Commentary
How can a multi-ethnic democracy like Canada forge a common identity out of a population with many disparate countries of origin? The Quebec government says that multiculturalism is the wrong model for this tough task, and is blazing a new trail that it calls “integration.” This approach offers a firm but compassionate model for integrating newcomers. English Canada should pay close attention.
Bill 84, titled “
An Act respecting national integration,” seeks to establish a common culture which will serve as a “vector for social cohesion” that will allow for “immigrants and persons identifying with cultural minorities to integrate into Québec society.” This common Quebec culture is described as “the crucible that enables all Quebecers to form a united nation.”
The “national integration model” put forth in the bill lays out essential elements of Quebec culture that will not be compromised. These include democratic values, the equality of men and women, and the separation of religion and state. Immigrants are called upon to “learn the French language, if they have not yet mastered it upon arrival,” and to “participate fully” in Quebec society.
Speaking at a press conference
on Jan. 28, Quebec Immigration Minister Jean-Francois Roberge defended integration and took aim at what he sees as the central weakness of Canadian multiculturalism: “With multiculturalism, there’s no such a thing as a common culture, a Canadian culture or a Quebec culture.”
Pressed by reporters on why an integration bill is needed, Roberge outlined his concerns about immigrants becoming siloed into enclaves outside of mainstream society.
“We see that people are staying with their own group, and we want some more diversity, and we want people to go and to talk to each other,“ he said. ”We don’t want some ghettos. We want one society.”
Asked to be more specific about how he wants immigrants to contribute to Quebec, Roberge explained that he wants to see a more united, socially cohesive society. “We want them to go outside their communities and go speak with us,“ he said. ”We want to see them at la Fête nationale du Québec. ... We want to see them everywhere. They are welcome.”
Quebec’s integration approach is designed to foster a common culture that citizens of all backgrounds can graft themselves onto. It also establishes basic expectations—democracy, the equality of men and women, the separation of religion and state—that immigrants must adhere to. Crucially, it does all this without vilifying newcomers themselves. Far from excluding immigrants, it invites them to participate more fully in their new home.
This is the polar opposite of official multiculturalism,
formally adopted by Pierre Trudeau in 1971, and elaborated on in the
1988 Multiculturalism Act. The act declares: “Multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage.” As Roberge pointed out, there is no mention of a common Canadian culture.
Since its adoption, Canadian multiculturalism has come under fire from various intellectuals and writers including Neil Bisoondath, Salim Mansur, and the late William Gairdner. In 2011, Mansur wrote “
Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism,” in which he argued that, far from ushering in a peaceful, glittering cultural mosaic, multiculturalism as a policy has increased tensions and divisions in Canadian society.
In a paper titled “
The Muddle Of Multiculturalism,” Mansur argues that, in its complete tolerance for all cultural expressions and practices, multiculturalism ironically allows for intolerance to creep into liberal democratic societies unchallenged. In particular, he cites the push for Sharia law to be implemented in some form within Western legal systems.
Over the last decades, there has been a growing admission of the weakness of multiculturalism as a model for governing a diverse society. In 2010, then Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel declared that multiculturalism in her country
had “utterly failed,“ and later argued that immigrants must “accept the country’s cultural norms.” In 2011, then-prime minister of the United Kingdom David Cameron decried the damage done to social cohesion by multicultural polices: “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream.”
Here in Canada, our leaders have not made this same admission—despite the increasingly obvious fractures appearing in our social fabric. In September 2023, a riot
broke out in northeast Calgary, with up to 150 people clashing and “brandishing weapons” in a dispute over political developments in Eritrea. Last November,
violent clashes erupted between Hindu groups and Sikh Khalistani separatists in Brampton, Ontario.
If Canada continues further along our present trajectory, we risk further eroding our social cohesion, national unity, and collective identity. Quebec’s model of promoting the “integration” of newcomers into a “common culture” offers an alternative way forward. This model retains the compassion that is an important aspect of Canadian identity, while making no concessions when it comes to defending the values and way of life cherished by the host society.
English Canada would do well to follow suit.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
