Explanation
How can multi-ethnic democracies like Canada forge a common identity from a population of many different countries of origin? The Quebec government says multiculturalism is a wrong model for this tough task, burning new trails called “integration.” This approach provides a solid yet caring model for integrating newcomers. English Canada needs to be extremely careful.
Bill 84, entitled “Acts of Respect for National Integration,” seeks to establish a common culture that serves as a “vector for social cohesion” that allows “immigrants and people who identify with cultural minorities in order to integrate into a Cubec society.” This common Quebec culture is said to be “a melting pot that allows all Quebec people to form a united nation.”
The “national integration model” presented in the bill eliminates key elements of uncompromising Quebec culture. These include democratic values, equality between men and women, and separation of religion and state. Immigrants are asked to “learn French if they haven’t already learned it on arrival” and to “full participation” in the Quebec Society.
At a press conference on January 28th, Quebec Minister of Immigration Jean François Roberge defended integration, aiming at what he regarded as a central weakness in Canadian multiculturalism.
Chased by a reporter on why the integration bill was needed, Roberge outlined his concern that immigrants would be silent on enclaves outside of mainstream society.
“We make sure people stay in their group, we want more diversity and we want to go and talk to people,” he said. “I don’t want a ghetto. We want a society. ”
Asked to be more specific about how immigrants want to contribute to Quebec, Roberge explained that he wanted to see a more united and socially cohesive society. “We want them to go outside their community and talk to us,” he said. “I want to meet them at Lafte National du Quebec in Quebec. …We want to see them everywhere. you’re welcome. ”
Quebec’s integrated approach is designed to promote a common culture that citizens of all backgrounds can port themselves. It also establishes basic expectations that immigrants must follow, such as democracy, equality between men and women, and separation of religion and state. Importantly, we do all this without slandering the newcomer themselves. Far from excluding immigrants, they invite them to join more fully in their new home.
This is the polar opposite of the official multiculturalism, officially adopted by Pierre Trudeau in 1971 and detailed in the Multiculturalism Act of 1988. The Act declares: “Multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society, recognizing the freedom that all members of Canadian society can maintain, strengthen and share cultural heritage.” As Roberge noted, there is no mention of Canadian culture in general.
Since adoption, Canadian multiculturalism has been fired from a variety of intellectuals and writers, including Neil Bisonedas, Salim Mansoor and the late William Geadner. In 2011, Mansoor wrote “Delicious Lies: The Liberal Disclaimer of Multiculturalism.” He argued that it was far from a pioneering multiculturalism, a peaceful and glittering cultural mosaic as a policy.
In a paper entitled “The Madr of Multiculturalism,” Mansoor argues that, in full tolerance for all cultural expression and practice, multiculturalism ironically allows intolerance to creep into a liberal democratic society without being challenged. In particular, he estimates that Sharia law will be implemented in some form within the Western legal system.
Over the past decades, there has been a growing recognition of the weaknesses of multiculturalism as a model for governing diverse societies. In 2010, German Chancellor Angela Merkel later declared that her country’s multiculturalism “has been a complete failure,” and later insisted that immigrants “have to embrace the country’s cultural norms.” In 2011, then British Prime Minister David Cameron condemned the damage caused by multicultural police for social cohesion.
Here in Canada, our leaders do not make the same admissions. This is despite the increasingly evident fractures that are appearing in our social fabric. In September 2023, a riot broke out in northeastern Calgary, with up to 150 people clashing in a controversy over Eritrea’s political development, and “swaying” them. Last November, violent clashes broke out between a Hindu group in Brampton, Ontario and the Sikh Haristani separatists.
If Canada continues further along its current trajectory, we risk further eroding social cohesion, national unity and collective identity. Quebec’s model of promoting “integration” of newcomers into a “common culture” offers an alternative. This model retains a key aspect of Canadian identity: compassion, but does not make concessions when it comes to advocating for values and lifestyles cherished by the host society.
English Canada can follow suit.
The views expressed in this article are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the epoch era.
