Chapter 6
Multicultural Education in Canada
In this chapter, we will try to retrace the development of inter- and multicultural
approaches in Canada, including Quebec. As our analysis progresses, we will reveal
the need to distinguish between these two geographical and political entities. First,
we deal with the whole country, which will be approached by examining the emergence of the federal policy on multiculturalism. Then, the second part of the chapter
is devoted to the history and evolution of schooling for indigenous children. The
third part tackles the way multiculturalism has been incorporated into curricula and
educational policies. Finally, the fourth part explores the specific features concerning
multiculturalism in the Province of Quebec.
1 Introduction
Canada is certainly very open to the influence of the United States (Joshee & Johnson,
2011), but it has also developed its own particular way of managing cultural diversity,
especially in the French-speaking Province of Quebec. From 1971, the Canadian
Federal Government introduced its official policy on multiculturalism (Moodley,
1995). The ideology conveyed by this policy considers Canada as a mosaic made up
of various ethnic groups—English-speaking, French-speaking, indigenous peoples
and migrants, united by communication in the two official languages, English and
French (Beauchesne, 1991).
For almost fifty years, racial, ethnic and cultural matters have occupied a large
place in discussions on education and on equality throughout Canada. With terms
such as “multicultural education”, “anti-racist education”, “sovereignty and autodetermination for the native peoples in the domain of education”, there has been
the desire by the educational partners to identify the sources of inequality within
the education systems and to introduce practices in favour of both equality and the
social integration of minorities (Ghosh & Galczynski, 2014; Young & Mackay, 1999).
Compared to other countries in the world facing cultural diversity, Canada could be
© The Author(s) 2022
A. Akkari and M. Radhouane, Intercultural Approaches to Education,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70825-2_6
79
80
6 Multicultural Education in Canada
said to have achieved remarkable progress (Ghosh, 2018). Nevertheless, it seems
important to us first to situate the Canadian model in its context. For this purpose,
the rest of the chapter will describe various nuances.
2 The Emergence of Canadian Federal Multiculturalism
Canada is the only country in the world which, in 1971, adopted an official policy
based on multiculturalism at the highest level of its administrative structure—the
federal level. The country identifies itself as one of immigration and this fact is
considered as one of the sources of national prosperity and economic development
(Ng & Metz, 2015). The policy of promoting cultural plurality in civil society (multiculturalism) is a particular feature of the Canadian Federal State since 1971. Using
public subsidies, three purposes were pursued: (1) the State’s recognition of the existence of numerous cultural groups deserving respect and the maintenance of their
socio-cultural characteristics; (2) the reduction of ethnic barriers thwarting the social
and political participation of their members; and (3) the multiplication of interethnic
contacts with the intention of increasing tolerance to cultural difference within society
(Helly, 2000).
Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the Prime Minister in 1971, is the initiator of Canadian
multiculturalism, which he presented to parliament in the following words:
The government is concerned to conserve human rights, to develop the Canadian identity,
to strengthen citizen participation, to consolidate Canadian unity and to encourage cultural
diversity (Hawkins, 1989, p. 220).
At the federal level, multiculturalism as a public policy was introduced in three
distinct phases, described by Dewing (2013):
– Initial phase (end of the Second World War to 1971): despite policies encouraging
European immigration to Canada, official policy remained that of assimilation;
– Development phase (1971–1982): the development of different programmes
designed to implement multiculturalism (multicultural subsidies, teaching of
languages other than English and French; ethnic history; Canadian ethnic studies;
etc.);
– Institutionalization phase (1982 to the present): multiculturalism was formalized
in legislation (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982; Employment
Equity Act in 1986; Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1988; Action Plan against
Racism in 2005, etc.).
Table 1 sums up the principal measures adopted in the framework of Canadian
multiculturalism. It can be noted that the rejection of assimilation is the first measure
likely to lead the way to multiculturalism.
The federal policy of multiculturalism signalled the end of Canada’s binational
image (English-speaking Protestant/French-speaking Catholic). Even with the maintenance of the two official languages, there is no longer an official culture and no
2 The Emergence of Canadian Federal Multiculturalism
81
Table 1 Principal measures at the multicultural level in Canada
Year
Measure and legislative act
1963
Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism: assimilation is rejected and
replaced by integration
1971
Official policy on multiculturalism (federal level)
1977
Canadian Human Rights
1982
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Since 1988 Adoption of provincial codes on human rights
ethnic group has precedence. This denial of Canada’s binational character explains
to a great extent why multiculturalism had never been popular in French-speaking
Quebec (Rocher, 2015). In addition, a part of public opinion in Canada had never
accepted the special treatment (privilege) accorded to immigrants and their descendants over the previous twenty years, since these measures had given the highest
educated migrants and ethnic elites, particularly within the federal civil service but
also in large companies, the political and symbolic power to increase their social
status and political influence (Helly, 2000).
In order to curtail opposition to multiculturalism, more recent studies have indicated that it is necessary to revise the conceptual and institutional foundations
of Canadian multiculturalism (Abu-Laban, 2018; Bhatnagar, 2017; Guo & Wong,
2015).
The Canadian experience shows how multiculturalism has developed and evolved,
but also how it encounters strong resistance. Numerous issues (national, regional,
linguistic and religious identities) combine and complicate the actions of cultural
openness:
In the 1970s and 1980s, the attempt to create civic cohesion around a largely British identity
gave way to a focus on respecting, celebrating and accommodating diversity. While pluralism
and inclusion continue to be central to the rhetoric of social studies and citizenship education
policy and programs across Canada, we argue it has largely been an iconic rather than a deep
pluralism. From the 1970s the idea of education as a doorway for individuals and groups
to feel included in the mainstream civic life of the country in Canada has extended to at
least attempts to include the voices of a range of previously marginalized or excluded groups
(Joshee et al., 2016, p. 42)
3 The Schooling of Indigenous Children
It is not possible to deal with the matter of multicultural education in Canada without
examining the schooling of indigenous children.1 This situation by itself sums up
the ambiguity of Canadian multiculturalism which, on the one hand, may pride itself
1
Also called Amerindians or First People.
82
6 Multicultural Education in Canada
on being in the forefront of the international scene in considering cultural diversity,
but which has not completely restored the battered historical legacy with its own
indigenous people. The schooling of this latter group was an experiment bringing
together the school, colonization, racism and ethnocentrism.
As of 1830, the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the British Imperial Government, George Murray, announced that the government’s policy was not simply to
introduce the manners of “civilized life” into indigenous society. Henceforth, it
should improve the condition of indigenous communities by encouraging progress
and knowledge of the Christian religion “in any way”, and education for the native
tribes (Sbarrato, 2005).
It was in this way that indigenous residential schools were founded in 1840
following the adoption of the Indian Act. The main objective was to teach the children French or English and to convert the natives, by choice or by force, to adopt
Christianity and the habits of modern life. Behind the schooling of indigenous tribes,
there was the concept of civilization/religious conversion, as well as the desire to
eradicate their traditional way of life typified by symbiosis with their environment
using ancestral and sustainable natural resources. Residential schools are a perfect
illustration of the violent methods typical of assimilation models (see Chap. 4 for this
concept’s definition) in which individuals were expected to acquire all the norms and
values of the dominant cultural groups, while abandoning their own cultural references. Furthermore, this example illustrates the necessity of taking the host society’s
signals into account (or in this case the dominant group), which was resort to an
enforced and violent process of assimilation. It is possible to say that these schools
were the outcome of an institutional system based on colonialist and racist attitudes:
The presumption of cultural and moral superiority typical of the political class of its allies—
the Christian churches—can be summed up in an institutional framework which isolated,
dominated and humiliated a group of people whose unique crime was to be the bearers a
different skin colour and culture (Titley, 2011, p. 13).
Most of these schools were residential (boarding) schools, even if some of them
were located on the reserves themselves. The children were separated from their
families and often only had the right to make one visit per year. Some children
entered these schools at a young age and did not see their parents again until they
had completed compulsory schooling at the age of 15. Brothers and sisters were
rigorously separated. It should be noted that almost 75% of indigenous children
attended residential schools (Bombay, Matheson & Anisham, 2014).
These residential schools were managed by both Catholic and Protestant churches,
then after 1969 by the Federal Government. Indigenous languages were forbidden,
even in conversations between children. Any attempt to speak their own language
resulted in severe punishment. Furthermore, the children were taught that their culture
was barbarous and their religious beliefs pagan.
The traditions, the rites, the political organization and economic practices of indigenous
people were considered mostly as obstacles to their Christianization or even as criminal
behaviour (Sbarrato, 2005, p. 261).
3 The Schooling of Indigenous Children
83
Table 2 Time-line of residential schools in Canada
Year
1840
Residential schools were established by the Indian Act and their management awarded
to Catholic and Protestant churches
1931
The high-point of the residential school system
1969
The schools were taken in charge by the Federal Government, which progressively
authorized the indigenous tribes to be responsible for the schools themselves, but the
educational model employed still aimed at assimilation
1996
Closure of residential schools by the Federal Government
2007
The government apologizes and accepts to pay individuals who attended residential
schools $10,000 for the first year and $3,000 for each supplementary year
2008
86,048 residential school “survivors” submitted a request to be indemnified
Source https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/residential-schools and https://en.wik
ipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system
Schooling in residential schools took the form of: (a) an inadequate curriculum
(since it paid no heed to the indigenous cultural heritage), insufficient teaching staff
and lesson time, and little participation by the parents; (b) endemic racism; (c) strict
banning of use of the indigenous language; and (d) systematic ill-treatment of the
children (Barnes, Josefowitz, & Cole, 2006). Beyond cultural subjugation, the indigenous children were also exploited through both unpaid work and sexual abuse. The
indigenous leaders believe that the ultimate objective of these boarding schools was
to “kill” the natives. Official reports, such as that of the medical inspector of Indian
Affairs, Dr Peter Bryce, stated that 25–50% of deaths among indigenous children in
residential schools were due to illness, ill-treatment and other causes (Bryce, 1922).
The tragic time-line of these residential schools for indigenous children is
presented in summary in Table 2.
Despite the introduction of an official policy of multiculturalism in 1971, the
federal government did not close these schools until 1996. Nevertheless, we can
agree that these official apologies and the subsequent indemnities, even if they were
overdue, represent a step towards the recognition and mending of this historical
injustice of which the country’s first inhabitants were the victims.
Some observers do not hesitate to declare that the consequences of residential
schools are perceptible until this day:
The children boarding in residential schools were brought up in total ignorance of their
parents’ language and customs. When, upon becoming young adults, they left school, most
of them had lost their pride and felt confused and ashamed of their own identity. They were
not prepared for a life outside these schools nor for a life within their own communities.
The communities and the families, robbed of their natural structures and their roles, began
to disintegrate. The education system imposed by the government in the form of residential
schools had a direct consequence on the organization of life in the indigenous communities,
and its impact on the health of populations and communities is still felt to this day (Sbarrato,
2005, pp. 265–266).
84
6 Multicultural Education in Canada
The preceding quotation shows to what extent the consequences of the loss of
cultural bearings can be disastrous. In this situation, the indigenous communities
can find themselves marginalized, because they can no longer identify with their
own culture nor establish links with the surrounding cultures. Even though these
residential schools are now abolished and the indigenous peoples have taken charge
of their own education, the outcome of this schooling has accumulated over generations and explains the present situation of these communities (marginalization, etc.)
(Bombay, Matheson, & Anisman, 2014).
Indigenous education evolves in a complex situation in which hope and openness
exist alongside constraints and frustration. Hope takes the form of the conviction
among communities, families and educators that the renewal of indigenous values
and know-how epitomizing the foundation of the children’s and young people’s
well-being represents the best means of training them to assume the responsibilities
of indigenous citizens. Constraints and frustration are encountered in achieving the
educational objectives in an environment where the State’s authority and the dominant
culture challenge the indigenous efforts, both on the political level as well as on those
of ideology and the economy (Sbarrato, 2005).
It seems that the question of language is central if the indigenous peoples are
actually to take possession of their schools once again:
The most encouraging hopes for indigenous education are based on the process of renewing
the language. In this way, the school embodies a primary partner in this intergenerational
effort of communities and families to restore ownership of the mother-tongue. Hence, cultural
and linguistic activities occupy increasing amounts of space in curricula. Frequently, communities discuss the balance to be achieved between the lessons based on their own culture and
those laid down by the provincial authorities (Sbarrato, 2005, p. 276).
Residential schools represent the antithesis of intercultural approaches to education. Based on the attitudes of colonization, ethnocentrism, racism and discrimination, these schools have left an important contentious legacy between the indigenous
cultures and the manner of schooling.
4 How Multiculturalism Takes Form in Educational
Policies and Curricula
Based on an analysis of multicultural programmes subsidized by public funds for the
period 1983–2002, McAndrew, Helly and Tessier (2005) concluded that they can be
divided into four major categories: (1) the support of minority languages and cultures;
(2) intercultural comprehension and institutional adaptation; (3) combatting racism;
and (4) integration and participation in society. In a context influenced by the radical
reduction of funds available during this period, multiethnic organizations, especially
4 How Multiculturalism Takes Form in Educational Policies and Curricula
85
those arising from visible minorities,2 have come to the fore as the principal beneficiaries. Furthermore, the authors observe that initiatives designed for intercultural
comprehension, institutional adaptation and raising public awareness about racism
clearly dominate more traditional initiatives, such as the maintenance of languages
and cultures.
Despite the introduction of multicultural programmes, poor school achievement
and drop-out by pupils belonging to ethnic minorities continues and gives rise to
concern by parents and communities. As a result, initiatives such as race-relations
offices responsible for liaison with minority racial communities have been installed
in numerous schools (James, 2017).
Nevertheless, these initiatives do not seem to be working inasmuch as race had not
been adopted by educators and educational decision-makers as an important factor
in school life and in learning outcomes. Race continues to be used by the educational
partners, mainly to designate pupils who are non-White and are identifiable by a
supposed cultural deficit, weak self-esteem and the absence of positive role-models.
As affirmed by the Ontario Provincial Advisory Committee on Race Relations
(1987), “Multiculturalism has not succeeded in resolving the problems that are not
linked to cultural differences but rather to racial inequality in power and privileges”
(p. 38). In 1993, the Ontario Government recognized the existence of racism in
schools in the province, as well as the fact that curricula and Eurocentric practices
contributed, at least partly, to the educational difficulties of pupils from minority
racial backgrounds (Ontario. Ministry of Education & Training, 1993).
The creation of a Canadian school reserved for young Black pupils marked a
significant moment in Canadian multiculturalism. Thus, in September 2009, slightly
over 135 pupils entered the classrooms of an Afrocentric alternative school in Toronto
(Levine-Rasky, 2014). The reason for its creation was the desire of the Afro-Canadian
community’s members, who wanted empowerment over the education of their children by modifying the curriculum. In fact, this school has the potential of incorporating various perspectives, experiences and histories of people of African descent
into the provincial compulsory study programme. This is one way of including the
pupils’ cultural membership into the school, but also of promoting it and opposing the
ranking of cultures sometimes present implicitly in the province’s official curricula.
The preferred school policies adopted by the provinces’ educational decisionmakers enabled this school to open its doors, even if it fluctuates between
“ideas of choice, liberty and equality” and those of the “market” (Gulson &
Taylor Webb, 2013). The Afro-Canadian community is itself divided between the
school’s promoters, who estimate that their children’s educational difficulties deserve
concrete action, and their opponents, who consider that this form of educational
communitarianism runs the risk of further marginalizing young Black pupils.
The opening of this school triggered a number of debates. According to an opinion
poll, only 3% of the province’s inhabitants supported the school’s opening (LevinRasky, 2014). Through the media coverage of this event, several reproaches aimed at
2
Statistics Canada (2011, p. 32) defines visible minorities as being “persons, other than Aboriginal
peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-White in colour”.
86
6 Multicultural Education in Canada
this project can be identified. In fact, some people think that an Afro-centred school is
the fool proof way of isolating these individuals from the rest of society. It would be
an obstacle to the development of multiculturalism. Responding to these criticisms,
the sociologist Monica Heller, interviewed by Radio Canada,3 explained that it is not
a form of resegregation of the school, but rather a possible alternative and a strategy
to combat massive school drop-out by particular groups of pupils.
The way the Ontario school system conceptualizes the idea of culture seems
interesting to us. The organization Ontario Schools (2013) considers that culture
goes much further than the typical understanding of ethnicity, race and/or religion.
It encompasses the wider ideas of similitude and difference and is reflected in the
multitude of pupils’ social identities and in their manner of knowing and being in
the world. This vision does not consist uniquely in the recognition of otherness; it
appears to consider the dynamism of cultural identities. Since culture is understood
as one of the elements in constructing an identity, it is necessary to make sure that
all pupils feel safe, welcomed, accepted for what they are and inspired to succeed
in a school culture based on higher expectations for the learning of all pupils. To
achieve this, schools and classrooms must take note of culture and cultural identities.
It is a matter of implementing a culturally responsive pedagogy consisting of three
dimensions: institutional, personal and educational.
The institutional dimension refers to the administration and management of
schools, including the values developed and reflected in the policies and practices
of school boards. It is necessary to examine in a critical manner the formal school
processes likely to reproduce the particular circumstances of marginalization. From
this point of view, educators must analyse the models that should be halted or modified. As for the personal dimension, it covers the self-esteem of educators who are
culturally sensitive and the practices that they use to support the development of all
pupils. Not only should teachers be aware of their responsibility, but they should
also develop a more profound understanding of their pupils and the way in which
they learn best. Finally, the educational dimension includes the learners’ knowledge
and the way classroom practices lead to a culturally adapted class (aware of culture)
(Ontario Schools, 2013).
The expansion of educational initiatives attempting to raise awareness about
cultural diversity in Canadian schools is taking place in a demographic context
marked by unprecedented migratory flows. We will describe them in the following
section.
5 A Demographic Context Exhibiting Strong Cultural
Diversity
The demographic evolution and the policy of welcoming new immigrants is transforming Canadian society and its schools. Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, the
country’s three most highly populated agglomerations, remain the places in Canada
3
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/radio/Desautels/30012008/96665.shtml.
5 A Demographic Context Exhibiting Strong Cultural Diversity
87
where more than half of the migrants (61.4%) and recent immigrants (56.0%) reside.
By way of comparison, a little more than one-third (35.7%) of Canada’s total population lives in these three cities. In 2016, immigrants represented 46.1% of the population of Toronto, 40.8% of that of Vancouver and 23.4% of that of Montreal. If ethnocultural diversity is present almost everywhere in Canada, it should be recognized
that this is particularly true of these three big cities (Statistics Canada, 2017a).
The 2016 census counted 7,540,830 people who had been born abroad and came
to Canada through the immigration process. These people represent more than
one-fifth (21.9%) of Canada’s entire population, a figure which approaches that of
22.3% dating from the 1921 census, the highest level ever recorded in the country’s
history. According to the population forecasts by Statistics Canada, the proportion
of the country’s population born abroad could reach 24.5–30.0% by 2036 (Statistics
Canada, 2017a).
Almost 2.2 million children aged less than 15 were born abroad (first generation
migrants) or had at least one parent born abroad (thus, second generation) representing 37.5% of Canadian children. This is a rise compared to the beginning of
the 2010 decade (34.6%). This proportion of children resulting from immigration
should continue to increase and might reach between 39.3 and 49.1% of children
aged less than 15 years in 2036 (Statistics Canada, 2017b). In 1891, the very first
year that questions concerning the parents’ place of birth had been asked during the
census, the number of children with migrant backgrounds was 466,000. At that time,
this represented 26.6% of all children aged less than 15 years, that is to say eleven
percentage points less than today (Statistics Canada, 2017b).
It is the population of children born in Canada both of whose parents were born
abroad that will undergo the greatest increase. According to Statistics Canada’s baseline projection scenario, this population will number between 1.3 and 2 million
children by 2036 (Statistics Canada, 2017b).
To understand and comprehend these figures it is essential to examine the issues
concerning how cultural diversity will be considered and what populations will be
concerned.
An examination of the educational level reached by immigrants in Canada
(Table 3) shows that on average they had attained a level higher than that of other
members of the population.
The title “recent immigrants” designates people who have been granted the status
of immigrant or permanent resident for the first time during the period from 1 January
Table 3 Percentage of the
population aged 25–64 years
holding various diplomas,
according to immigrant status
and period of immigration,
Canada, 2016
Masters or Ph.D.
First university
degree or higher
Population born in
Canada
5.0
24.0
Total of immigrants
11.3
39.5
Recent immigrants
16.7
52.1
Source Population census (Statistics Canada, 2017c)
88
6 Multicultural Education in Canada
2011 to 10 May 2016. The percentage of immigrants possessing a masters or Ph.D.
degree is more than double that of the population born in Canada: a total of 11.3% of
immigrants aged 25–64 years held a masters or Ph.D. degree compared to 5.0% of
the population born in Canada. The more recent immigrants were even more likely
to possess a masters or Ph.D. degree, since 16.7% held such a higher education
diploma in 2016. These figures would seem to reflect a migratory policy based on
consideration of individuals’ qualifications and their capacity to be integrated into
the local job market.
Ultimately, even if cultural diversity concerns Canada as a whole, it can be seen that
this diversity is more keenly appreciated in the larger metropolises, where economic
wealth is created and where the most highly qualified migrants arriving in Canada
prefer to live.
6 The Case of Quebec
During the 1960s, before the implementation of the federal policy on multiculturalism, the Province of Quebec experienced a disturbed period known as the “Quiet
Revolution”. It was an important and crucial moment in the history of Quebec,
which corresponded to economic, political, social and cultural transformations.
The Quiet Revolution was also a time when morals became more relaxed and the
Catholic Church’s strong influence declined in Quebec society (Bélanger, Comeau,
& Métivier, 2000). Following the Parent Report’s publication, the management of
education was withdrawn from the control of the Catholic and Protestant clergy,
although the schools still remained denominational (Government of Quebec, 1963).
Given the religious origin of Quebec’s education system, religion was far more important as a socio-educational institution than the “social studies” curriculum. To put it
more accurately, the Church was the curriculum; teaching moral and patriotic values
was the primary focus of “history” and “geography” (Joshee et al., 2016).
The term “interculturalism”, employed to designate public policies, has no official
status in Quebec, even though it is used in government documents. The Government
of Quebec has never furnished itself with legislation comparable to federal legislation
on this matter. The term “interculturality” was used at first in several community situations, and then in several sectors involving the provincial government (particularly
in the domains of education, social measures, health and immigration) to describe
programmes designed to promote the integration of people arriving in the most recent
waves of migration (Rocher, 2015).
The federal policy on multiculturalism was not received in Quebec with enthusiasm. In fact, Quebec, the biggest French-speaking society in North America, had
experienced a colonial situation in which French-speaking Catholics attempted to
free themselves from the economic and political hegemony of English-speaking
Protestants. In this situation, multiculturalism could have been interpreted in Quebec
as an attempt to smother the French-speaking province’s ambitions for independence. Federal multiculturalism treated the French-speaking Quebecois population
6 The Case of Quebec
89
as one element in the Canadian mosaic in the same way as the English-speakers,
the Amerindians and the migrants. The Amerindians in Quebec, whose territory
was administered by the Federal Government, were considered in the Frenchspeaking/English-speaking conflict as a useful ally serving the federalists as a means
of countering the French-speakers’ independence claims. The immigrants in Quebec
were also the subjects of a charm campaign on the part of the English-speakers
and were therefore sometimes viewed with suspicion by Quebec’s independence
movement (Balthazar, 1995).
In the 1960s and 1970s, Quebec opened its doors to immigration and, at the same
time, the federal policy on multiculturalism was applied in the province. Even so,
the Government of Quebec employed the term “intercultural education” in order to
indicate the particularity of Quebec society. If multiculturalism stressed the contribution of all cultural communities in Canada, interculturalism in Quebec presumed
the primacy of French in its relations with other cultural communities:
The privileged approach of the Quebec State presented the traditional French culture as a
foyer de convergence pour diverses communautés [meeting place for various communities].
It took the form of an affirmation which ran counter to the presumed equal status of cultures
at the heart of the Canadian policy of multiculturalism, since the “French tradition” assumed
a privileged status compared to the other traditions making up Quebec society (Rocher, 2015,
p. 40).
The French Language Charter (Bill 101) was adopted in 1977 in order to make
French the common and usual language for work, teaching, communication and the
economy in Quebec. After it came into force, the school was given the mandate to
integrate, to educate and to train young immigrants in French. Therefore, this law
foresaw that children with immigrant backgrounds must be enrolled in the education
system’s French-speaking primary and secondary schools so as to facilitate learning
the common language.
The Quebec Minister of Education and the Minister of Relations with Citizens
and Immigration (1998) established three main guidelines for intercultural education
and educational integration:
1.
2.
3.
The promotion of equal opportunity;
The mastery of French, the common language of public life;
Education for democratic citizenship in a pluralist context.
While in the remainder of Canada mastery of the common language (English) is
not mentioned as a priority for multicultural programmes at school, we note that in
Quebec this matter occupies a principal place in intercultural education policies.
Interculturalism figures as a structural element in the immigration policies of the
Ministry of Immigration, Diversity and Inclusion (2015). While Canadian multiculturalism is seen as a fundamental element in Canadian identity, interculturalism
in Quebec represents only one of the five conditions associated with immigration
(Rocher, 2015).
Given the rapid evolution in the flow of migrants to Quebec, present research is
focusing particularly on ways of living together. The migratory life of young people,
the construction of their identity and the relationships among the pupils, the teachers,
90
6 Multicultural Education in Canada
the parents and the community’s decision-makers shape each group’s perceptions of
diversity and direct its actions (Kanouté & Charette, 2018) and could then influence
relations between individuals.
Within the school, one way of facilitating cultural diversity consists of introducing
“reasonable compromises”. This idea arose from combining the concepts of equality
and difference (Labelle & Icart, 2007). It is designed to counter discriminatory practices and to achieve equal treatment for all individuals through the adaptation of
norms and laws “within reasonable limits” (Labelle & Icart, 2007, p. 123). It was
laid down by the Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission as follows:
The legal obligation resulting from the right to equality, applicable in a situation of discrimination and consisting of modifying a norm or a practice of universal application, grants
adapted treatment to a person who otherwise would suffer by the application of such a norm.
There is no obligation to compromise in the case of excessive compulsion (Dowd, 2006,
quoted by Labelle & Icart, 2007).
A reasonable compromise becomes a legal notion describing the easing of a norm
in order to lessen discrimination. In education, even if Quebec law recommends
religious neutrality in the school, tolerance towards certain religious practices is
tolerated (for example, wearing religious symbols). This concept has been the subject
of an intense debate in Quebec. The Bouchard-Taylor Commission was created to
react to the disapproval aroused by this concept.
In 2006, the Canadian Supreme Court (CSC) passed judgement on a pupil wearing
a kirpan4 at school, explaining that its total prohibition diminished religious freedom.
It rejected the arguments of those who, wishing to forbid pupils from wearing it, drew
attention to the fact that it was a symbol of violence and promoted the use of force
in settling conflicts (Rocher, 2015).
The most contested compromises are those connected with religious affiliation.
However, it should not be forgotten that one of the Quiet Revolution’s gains was a
reduction in the Catholic Church’s considerable powers. A large number of citizens
of Quebec consider that certain compromises granted to religious communities are
unreasonable. For example, in a Quebec society that had liberated itself from the
Catholic Church’s rigorous control at the end of the 1960s, wearing a veil appears to
certain people, whether right or wrong, as a symbol of female oppression.
The debate concerning this concept is therefore particularly lively; it draws attention to the already existing tensions in a society cherishing openness and seeking
to conserve a national (or regional) linguistic identity. The press plays an important
role in this discussion, to the extent that it either contributes to spreading information
that is sometimes incorrect or is unjustly accused of adding to the tense debate on
reasonable compromises (Labelle & Icart, 2007).
In 2019, the Quebec government adopted its long-awaited secularism bill, laying
down proposed ground rules it says will ensure the religious neutrality of the state.
Laicity, according to the bill, is based on four principles: the separation of state and
religions, the religious neutrality of the state, the equality of all citizens and freedom
4 The kirpan is a symbolic weapon similar to a dagger worn by orthodox Sikhs recalling the need
to oppose oppression and injustice.
6 The Case of Quebec
91
of conscience and freedom of religion. The most contentious section of the bill, if
made law, would ban public workers in positions of authority from wearing religious
symbols (Wolfs, 2020).
7 Conclusion
Despite the richness of multicultural approaches in Canada, the school experiences
of children belonging to different Amerindian communities draw attention to the
historic power of the assimilationist approach in the school. In fact, for a long time
Amerindian cultures were ignored, while a large number of children were torn from
their families to undergo enforced schooling, during which violence and humiliations were commonplace (Ellis, 1994). The spread of the principles of multicultural
education led to the impact of this virtual cultural genocide being halted and the
acceptance that the Amerindian communities should have more freedom in the organization and management of their own schools. Nevertheless, the negative undertones
of Amerindian cultures are still present in the school and in society.
Even if it is much less disputed than in the United States or in the United Kingdom,
Canadian multiculturalism raises certain fears. The metaphor of a country composed
of a “mosaic of ethnicities” or a “community of communities” is closer to “separateness” than “living together”. The decline in the relative importance of the two
“founding” nations (English-speaking and French-speaking) in favour of indigenous
communities and other cultural minorities arising from migration has raised concerns.
Speaking about the period in office of the last conservative government in Canada,
Joshee et al. (2016) point out that in a relatively short span of time the official
State position on the policy of multiculturalism has gone from valuing diversity as
a strength and a source of national identity to decrying diversity as a threat to the
country’s integrity and security. Furthermore, one consequence of the combination
of neoliberal and neoconservative discourses in multicultural education has been
to construct diversity as a problem, and to position minoritized students as having
deficits that need to be addressed.
Breton (1991) indicates that the policy of Canadian multiculturalism is the
management of symbolic resources aimed at groups that have already experienced
a certain social benefit with access to material resources, yet still feel excluded
from political and social participation. Canadian multiculturalism is based on a
certain cultural relativism, since theoretically it considers all cultures as equally
important with the same status and the same quality. This has allowed the relevance of
multicultural education and the integration of cultural minorities to be tackled simultaneously by the teaching profession (Boudreau et al., 2002). Nevertheless, the assessment carried out by some observers is unenthusiastic. In official speeches, multiculturalism remains vague, which does not help to make it functional. It seems that there
has not been any significant progress concerning the educational difficulties of visible
minorities, despite the promotion of multicultural education (Gérin-Lajoie, 2008).
92
6 Multicultural Education in Canada
Furthermore, many French-speaking Quebecois have had a sceptical and negative
attitude towards federal multiculturalism and were not ready to become a cultural
group like the others (Berthelot, 1990). So as to distance themselves clearly from
the federal multiculturalism and to emphasize their concern about consolidating
and recovering their French-speaking national identity, the Quebecois have spontaneously chosen, in the same manner as the French-speaking Europeans, the term
“interculturalism” rather than “multiculturalism”. Quebec’s interculturalism desires
to be open to other cultures as an important complement or a contribution to an
existing historic culture (that of the majority of French-speakers). To sum up, the
specificity of Quebec’s interculturalism is the stress on the common culture represented by the French-speaking historic culture of Quebec. In other words, minority
groups will be considered as equal partners on condition that they respect the host
society’s basic values and, first of all, use French as the common and principal
language threatened by the English-speaking hegemony.
In its policies connected with different ethnocultural minorities, the Government
of Quebec attempts to separate itself clearly from the federal policies based on
multiculturalism by choosing the term interculturalism (Gay, 1985). Nevertheless, it
would seem that, when it is transferred into the schools, Quebec’s interculturalism has
not given rise to practices that are very different from those found in the remainder of
Canada (Alladin, 1992; Gay, 1985). The distinct nature of Quebec’s interculturalism
is not accepted by all observers (Azdouz, 2018).
The major challenge for educational decision-makers, teachers and public opinion
in Quebec is to adapt to the profound changes taking place in this society over the last
three decades. The obstacle arises from the desire of the French-speaking “native”
Quebecois to maintain the memory of belonging to a disadvantaged minority, but
who now find themselves in a situation of a majority group (within the province)
with the immigrants now occupying their former place (McAndrew, 2001).
The place of Quebec in the French-speaking world can be identified by a great
terminological and conceptual creativity in the field of intercultural education.
Such terms as appartenance ethnoculturelle [ethnocultural affiliation], pluriethnicité
[multiethnicity], élèves allophones [pupils who to not speak the local language]
and communautés culturelles [cultural communities] (Ouellet & Pagé, 1991; Tarrab,
Plessis-Bélair, & Girault, 1990) have been proposed and employed in Quebec before
being adopted by other French-speaking regions. Toussaint (1993) has proposed
the concept of “integrated intercultural education” as a way of keeping track of the
cultural diversity within existing educational disciplines in the curriculum, rather
than introducing a new subject. Today, there is a wide-ranging debate on the use
of the notion of accommodements raisonnables [reasonable compromises]. It is a
matter of finding common ground in a cultural conflict, which guarantees the respect
of rights without imposing excessive restraint.
7 Conclusion
93
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.