculturalism was referred to in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
adopted in 1982. Section 27 of the Charter states: “This Charter shall be interpreted
in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural
heritage of Canadians” (Dewing 2009, 5). As Dewing states, “It empowers the courts
to take Canada’s multicultural reality into account at the highest levels of decision-
making. In the words of a former Human Rights Commissioner, it provides a useful
‘interpretative prism’ [original] to assist the courts when balancing individual and
multicultural (and often collective) [original] rights” (2009, 5). The Section 15 (1)
in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed both equality and fair-
ness to all under the law, regardless of race and ethnicity (ibid.). The section states:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection
and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrim-
ination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or
physical disability.
In the Spring of 1995, the multicultural policy continued to develop to meet the
needs in the evolving and increasingly diverse society. The review of the Department of
Canadian Heritage’s multiculturalism programming activities that enforced the federal
multiculturalism programs pointed to new directions that included three fundamental
goals: 1) Identity: recognizing and reflecting a diversity of cultures so that people of all
backgrounds feel a sense of belonging and attachment; 2) Civic participation: develop-
ing active citizens who have the opportunity and capacity to participate in shaping the
future; and 3) Social justice: ensuring fair and equitable treatment that respects the dig-
nity of people of all origins (Canadian Heritage 2001 cited in Jansen 2005, 27).
Fleras and Elliott (1996, 335) accurately summed up the development of multi-
culturalism. The focus of multiculturalism in the 1970s was on celebrating cultural
differences that stressed cultural sensitivity; in the 1980s, multiculturalism accom-
modated the needs of the ethnically diverse society at the institutional level by
emphasizing equity; in the 1990s, multiculturalism emphasized society-building,
focusing on inclusion in the form of participation and citizenship.
What is indicated here is that the concept and the execution of federal multicul-
turalism implemented at different provincial and municipal levels is never static. Many
programs, such as integration of immigrants, support of new arrivals, professional
Canadian Ethnic Studies/Études ethniques au Canada
22 |
accreditation, and the fight against racism, to name a few, have been developed
under a multiculturalism attempting to meet the challenges generated from differ-
ent political, social and cultural changes in the Canadian society. When questioning
the existence of multiculturalism, we must understand the twenty-first century ver-
sion of multiculturalism, consider what challenges Canada faces in the twenty-first
century, and decide which elements from the past should be kept, eliminated, mod-
ified, and developed.
THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY CANADIAN MULTICULTURALISM
Before examining the notion of multiculturalism in the twenty-first century
Canadian context, the reality of this policy’s goals requires some investigation. The
first element of this reality lies in the dimension of the Canadian border. Due to the
continuous decline of French as a spoken language, the decline in numbers of the
English/British cultural group (Dupont and Lemarchand 2001, 321), and the cur-
rent Canadian immigration policies that continue to recruit immigrants from non-
traditional sources, multiculturalism is now one of the most important policies that
“manages” (see Fleras and Elliott 1992a, 280; Nancoo 2000) the most ethnically and
religiously diverse nation in the history of Canada.
The other dimension of this reality relates to the relations between Canada and
the rest of the world. The system of globalization continues to expand. It facilitates
the flow of commodities, images, information, and migrants from all corners of the
world in the intersecting political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental
domains in everyday life (Leung and Hendley 2009, 2). Canada is politically and eco-
nomically more integrated into the system than in the past. An example of political
involvement would be Canada’s peace-keeping role in the world (see Jansen 2005, 28).
In addition, Canada’s membership in the global trade organizations of NAFTA and
WTO indicates economic integration into the global economy. Communication with
other countries via the conducting of political and economic business requires
intense cultural exchange. In other words, Canada is more intensely connected to the
rest of the world; and the nation has become more global in terms of ethnic and reli-
gious diversity. How can Canada be a strong nation if it does not prepare itself well
to face the challenges in the twenty-first century reality? Without a doubt, the earlier
version of “bi-culturalism” in the guise of multiculturalism created forty years ago is
no longer applicable to the new reality. It would be unrealistic for any critic to attempt
to preserve Canada’s previous course of action in the traditional English way of life
and values (Magsino 2000, 327), because the increase in the intensity of cultural
exchange within Canada and with the global world is irreversible. What is suggested
here is that in order to effectively manage internal and international ethnic relations,
Ho Hon Leung | 23
multiculturalism, if not the only way, is one of the most useful lighthouses for the future
of Canada. In this sense, one of the dimensions of multiculturalism is that it can be under-
stood as an ideology. Its goal is to reach a genuine, meaningful cultural understanding and
exchange. The mentality of twenty-first century Canadians should become more globally-
minded. Canadians are nurtured in a multicultural environment and ready to engage in
meaningful and productive intercultural communication in the global village.
MULTICULTURALISM IN RELATION TO OTHER CANADIAN VALUES
The discourse of multiculturalism indicates that it does not just manage ethnic rela-
tions but intends to produce some desirable outcomes, such as equality, equity, and
inclusion which, by and large, are consistent with the values in democracy (see Ryan
2010; Fleras and Elliott 1996). The meaning and practice of these values change over
time. The concept of equality is an excellent example. The concept of equality has
different meanings for distinct gender and racial groups before and after the civil
rights movement. Furthermore, the concept of democracy evolves as time passes and
brings changes. No one would deny that Canada is proud to be one of the most dem-
ocratic societies in the world. At the same time, the reality of democracy in Canada
has evolved after the civil rights movement so that the democracy of Canada in the
twenty-first century is more inclusive than in the past. However, studies (Bloemraad
2002; Henry and Tator 1994) indicate that many visible minorities in Canada have
been marginalized due to different forms of prejudice and discrimination and are
not able to fully participate in the political process in mainstream society. If demo-
cratic values are the driving forces behind Canada, why cannot multiculturalism be
part of the engine? If multiculturalism must be understood in terms of ethnic rela-
tions (indicating that there is another way of understanding the term), its policies
must ensure that visible minorities, both men and women, can fully participate in
political, economic, and social sectors in this democratic society.
In summary, the values such as equality and democracy discussed above are
constantly being re/interpreted according to the times and spaces where the politi-
cal, economic, social and cultural circumstances change. Hopefully, the re/interpre-
tation is heading in the right direction for humanity. Canada and its citizens should
continue to adopt these values as ideologies that define and guide the development
of the nation and the people.
MULTICULTURALISM: DOWN TO EARTH FROM IDEOLOGY
Dupont and Lemarchand (2001, 310) observe that multiculturalism as a virtue for
Canada is not sufficient. How multiculturalism exists in everyday life needs to be
Canadian Ethnic Studies/Études ethniques au Canada
24 |
examined. One of the major concerns is that multiculturalism, supported by the
insertion of Section 27 in its Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, encourages
preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
Therefore, the visible minority groups might tend to retain their cultures and segre-
gate themselves from the mainstream society. In this way, some critics argue that the
lack of a dominant culture within the framework of several diverse cultures under-
mines national unity and identity.
However, Sahadat (2000) explores a way to seek unity in diversity without
requiring uniformity in religious diversity. He argues, “Dialogue should lead us from
an attitude of segregation and discrimination to complementarity, the richness of
which should be felt in a consolidated drive toward harmony in diversity without the
threat of uniformity” (357). He further states, “[Pluralism] will make our complex
society more viable as we move beyond the threshold of the 21st century. It will con-
tinuously be a source of enrichment to the life of our nation; and our sense of unity
without the threat of uniformity will be good reason for hope of a brighter future
with deeper understanding and trustworthy relationships” (357). In other words,
multiculturalism that celebrates, protects, and nurtures diversity can be a Canadian
ideology that leads to a unified, but not uniform, nation.
The survival of the ethno-religious cultures among Hutterites and Hasidic Jews
might shed some light on how unity in diversity works. Boldt (1985) found that
Hutterites are not as “orthodox” as they wish. Although this group has maintained
its culture and religious practice to a very high degree that manifests itself behav-
iorally in a very clear and distinctive way, this maintenance has required definite sac-
rifice and compromise. In order to keep the cohesion of the colonies and minimize
the defection of young adults in particular, the religious leaders must have greater
freedom to interpret the rules more flexibly, and to be sensitive to the wishes and
desires of the members. As a result, a small degree of materialism has been tolerated.
The rationale behind this flexibility is that the leaders have the authority to distin-
guish between the “essentials” and “nonessentials” of their culture. As long as the
nonessentials do not threaten the survival of the religious and cultural practices,
some nonessentials are allowed. Examples are the use of cameras and individualized
residences far beyond what their traditions tolerate (Boldt 1985, 98-99).
A recent visit to an Amish colony in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, confirms what
Boldt described and analyzed. An Amish tour guide who was just about to hop into
some visitors’ vehicle for touring the colony was inquiring via a mobile phone when
the other guide would come to greet other visitors. When asked about the permis-
sion for phone use, he responded that it depended on the leaders of different
colonies. Yet, in general, public phones by the roadside were allowed, particularly
for medical emergency. Before setting off with his group, he handed out his busi-
Ho Hon Leung | 25
ness card with his email address printed on it. He admitted that he used a com-
puter at home. Such transformation of Amish culture is well documented by Hurst
and McConnell’s recent study on the world’s largest Amish community (2010).
Another study of Amish communities (Nolt and Meyers 2007) articulates “conver-
sation” as the philosophy, similar to Sahadat’s “dialogue” (2000) that sustains the
Amish culture and identity. They document that contemporary Amish settlements
are indeed a rich and diverse culture that is a result of the interaction of migration
history, church discipline, ethnicity in community life, and their existence in the
world but not fully of it. Nolt and Meyers state “Engaging the Amish community
as conversation reorients the questions and presuppositions that spring from such
notions about unity. The Amish remain distinct—and united—not by demanding
total conformity or papering over deep historical, ethnic, and churchly difference”
(2007, 192).
Some Hasidic Jews in Montreal face different types of pressure, but they have
to use “flexibility” and “conversation” to ensure the survival of their communities.
Similar to Hutterites and Amish, Hasidic and ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jews have the
highest level of adherence to the traditions and laws of the Holy Scripture, the
Torah. Unlike Hutteries and Amish who are more rural dwellers, they tend to seg-
regate themselves in their communities which are isolated from other groups.
Leung (2001) found that, similar to any community, the members of these ortho-
dox communities are forced to deal with common social problems in the families
and schools such as employment issues, challenges in learning in school, family
violence, and alcoholism. And, intervention in families by social service profes-
sionals was considered as a threat. However, the well-being of both the family and
the community could not be neglected. With limited specialized social service
skills and resources, more liberal rabbis were willing to seek help from the Jewish
family service agencies. The concepts and practices of social services, therapy, and
counseling, although relatively new to the group, had been slowly accepted by the
rabbis and the community members.
In examining Canadian Jewish life, Weinfeld (2001) explores their history and
diversity, their work and family lives, their various communities and religious divi-
sions, and the politics of their culture. He argues that
Today, within the Montreal or Toronto Jewish communities, there are formal organi-
zations representing Sephardi, Israeli, Ethiopian, and Russian Jews. These organiza-
tions are seen as best able to meet certain needs of the sub-community members, not
only by speaking the language, but by empathizing with their problems…. Hasidic or
ultra-Orthodox Jews need even more specialized services. In providing them, is the
Canadian Jewish community acting responsibly, or risking further fragmentation?
(2001, 180-181).
Canadian Ethnic Studies/Études ethniques au Canada
26 |
His answer in the book to the latter question implies “no.” What keeps a cultur-
ally and linguistically diverse community with different practices of Judaism united
is to engage in dialogue among the community and the sub-communities. The rab-
bis, like the leaders in Hutterite and Amish communities, exercise flexible interpre-
tation of the rules, and are sensitive to the needs of the members. The Jewish
communities reach out to help with sensitivity and empathy. Weinfeld then redirects
the question that he posed above to Canada by stating, “This is precisely the same
question that Canada must ponder, regarding the limits of multiculturalism and the
balance between diversity and social cohesion” (2011, 181). The lesson learned here
is that diversity, whether cultural, ethnic or other types, should not be a threat to
unity. Rather, unity should be sought in diversity, not uniformity.
If the orthodox groups have to “yield” to a certain degree in order to maintain their
cultures and identities, other immigrants and their subsequent generations from visible
minority groups would display an even higher level of assimilation or integration into
the mainstream society. Weinfeld (1994, also see Weinfeld 1981; Kymlicka 1996) con-
ducted a very thorough survey of the existing literature on ethnic assimilation and the
retention of ethnic cultures by using language retention, ethnic intermarriage and social
networks, ethnic self-identification and ethnic culture as indicators. It was found that
“By most accepted definitions and measures, ethno-cultural assimilation is proceeding,
notwithstanding the rhetoric of multiculturalism, and is more pronounced among the
later generations in Canada” (Weinfeld 1994, 261). Peach also questioned whether the
mosaic model and the melting pot model had any impact on the residential patterns.
His study concluded that “…the Canadian and US data seem to indicate a situation in
which all groups except African Americans pursue settlement patterns related to their
own agency rather than to the constraints of national policies of their respective coun-
tries” (Peach 2005, 23). All in all, the Peach statement can be understood based on the
aforementioned reviews of literature that conclude that the assimilation of minorities
depends less on the state policies than on their ability to live well within their own reli-
gious and cultural constraints. Multiculturalism has not halted the erosion of ethnic
differences, and assimilation is proceeding apace (Boldt 1985, 101); then to what extent
has multiculturalism lived up to its claims and principles? However, this paper main-
tains the position that multiculturalism is still an imperative policy that guides Canada
toward being a more inclusive democratic nation.
THE INTERPLAY OF MULTI-DIMENSIONS OF
MULTICULTURALISM IN NATION-BUILDING
Multiculturalism involves much more than just supporting the retention of minor-
ity cultures. As the concept and policies of multiculturalism are evolving, it becomes
Ho Hon Leung | 27
a multi-dimensional entity. Fleras and Elliott (1992b) discussed the concept in the
following nine dimensions: 1) policy construct for restricting government-minority
relations, 2) economic resources in advancing national and minority interests, 3)
collective process in reshaping Canada’s symbolic and social order, 4) fundamental
component in Canadian nation-building, 5) distributive ideal in allocating reward
and resources, 6) political instrument for managing racial and ethnic diversity, 7)
social experiment for promoting diversity as a unifying force, 8) ideology for
national discourse and decision-making, and 9) key metaphor in shaping Canadian
identity. It is important to see each dimension as an integral part of the well-being
of a nation. It is difficult to rank level of importance or priority of each of these nine
dimensions. It is not productive to criticize one point without taking other points
into consideration. Therefore, a more holistic approach to the understanding of
multiculturalism is essential.
It is not difficult to understand the consequences of marginalizing visible
minorities who become a more substantial part of the population. Based on the
Canadian criteria for immigrant selection, the immigrants’ skills and education are
the national economic resources (see Fleras and Elliott 1996, 338-340), and their cul-
tures from different parts of the world are the national and civic treasures. If they
cannot maximize their talents, skills, and resources (devaluation of their credentials
in mind), who is going to pay the price? If ethnicity is taken out of the nation-build-
ing equation, the growing gap between the rich and the poor should be regarded as
a threat to the well-being of a nation. Multiculturalism policies of equality, equity,
and inclusion are indispensable principles when allocating reward and resources.
The demands for full participation in nation-building via democratic practices
in the recent uprisings in some African and Middle Eastern regions should have sent
a strong signal to the more developed democratic societies like Canada. Ideal nation-
building should be a collective process. Critics and supporters of multiculturalism
come from both minority and majority groups. All these groups should appreciate
the political and social platform created by multiculturalism on which national
issues are discussed and debated. Opposition and support are drawn into the collec-
tive process in which Canada charts its discourse of nationalism. This effect is
securely in place. In the absence of any consensus on what Canadian identity or cul-
ture is, “multiculturalism fills a void, defining Canadian culture in terms of the legit-
imate ancestral cultures which are the legacy of every Canadian defining the whole
through the sum of its parts…which all Canadians are to assimilate, is seen as a
national strength, and as a key force differentiating Canada from the United States”
(Weinfeld 1981, 97).
Canadian Ethnic Studies/Études ethniques au Canada
28 |
THE BECOMING OF CANADIAN CULTURE AND IDENTITY
A nation, a culture, and an identity are never static. The nations of China and Greece
before World War II are so different from their existence in the twenty-first century.
Although their ethno-national identities remain strong, their Chineseness and
Greekness, the practices of their cultures, have been evolving. This concept is not dif-
ficult to understand. The DNA—the hereditary material—of a person remains the
same from birth to death. However, the person’s values, outlook on life, and experi-
ence develop along with the changes in his/her living environment. Such is the per-
sonality of Canada. Canada, like many other nations in the world, remains the same
nation by name but constantly evolves; Canadianness—the practices of Canadian
culture—changes constantly.1Although Canada continues to be a member of the
Commonwealth, it has much weaker ties to Britain than in the past. Loo (2011, 61)
made a case in point, “In fact, historically, being Canadian meant having an abiding
attachment to another country—namely, Britain. Imperialism was at the heart of
Canadian nationalism.” However, twenty-first century Canada is charting a new
course. It is going to be a challenge to articulate the developing Canadian identity
and culture. And, there is no difference in other nations. Nations may be regarded as
named and self-defining communities that are repeatedly formed and reformed by
their citizens through cultivating shared symbols, values and traditions, memories,
and myths (Smith 2009, 49), and are, at the same time, being de/re/constructed (see
Leung et al. 2009). In other words, nation, nationalism, national identity, and culture
always include contests and conflicts, because they are in the process of developing.
Multiculturalism, a Canadian symbol and value, is an ingredient of nation-building
that will always entail controversies and contests.
Of the many challenges in the shaping of a multicultural Canadian society, one
concern has emerged in the power group that still dominates the Canadian political,
economic, social and linguistic arena. This power group consists of English descen-
dants and other white Europeans whose trace of ethnicity had long disappeared
prior to official multiculturalism (Dupont and Lemarchand 2001, 310). While offi-
cial multiculturalism encourages preservation of ethnic minority cultures, what cul-
ture(s) can the power group preserve? A sense of being ignored in the cultural
pursuit has developed. However, an egalitarian notion of civic and democratic cul-
ture practiced in Canada is not only a product of Western civilization, but also a spe-
cific creation of this power group. Looking for an authentic, namely pure, culture as
a comfort zone to which an ethnic group can belong is unrealistic. As argued above,
even religious orthodox groups are constantly adapting in social environments for
survival. This is equally applicable to the power group and other minority groups in
Canada. The contemporary Canadian civic, democratic, and egalitarian culture
Ho Hon Leung | 29
developed from a white, Christian, male-dominant tradition that was gradually
expanded to include all citizens. The white group’s practice is a cultural practice that
is also shared and valued by many immigrants and minority groups (see Frideres
1997), and such practice has been hybridized in many parts of cultures in the world
(Pieterse 2009). The connotation and understanding of multiculturalism in twenty-
first century Canada is ingrained with the white group culture that now begins to
incorporate other world cultures brought by immigrants to Canada. While we cele-
brate minority cultures under the system of multiculturalism, we are also celebrat-
ing the transformed white culture that is also diverse in nature (see Magsino 2000,
334 for the latter point). This multiculturalism has already assumed a form of syn-
thesization and hybridization.
Furthermore, multiculturalism is a policy designed to deal with ethno-religious
diversity and celebrates multi-cultures (Fleras and Elliott 1992a). The concept of
multiculturalism should transcend to diverse- (a synonym of “multi”) culturalism in
which we celebrate all types of cultures that include gender, sexuality, political dif-
ferences, subcultures, and personal differences. In other words, the whole is the sum
of the parts. The transcended version of multiculturalism is a new entity that has a
global component (the aboriginal, the European, and immigrants from all over the
world) which is what Canada is now. All Canadian citizens are engaging in a map-
ping exercise that explores the essence of multiculturalism, national identity, and
culture. This process seeks to validate maps. At the same time, the limited and con-
tingent status of any kind of map is realized (see Pieterse 2009, 121).
CONCLUSION
This paper attempts to show that multiculturalism, like any other concept and ide-
ology, is not static, and constantly evolves in context. While Canada has been striv-
ing toward a more inclusive and democratic society over the last forty years,
multiculturalism is certainly not contradictory to these values, and should be a very
complementary ideology. Although critics continue to question whether Canada can
strive for a better, more inclusive, more equal society without multiculturalism, can
Canada’s successful record of integration be explained by other factors (see Kymlicka
2010)? The answer is affirmative. There are other ways. However, empirical
Canadian multiculturalism contributes tremendously to a more inclusive and equal
society (see Kymlicka 2010). There is no reason to pluck the sprout prematurely.
Multiculturalism has laid the foundation for forty years. As argued earlier, the
principles and values endorsed in multiculturalism are parallel and complimentary
to a liberal and democratic society. Multiculturalism strengthens the Canadian polit-
ical, economic and social system. Multiculturalism has given Canada a reputation
Canadian Ethnic Studies/Études ethniques au Canada
30 |
and an international image that we are in the vanguard of acknowledging and man-
aging a national and global reality where cultural diversity is flourishing. This mis-
sion is clearly stated throughout different developments of multiculturalism (Uberoi
2009). The move to recognize diversity in the nation and officially address the need
to manage the relationship between visible minorities and the mainstream society is
most admirable. Notwithstanding its challenges, multiculturalism has already cre-
ated a platform for the making of the unity of the nation. The assertion of the prin-
ciples in this legislation offers a choice to Canadians who can determine how they
identify themselves ethnically and to what degree they retain their ethnic cultures
within a lawful, respectful and democratic political and social framework.
Of all of the challenges faced in the execution of multiculturalism policies docu-
mented in the extensive volume of literature, a point about lifelong learning needs to
be addressed. No matter how good a system is created, the effectiveness of the system
ultimately relies on the hearts of the actors in the system. They are the interpreters
and the executors of the rules. The challenge to Canadian society is how to nurture
its citizens to develop a global mindset sensitive to all cultures and peoples, cognitive
skills, and the passion to achieve the goals advocated in multiculturalism. While pon-
dering this question, Guo (2010, 159) raised concerns about structural barriers that
deny immigrants opportunities to learn how to live together in the newly adopted
countries. As a consequence, these immigrants are marginalized from fully participat-
ing in the mainstream society. Dib, Donaldson and Turcotte (2008) concluded that
different levels of governments play important roles in removing structural barriers
and fostering common multicultural spaces for Canadians to come together. What is
equally important is that citizens in the mainstream society should actively engage
themselves in learning from the resources brought by the immigrants in these spaces.
Loo (2011) observed that the success of multiculturalism is a result of successful inte-
gration, a two-way learning facilitated by the particular economic, social, political,
and institutional context of a civil society and state intervention. The success of
Canada relies on a mutual respect in conversations through which “multiculturalism
is the nurturing of multiculturally nurtured cultures” (Ryan 2010, 218).
NOTES
1. See Pieterse’s discussion (2009) on the formation of hybridized cultures in the age of globalization.
REFERENCES
Bloemraad, Irene. 2002. Citizenship and Immigration: A Current Review. Journal of International
Migration and Integration 1.1: 9-37.
Boldt, Edward D. 1985. Maintaining Ethnic Boundaries: The Case of the Hutterites. In Ethnicity and
Ho Hon Leung | 31
Ethnic Relations in Canada, ed. R. M. Bienuvenue and J. E. Goldstein, 87-103. Toronto: Butterworths.
Dewing, Michael. 2009. Canadian Multiculturalism. Parliament of Canada. http://www.parl.gc.ca/
Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0920-e.htm.
Dib, Kamal, Ian Donaldson, and Brittany Turcotte. 2008. Integration and Identity in Canada: The
Importance of Multicultural Common Spaces. Canadian Ethnic Studies/Etudes ethniques au Canada
40.1: 161-187.
Driedger, Leo. 1996. Multi-Ethnic Canada: Identities and Inequality. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Dupont, Louis, and Nathalie Lemarchand. 2001. Official Multiculturalism in Canada: Between Virtue and
Politics. In Global Multiculturalism: Comparative Perspectives on Ethnicity, Race and Nation, ed. Grant
H. Cornwell and Eve Walsh Stoddard, 309-336. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Fleras, Augie, and Jean Leonard Elliott. 1992a. The Challenge of Diversity: Multiculturalism in Canada.
Scarborough: Nelson Canada.
———. 1992b. Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race, Ethnic and Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada.
Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada Inc.
———. 1996. Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race, Ethnic and Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada. 2nd
ed. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada Inc.
Frideres, James S. 1997. Edging into the Mainstream: A Comparison of Values and Attitudes of Recent
Immigrants, their Children and Canadian Born Adults. In Multiculturalism in North America and
Europe: Comparative Perspectives on Interethnic Relations and Social Incorporation, ed. Wsevolod W.
Isajiw, 537-562. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Guo, Shibao. 2010. Toward Recognitive Justice: Emerging Trends and Challenges in Transnational
Migration and Lifelong Learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education 29. 2: 149-167.
Henry, Frances, and Carol Tator. 1994. The Ideology of Racism—Democratic Racism. Canadian Ethnic
Studies/Etudes ethniques au Canada 26.2: 1-14.
Hurst, Charles E., and David L. McConnell. 2010. An Amish Paradox: Diversity and Change in the World’s
Largest Amish Community. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jansen, Clifford J. 2005. Canadian Multiculturalism. In Possibilities and Limitations: Multicultural Policies
and Programs in Canada, ed. Carl E. James, 21-33. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.
Kallen, Evelyn. 2004. Multiculturalism: Ideology, Policy and Reality. In Multiculturalism and Immigration
in Canada, ed. Elspeth Cameron, 75-96. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.
Kymlicka, W. 1996. Social Unity in a Liberal State. In The Communitarian Challenge to Liberalism, ed. E.
Paul, F. Miller and J. Paul, 105-136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2010. The Current State of Multiculturalism in Canada and Research Themes on Canadian
Multiculturalism 2008-2010. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/
pdf/pub/multi-state.pdf.
Leung, Ho Hon. 2001. Cultural Sensitivity in the Context of Ethnic Polities: Comparison of Two Family
Service Agencies. Ph.D. diss., McGill University.
Leung, Ho Hon, and Matthew Hendley. 2009. Imagining Globalization through Changes in Places. In
Imagining Globalization: Language, Identities, and Boundaries, ed. Ho Hon Leung et al.,1-11. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Leung, Ho Hon, Matthew Hendley, Robert W. Compton, and Brian D. Haley, eds. 2009. Imagining
Globalization: Language, Identities, and Boundaries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Loo, Tina. 2011. Hotel Canada. Canada’s History 91.4: 60-61.
Magsino, Romulo F. 2000. The Canadian Multiculturalism Policy: A Pluralist Ideal Re-visited. In 21st
Century Canadian Diversity, ed. Stephen E. Nancoo, 320-341. Mississauga: Canadian Educators’ Press.
Nancoo, E. Stephen. 2000. Managing Diversity. In 21st Century Canadian Diversity, ed. Stephen E.
Nancoo, 102-114. Mississauga: Canadian Educators’ Press.
Nolt, Steven M., and Thomas J. Meyers. 2007. Plain Diversity: Amish Cultures and Identities. Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Peach, Ceri. 2005. The Mosaic Versus the Melting Pot: Canada and the USA. Scottish Geographical Journal
121.1: 3-27.
Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. 2009. Globalization and Global Melance. 2nd ed. Toronto: Roman and Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Canadian Ethnic Studies/Études ethniques au Canada
32 |
Ryan, Phil. 2010. Multicultiphobia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Sahadat, John. 2000. Unity in Diversity: Not Uniformity. In 21st Century Canadian Diversity, ed. Stephen
E. Nancoo, 342-360. Mississauga: Canadian Educators’ Press.
Smith, Anthony D. 2009. Ethno-symbolism and Nationalism. New York: Routledge.
Toronto’s Racial Diversity. 2012. http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_facts/diversity.htm.
Uberoi, Varun. 2009. Multiculturalism and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Political Studies
57.4: 805-827.
Weinfeld, Morton. 1981. Myth and Reality in the Canadian Mosaic: “Affective Ethnicity.” Canadian Ethnic
Studies/Etudes ethniques au Canada 13.3: 80-100.
———. 1994. Ethnic Assimilation and the Retention of Ethnic Cultures. In Ethnicity and Culture in
Canada: The Research Landscape, ed. J. W. Berry and J. A. Laponce, 238-266. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
———. 2001. Like Everyone Else…But Different: The Paradoxical Success of Canadian Jews. Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart Ltd.
HO HON LEUNG, Ph.D. (Sociology, McGill University), is Associate Professor in
the Department of Sociology at the State University of New York at Oneonta. His
research interests include ethnic relations, immigration, and globalization. His most
recent work is focused on the intertwining relationships between ethno-cultural
identity and architecture in the process of globalization. He is the coeditor of and a
contributor to a recently published book, Imagining Globalization: Language,
Identities, and Boundaries (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). His chapter is entitled “The
Making of the Pacific Mall: Chinese Identity and Architecture in Toronto.”
Ho Hon Leung | 33
Copyright of Canadian Ethnic Studies is the property of Canadian Ethnic Studies and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
