3RVWXODWLRQVRQWKH)UDJPHQWDU\(IIHFWVRI0XOWLFXOWXUDOLVP

LQ&DQDGD
Joseph Garcea

Canadian Ethnic Studies, Volume 40, Number 1, 2008, pp. 141-160 (Article)

Published by Canadian Ethnic Studies Association

DOI: 10.1353/ces.0.0059

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ces/summary/v040/40.1.garcea.html

Access provided by University of Victoria (22 Sep 2014 03:57 GMT)

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 141

JOSEPH GARCEA

Postulations on the Fragmentary Effects of

Multiculturalism in Canada
Abstract
This article has two central objectives: first, to provide an overview and analysis of ten postulations
regarding the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism philosophy and policy articulated during the
past forty years in books and academic journals within the Canadian literature written in English;
second, to provide some suggestions regarding the importance policy makers should attach to these
postulations and the type and degree of attention that they should devote to them. The ten postulations can be grouped into the following four general categories: multiculturalism segregates the
population in Canada; multiculturalism is problematical for the Canadian, Quebecois, and
Aboriginal culture, identity, and nationalism projects; multiculturalism perpetuates conflicts
between and within groups; and multiculturalism hinders equity and equality in society and the
economy. The article concludes that those postulations should not be dismissed as insignificant.
Instead, efforts should be made to determine which, if any, point to real problems and which point
to perceived problems, assess their tractability, and select the appropriate policy reforms to deal
with the real and tractable problems. In doing so, policy makers should ensure that neither the efficacy nor the morality of the Canadian management of diversity is adversely affected. Among other
things, this includes ensuring that the virtuous aspect of the prevailing Canadian political culture
to build bridges, rather than walls, among cultural groups is perpetuated.

Rsum
Cet article vise deux objectifs centraux : en premier, fournir une vue densemble et une analyse de
dix prsupposs concernant la source de fragmentation que sont la philosophie et de la politique
du multiculturalisme prsentes au cours des quarante dernires annes dans des livres et journaux universitaires publis en anglais au Canada; en second, fournir quelques suggestions sur limportance que les dcideurs devraient attribuer ces prsupposs, ainsi que le type et le degr
dattention quils devraient leur accorder. On peut regrouper ces dix prsupposs dans les quatre
catgories gnrales suivantes : le multiculturalisme provoque une sgrgation au sein de la population canadienne; le multiculturalisme pose un problme la culture et lidentit canadiennes,
qubcoises et autochtones, ainsi qu leurs projets nationalistes; le multiculturalisme perptue les
conflits entre les groupes et en leur sein; et le multiculturalisme entrave lquit et lgalit dans
la socit et lconomie. Cet article conclue quil ne faudrait pas rejeter ces prsupposs comme
tant insignifiants. Il faudrait au contraire faire un effort pour dterminer lesquels, sil y en a, mettent le doigt sur un problme rel et lesquels le font sur ce que lon peroit comme en tant un. Il
faudrait aussi valuer leur rsolubilit et slectionner les rformes de politiques appropries pour
traiter les problmes rels et rsolubles. Ce faisant, les dcideurs devraient sassurer quil ne soit
port atteinte ni lefficacit, ni la moralit de la gouvernance de la diversit au Canada. Parmi
dautres choses, ceci inclut le fait de sassurer que soit perptu laspect vertueux de la culture
politique canadienne courante qui cherche construire des ponts plutt que des murs entre les
divers groupes culturels.

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 142

142 |

Canadian Ethnic Studies/tudes ethniques au Canada


INTRODUCTION
Multiculturalism has been the subject of substantial debates in Canada during the
past four decades (Wilson 1993; Abu-Laban 1994; Sugunasiri 1999; Fleras and Elliot
2002). Such debates have intensified during the most recent decade largely as a result
of the attention devoted by the media to, among other things, the large influx of
immigrants and refugees who are members of visible minorities, the claims for and
responses to what is now being termed reasonable accommodations, and the actual
and potential acts of terrorism. The debates have focused primarily on what Fleras
and Elliott (2002, 108) have referred to as the dialectics of multiculturalism regarding five sets of positive and negative effects of multiculturalism public philosophy
and public policy (i.e., divisive vs. unifying, essentializing vs. hybridizing, marginalizing vs. inclusive, hoax vs. catalyst, and hegemony vs. counter-hegemony), the
myths and fallacies of multiculturalism (Burnet 1979; Peter 1981, Fleras and Elliot
2002, 112-116), and what have been described as real and perceived contradictions
related to multiculturalism (Saul 2005).
One of the central questions in such debates has been whether multiculturalism
contributes either to harmony and integration or conflict and fragmentation within
the Canadian polity. The question applies to the effects of both the public philosophy of multiculturalism (i.e., the normative framework that values the co-existence
and perpetuation of diverse cultures)1 and the public policy of multiculturalism (i.e.,
the actual policy and program initiatives undertaken by various orders of government designed to deal with the co-existence and perpetuation of diverse cultures)
(Kallen 1982).2 That question has generated a set of postulations proffered by postulators who believe that multiculturalism philosophy and policy have fragmentary
effects within the Canadian polity.3
This article has two central objectives: first, to provide an overview and analysis
of the postulations regarding the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism philosophy
and policy articulated during the past forty years in books and journal articles
within the Canadian literature written in English; second, to provide some observations regarding the importance that policy makers should attach to those postulations and the type and degree of attention that they should devote to them.
This article is based on a content analysis of a select set of publications on
Canadian multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy written between
1965 and 2005 largely by social scientists and a few other prominent authors and

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 143

Joseph Garcea

| 143

analysts. The goal was to identify some, rather than all, publications that articulated
various postulations. Thus, the dozens of publications profiled in this article constitute only a representative sample of a potentially larger set of publications that articulate the various postulations. The publications were selected through a combination
of a library and web-based bibliographic search and a scanning of the bibliographic
references contained in the publications located through the library and web-based
bibliographic search. The key words used for the searches were Canadian multiculturalism and criticisms of Canadian multiculturalism. The postulations that are
the focus of this article were identified through a content analysis of the select set of
dozens of publications that dealt with the fragmentary effects of Canadian multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy. More specifically, they were identified
by grouping comparable arguments regarding the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy, and then producing a descriptive title and
description of the postulation embodied in each group arguments.
Before providing the overview and analysis of the postulations, three important
caveats and some information regarding the methodology are in order. First, the differences between some of the postulations are relatively subtle; indeed, some of the
postulations are interrelated and overlapping. Nevertheless, for analytical purposes
it is useful to discuss them separately. Second, the identification of the commentators who articulate those postulations is selective or exemplary, rather than comprehensive or exhaustive. Third, it should not be assumed that all of those who
articulate any of the postulations are necessarily against multiculturalism either as a
public philosophy or as a public policy. Indeed, as noted in a subsequent section of
this article, some of them are supportive of either or both of those, but they want to
see some clarifications or correctives to those that they perceive as problematical in
achieving any one or more of the desired goals.

OVERVIEW OF POSTULATIONS
Postulation 1: Multiculturalism promotes the creation of segregated racial
and ethno-cultural enclaves
The first postulation is that multiculturalism policy, in combination with immigration policy, creates segregated racial and ethnocultural enclaves within local communities (Brotz 1980; Ogmundson 1992; Paquet 1988; James 1996; James and Shadd
2001; Stoffman 2002 and 2004). The postulators maintain that whereas immigration
policy facilitates the concentration of the bulk of immigrants with similar racial or
ethnocultural backgrounds into a few major cities and, in some cases even a few
neighbourhoods therein, multiculturalism policy promotes and supports the creation of ethno-specific secular and religious institutions to serve the needs of each

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 144

144 |

Canadian Ethnic Studies/tudes ethniques au Canada

major ethno-cultural community. They add that some racial and ethno-cultural
groups are able to achieve and maintain a substantial degree of institutional completeness that, in turn, accentuates segregation and social distances between members of those groups and members of other groups.
This postulation was cogently articulated and popularized by Neil Bissoondath
who suggested that multiculturalism has the effect of ensuring that ethnic groups
will preserve their distinctiveness in a gentle and insidious form of cultural
apartheid and will lead an already divided country down the path to further
social divisiveness (1994, 82-83).
Those who proffer this postulation suggest that such distancing contributes to
the fragmentation of the populace and that possible negative effects include matters
discussed in subsequent sections of this article. The most notable of such effects are:
the diminishing of the fundamental unity of the Canadian state and society (Brotz
1980, 44); the growth of ethnocentrism and segmentation and the resurgence of
racism under a different name (Paquet 1988, 10-11; Sugunarisi 1999, 57-75, 109-114);
and ultimately the disintegration of the Canadian polity (Ogmundson 1992, 52).

Postulation 2: Multiculturalism creates multiple social and political identities and divided loyalties
The second postulation is that multiculturalism creates multiple social and political
identities and divided loyalties. This postulation was originally articulated in the
mid-1960s by John Porter who suggested that one of the key problems with Canada
was its fragmented social and political structures. Such fragmentation, he argued,
creates a strong emphasis on ethnic differentiation that, in turn, creates dual loyaltiesone to the various groups and one to the countrythat prevent the emergence
of a singular Canadian identity (Porter 1965, 558).
Porters postulation was echoed in the early 1990s by several authors who suggested that multiculturalism contributed to the emergence of multiple nationalities,
divided loyalties, and the fragmentation of Canadian identity. Bibby argued that,
contrary to what its proponents argue, multiculturalism does not really achieve the
stated goal of harmonious existence (1990, 7-8). Gairdner concurred with this and
went so far as to suggest that multiculturalism, along with bilingualism and immigration, contributed to the silent destruction of English Canada (Gairdner 1990,
389-420). Ogmundson argued that, contrary to what its advocates suggested, multiculturalism policy was not needed to reduce social inequalities (1992, 50-51), and
added that, since Canada has a balkanized culture and a paucity of nationalism, the
federal government must concentrate on building a singular national identity and a
stronger primary loyalty to the country. Many critics of multiculturalism go even farther
in postulating that multiculturalism has undermined national unity (McRoberts

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 145

Joseph Garcea

| 145

1997, 131) and that multiculturalism does not square as well as multinationalism
with Canadian federalism (McRoberts 2003, 105).
In recent years, this particular postulation regarding the effects of multiculturalism on identities and loyalties has also been articulated by other analysts. HowardHassmann for example, notes that despite many salutary effects of Canadian
multiculturalism policy in conveying the message that this is a progressive and welcoming country, it tends to encourage individuals to think of themselves, and identify themselves, in terms of their ancestral ethnicity and renders it difficult to instill
a sense of Canadian identity in the population at large (1999, 525). She adds that
the heavy influence of what she terms group-based illiberal multiculturalism
espoused by some newcomers tends to accentuate the existence of members of ethnocultural groups with attachments to their ancestral origins from other countries
and negates the existence of members of ethno-culturally hybridized group, which
she refers to as ethnic Canadians, who do not have such attachments. She concludes that what she terms liberal multiculturalism, which focuses on a broader set
of diversities and the rights of individuals, rather than groups, is much more relevant and constructive for the evolving nature of the Canadian policy, than the illiberal group-based version.
In a similar vein, Mirchandani and Tastsoglou (2000) note that, ironically, multiculturalisms drive towards tolerance actually contributes to fragmentation by
profiling and accentuating group differences. Similarly, Barry suggests that multiculturalism contributes to the politicization of group identities (2001, 5) and creates
a majority-minority duality and enhances the notion of otherness (11-15) that
leads racial and ethno-cultural groups and their members to develop and act upon
their group identities within the political sphere. Barry criticizes proponents of
Canadian multiculturalism philosophy and public policy such as Kymlicka (1998)
and Tully (1995), whom he disparagingly refers to as an itinerant band of likeminded theorists, for their unwillingness to acknowledge that the development of
such group identifies and the actions that flow from them are problematical, rather
than salutary, for the Canadian polity.

Postulation 3: Multiculturalism hinders the production and perpetuation

of a singular Canadian civic culture with a Canadian moral centre
The third postulation is that multiculturalism hinders the production and perpetuation of a singular Canadian civic culture with a Canadian moral centre. This position,
initially articulated by Porter (1965), has been echoed during the past two decades by
several analysts (Bibby 1990; Bissoondath 1994; Roy 1995; Esses and Gardner 1996;
Gwyn 1996; Granatstein 1998; Kay 1998). The general concern among these analysts
is that multiculturalism inevitably leads to the emergence of multiple and divergent

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 146

146 |

Canadian Ethnic Studies/tudes ethniques au Canada

normative frameworks that are likely to intensify intolerance and conflict. Several of
them have noted that two problems stand in the way of the production and perpetuation of a singular Canadian civic culture. The first is that multiculturalism fosters
a reluctance to identify and proselytize a singular set of Canadian values and norms.
The second is that within the multiculturalism paradigm there is no imperative for
ethno-cultural groups to espouse one set of Canadian values or practices and to
assimilate. Instead, it encourages and supports the efforts of a wide range of such
groups, with different cultural and religious backgrounds, values, and practices to
maintain and perpetuate their distinct cultures (Esses and Gardner 1996). This, they
argue, creates a normative relativism that compromises efforts to develop a set of
widely shared set of norms and values (Porter 1965; Granatstein 1998).
According to Bibby, for example, multiculturalism has compounded the fragmentary effects of contemporary liberalism ideology by privileging individualism, pluralism, and relativism over hegemonic social and political norms shared by the majority
of the population. Bibby thinks that pluralism establishes choices and that relativism
declares those choices valid. He maintains that excessive relativism has slain moral
consensus and has stripped us of our ethical and moral guidelines, leaving us with
no authoritative instruments at the national level with which to measure social life
(1990, 14). He makes it clear that he is not opposed to individualism, pluralism and
relativism, but to what he considers the excesses that they have spawned (10).
This postulation is also evident in an article by Gregg in which he argues that the
secular humanism and liberalism that underpin immigration, settlement, and multiculturalism policies in Canada have resulted in an increase in the number of people
without allegiances to the Canadian nation or state or with due appreciation and
respect for the prevailing values, some of whom are willing to undertake radical political action, including actual or attempted acts of terrorism comparable to those witnessed in many countries prior to, on, and after 9/11. Gregg suggests that there may
be some validity to suggestions that Canadas multiculturalism experiment may have
gone wrong, and that the time has come to review it and possibly reform it (2006, 47).
The postulation that multiculturalism hinders the production and perpetuation
of a singular Canadian civic culture with a Canadian, or at least a western, moral centre is also articulated by Kay. In explaining the backlash against multiculturalism, he
notes that one of the major problems is that the accommodation of the distinct values of various minority groups leads to an unacceptable and problematical normative
relativism that confronts and challenges the moral and social fabric of the country
(1998, 31). He adds that the prevailing view is that whenever there is a conflict
between any such values and fundamental liberal principles like freedom of speech
and equality before the law, those values are not acceptable within the parameters set
for multiculturalism (32-33). He concludes by siding with conservatives who suggest

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 147

Joseph Garcea

| 147

that there is, and that there must be, a limit to the degree of tolerance and accommodation for values that are not commensurate with western cultural values that
prevail in Canada and other liberal democracies.

Postulation 4: Multiculturalism hinders the development and delivery of a

singular civic education
The fourth postulation is that multiculturalism hinders the development and delivery of a singular civic education (Brotz 1980). Granatstein (1998) maintains that the
irrational and unexamined assumptions of what he terms multiculturalism mania
contributes to fragmentation within Canada in two ways. First, multiculturalism has
seriously compromised the content and quality of teaching many important aspects
of Canadian history. Second, the propagation of multiculturalism has produced a
misallocation of governmental resources needed for the integration of newcomers.
He argues that resources that are being devoted to supporting multiculturalism policies and programs should be devoted both to turning immigrants into citizens as
quickly as possible and also to educating both those seeking Canadian citizenship
and those who already have it about Canadas history, its shared civic culture, and the
importance of the perpetuation of that civic culture to provide the social and political glue needed to secure not only a singular Canadian identity but also the optimal
degree of solidarity and unity.

Postulation 5: Multiculturalism hinders the construction of a shared civic

citizenship or intercultural citizenship
The fifth postulation is that multiculturalism hinders the construction of a shared
civic citizenship or intercultural citizenship. This postulation is articulated by several
academic analysts who believe that there is a fundamental difference between the
multiculturalism and interculturalism paradigms, and who favour the latter over the
former. Hutcheon, for example, states that the latter should be privileged over the
former because there is a dark side to multiculturalism (1994, 1). She argues that
whereas multiculturalism emphasizes the retention of group identities and differences that foster social distance and segregation, interculturalism emphasizes the
breaking down of such identities and differences as all citizens (longtime as well as
new) are nourished by an ever-expanding general culture (ibid.). In a similar vein,
Gagnon suggests that Canadas multiculturalism model is more problematic than
Quebecs interculturalism model. He argues that in Canada social fragmentation is
the result of accepting the existence of cultural groups as distinct and self-contained
entities without any expectation that they may contribute to the overall direction
of the larger society in an evolutionary interplay of ideas (2000, 21). He adds that
the principal virtue of Quebecs interculturalism model is its ability to establish a

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 148

148 |

Canadian Ethnic Studies/tudes ethniques au Canada

balance between the requirements of unity by providing everyone with a shared

identity (i.e., as francophone Quebecois) and the recognition, understanding, and
appreciation of different cultures.
The hindrance that state-sponsored multiculturalism policy has posed for a
shared civic or intercultural citizenship has also been articulated by others. Day
(2000, 3-4), for example, suggests that this state-sponsored attempt to design a unified nation has paradoxically led to an increase in both the number of minority entities and in the amount of effort required to manage them. To overcome this
problem, he proposes what might be termed a libertarian or anarchical laissez-faire
multiculturalism model wherein the policy role of the state would shift from the
proactive management of multiculturalism to a passive or even non-existent one.
This would entail the abandonment not only of the current multiculturalism policy,
but also of what he depicts as an unrealistic and unhealthy fixation with a type of
group harmony and unity that is simply not attainable. He summarizes his libertarian or anarchical laissez-faire position as follows (225):
Instead of the nation-state being wielded as a tool to build a pre-designed nation, the
Canadian states role would be to create a space of free play. It would be seen not as a
guardian of a perfect, yet fragile order, but as providing a minimal field of structure out
of which almost anything might emerge, and where even this minimal role would not
have essential content, but would itself be subject to ongoing revision. Not a static, solidified order, but a dynamic and fluid chaos.

Postulation 6: Multiculturalism frustrates the aspirations of Quebecois

nationalists and Aboriginal nationalists
The sixth postulation is that multiculturalism frustrates the aspirations of
Quebecois nationalists and Aboriginal nationalists. The postulators posit that
Canadian multiculturalism has created uneasiness and even resistance among many
nationalist Quebecers and Aboriginals because it recognizes the existence of a multiplicity of groups and views all groups as essentially the same in terms of claims and
rights (McRoberts 1997; McRoberts 2003, 105).
The criticism of the adverse effects of multiculturalism for the aspirations of
Quebecois nationalists has been articulated by analysts such as Breton (2000),
Gagnon (2000), and Gagnon and Iacovino (2002). They point out that while some
of the Quebecois nationalists share the view that multiculturalism has an adverse
effect on the national and linguistic duality valued by Quebecois who subscribe to
the two founding nations theory of Canada, others share the view that multiculturalism is contributing to the loss of community within the Quebecois nation
because the existing communitarianism is being superseded by excessive individualism, cultural relativism and deepening diversity.

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 149

Joseph Garcea

| 149

A substantial critique of the adverse effects of multiculturalism on the Quebecois

nation and to some extent also on the Aboriginal nations has been provided by
Gagnon. In his view, the multiculturalism paradigm is flawed because, while seemingly respectful of differences on the surface, [it] is actually homogenizing (in a federal context) due to its failure to distinguish between ethnic minorities and
national communities such as the Quebecois nation and the Aboriginal nations
(2000, 20). He concludes that any benefits that the Canadian government hoped to
achieve by establishing this comparability or parity between immigrant ethnic communities and national communities is more than offset by the antipathy that it creates among Quebecois and Aboriginal nationalists who are inclined to view
multiculturalism as a Machiavellian strategy designed to negate two conceptions of
those communities within the Canadian polity which they value very highly. The
first is the negation of their respective conceptions that they are distinct nations and,
in the minds of some of them, even relatively sovereign nations within a multinational Canadian polity. The second is their respective conceptions of the fundamental nature of federalism within that polity, which for Quebec nationalists is the
dual-nation federalism model in which the English and the French are the two
founding nations, and for Aboriginal nationalists it is the treaty federalism model
in which Aboriginal nations are also party to the original and continuing compacts
that led to the construction of a Canadian polity.

Postulation 7: Multiculturalism facilitates the importation and perpetuation of ethnic and religious conflicts from other countries
The seventh postulation is that multiculturalism facilitates the importation and perpetuation of ethnic and regional conflicts from other countries. Those who articulate this postulation suggest that liberal immigration and multiculturalism policies
in recent decades have accelerated and increased not only the diversity of Canadas
population, but also the level of inter-group and intra-group conflicts via political
and cultural transnationalism. Field (2003, 397), for example, maintains that such
conflicts exist because ethnic groups bring with them legacies of conflict from their
countries of origin. This postulation has gained greater prominence in recent years
as a result of the increased linkages of ethnocultural communities in Canada and
their countries of origin resulting from at least two major factors. One factor is the
particularistic form of transnationalism that fosters affinities and connections across
national boundaries between members of a particular nation or ethnocultural
group. The other factor is extensive news coverage of the various types of linkages
among members of such groups in supporting, among other things, resistance and
liberation movements, rebellions and revolutions, and acts of terrorism. Kay (1998,
31) has suggested that this postulation is rooted more in the public perception, than

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 150

150 |

Canadian Ethnic Studies/tudes ethniques au Canada

in reality. He maintains that regardless of the empirical evidence on this matter,

when some people think of multiculturalism, they generally think of immigrant
groups importing conflicts into Canada. Other analysts have added that the perception of imported conflict is fostered not only by peoples preconceptions of the
effects of multiculturalism policies, but also by the goals and rationales of government policies produced in response to problematical situations, such as those
enacted for security purposes in the wake of 9/11 (Kruger and Korenic 2004, 72-78).
This last point is an important reminder regarding the need to take careful stock in
selecting policy responses to problematical situations.

Postulation 8: Multiculturalism creates conflicts within ethno-cultural groups

The eighth postulation is that multiculturalism creates conflicts within ethno-cultural groups. At the core of this postulation is the notion that ethnic groups are not
as homogenous and essentialized as the multiculturalism paradigm suggests. There
are differences of values and preferences within groups on an array of matters, and
conflicts are particularly acute when there are fundamental differences in cultural
and religious values between what are commonly referred to as the orthodox fundamentalists and the modernists. In addition to creating intra-group problems,
such differences could potentially result in the establishment and operation of intragroup tyrannies that impose particularistic normative frameworks that conflict with
the norms and values of the national civic culture. To ensure that this does not happen, such critics argue that it is imperative for the state to set limits to such particularistic normative frameworks that not only run counter to the norms of the
national civic culture, but actually harm others either within or outside the ethnocultural group. Cohen-Almagor, for example, asks what the limits should be in the
face of increased cultural fragmentation in tolerating individuals and groups who
are importing norms and practices that run counter to those espoused by the majority in host countries such as Canada. He argues that some things lie beyond the limits of toleration of liberal democracies and that democracy cannot endure norms
that deny respect to people and that are designed to harm others, although they
might be dictated by some cultures. He asserts that the reason for this is that the
right of a group against its own members is not absolute (2001, 83). For this reason,
and to prevent the likelihood of coercion and abuse, he argues that it is important
that liberal democracies such as Canada set limits to multiculturalism that result in
the stretching of accepted norms and practices (90). Those who share this view tend
to emphasize the importance of either or both a greater commitment to the appreciation and application of a rule of law that applies to all groups and individuals
regardless of their ethnocultural or religious background and the adoption of and
conformity to the values of a national civic culture.

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 151

Joseph Garcea

| 151

Postulation 9: Multiculturalism fosters competition and inequality between

groups
The ninth postulation is that multiculturalism fosters competition and inequality
between ethnocultural groups as well as within ethnocultural groups. Paquet (1988,
11) expresses concern regarding the potential dangers of multiculturalism in fostering
inequality of ethnocultural groups, and cautions that the idea that each ethnocultural
group can be different but equal is an illusion because, ultimately, an ethnic hierarchy
will emerge. Some have suggested that this inequality results from the political dynamics between the relationships of the leadership of ethnocultural groups and some political parties whereby the former seek political status and financial resources to advance
the groups and personal interests and the latter seek various forms of support to win
elections (Brimelow 1986, 142-143; Gairdner 1990, 392-396). In a similar vein,
Ogmundson (1992, 52) suggests that eventually multiculturalism will have dire consequences for Canada because it fosters group competition and after some period of
struggle a very clear group hierarchy will emerge and thereafter life chances will
again be a direct consequence of ethnic background. Moreover, he disputes the claim
that multiculturalism is needed to combat ethnic stratification because, in his words,
Serious and competent work has shown that ethnic stratification is minimal (ethnicity explains only two percent of the variance in socio-economic status), is declining,
and looks good in an international perspective (50).

Postulation 10: Multiculturalism hinders the mobilization of activism for

progressive policies in achieving an equitable distribution of economic and
social benefits
The tenth postulation, and closely related to the ninth, is that multiculturalism hinders the mobilization of activism for progressive policies in achieving an equitable
distribution of economic and social benefits. Multiculturalism is viewed as reactionary and anti-egalitarian because it tends to preserve an existing hierarchically
ordered socio-economic class structure that favours some ethnocultural groups over
others (Bannerji 2000). A related critique of this feature of multiculturalism policy
is that it offers members of ethnocultural groups an illusion of cultural freedom,
while denying them any real power (Peter 1981, 8) within the political and economic systems.
Porter articulates this notion in his discussion of the perpetuation of the vertical mosaic in Canada. He argues that the vertical mosaic is perpetuated not only
because within the Canadian polity some groups are privileged over others, but also
because segregation within Canadas polyethnic society perpetuates certain occupational choices among members of various ethnocultural groups. The reason for this,
according to Porter, is that when ethnic groups are closely knit, as they are in

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 152

152 |

Canadian Ethnic Studies/tudes ethniques au Canada

Canada, certain occupational choices are encouraged while others are discouraged.
In effect, he is arguing that tightly knit ethnocultural geographic enclaves create ethnocultural occupational enclaves. This type of occupational enclaving or clustering,
he argues, contributes to the difficulties faced by members of some ethnic groups to
move from a lower into a higher socio-economic class (1965, 558).
Similarly, Mazurek (1992, 21) suggests that multiculturalism policy does not
contribute to progressive politics and policy largely because not all of the original
goals of that policy were being pursued to the same extent. He argues that rather
than focusing on improving the material well-being of members of multicultural
groups, too much attention and too many resources were devoted to facilitating the
nurturing, perpetuation, and social acceptance of diverse cultures.
One critic of Canadian multiculturalism philosophy and policy argues that
multiculturalism is anti-egalitarian in the economic domain because the politics of
multiculturalism undermines the politics of redistribution (Barry 2001, 8, 11-12,
317). He believes that the tendency of the politics of multiculturalism to produce
particularistic policies aimed at ethnocultural groups, rather than the population as
a whole, is especially problematic.
A similar critique regarding the adverse effects of at least one facet of multiculturalism policy on equity in the context of the arts sector is articulated by Li. He
notes that funding for the arts in Canada consists of a dual systemone for [the]
formal legitimized high-status art world of mainly white Canadians, and the second
is a marginal, folkloric, and low-status multicultural circle reserved for immigrants
and made up largely of visible minorities (1994, 366). The central theme of his critique is that the Canadian state, through its role as a sponsor and patron of [the]
arts and minority cultures, creates the unequal infrastructural conditions which are
conducive in developing two types of arts and culture. In this sense, dominant arts
and subordinate minority cultures are at least partly perpetuated by state intervention (366-367).

ANALYSIS OF THE POSTULATIONS

The ten postulations highlighted in the previous section regarding the fragmentary
effects of multiculturalism and the literature devoted to them have some notable features that are noteworthy for the purpose of advancing both the analyses of and discourses on multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy in Canada.
First, the postulations identified in this paper can be grouped, albeit somewhat
roughly, into the following four general themes:

multiculturalism segregates the population in Canada (postulations 1, 2,

and 3)

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 153

Joseph Garcea

| 153

multiculturalism is problematical for the Canadian, Quebecois, and

Aboriginal cultures, identities, and nationalism projects (postulations 3, 4,
5, and 6)

multiculturalism perpetuates conflicts between and within groups (postulations 7 and 8)

multiculturalism hinders equity and equality in society and the economy

(postulations 9 and 10)
Second, generally the postulations are presented as propositions that have been
proved, rather than what they arepropositions that have not been proved, but
which postulators believe are self-evident. There is a tendency for the postulators to
comment on the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy more on the basis of what they believe, rather than on the basis of facts produced by any systematic research and analysis. Moreover, generally, the postulators do
not concede that producing facts either on the fragmentary or unifying effects of
multiculturalism is very difficult, if not impossible, due to the challenges of establishing clear causal relationships and producing reliable measurements. This situation is
not unique to multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy; most, if not all,
other public philosophies and public policies are confronted with similar challenges
in generating facts regarding causes and effects. This is an important point that
should not be lost on any of the protagonists involved in debates regarding causes and
effects either in the multiculturalism sector or in any other policy sector.
Third, the postulations are generally based on an inadequate distinction
between multiculturalism public philosophy and multiculturalism public policy.
The postulators tend to comment on the problems of multiculturalism without
explicitly specifying either whether it is the public philosophy or the public policy
that is problematical, or which particular facets of either of those is problematical.
Fourth, the postulations are generally based on an inadequate acknowledgement
that either the public philosophy or the public policy of multiculturalism and the
fragmentation problems attributed to them evolve over time. Instead, the postulators
tend to discuss the philosophy, policy, and problems as if they are all immutable phenomena. This tendency may be explained, in part, by the fact that most postulators
focus on those matters as they are at the time they are writing, and do not take a
broader historical perspective in their respective analyses and commentaries.
Fifth, the postulations are not very precise regarding the magnitude of the fragmentation that is attributed to multiculturalism public philosophy or public policy
in the social, political, and economic spheres. Instead, the discussion usually entails
some inference that either there is an incremental movement toward a critical fragmentation threshold or that the threshold has already been reached or surpassed.
Sixth, the postulations are based largely on Canadas national multiculturalism

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 154

154 |

Canadian Ethnic Studies/tudes ethniques au Canada

public philosophy and public policy, and generally devote almost no attention to
provincial and municipal multiculturalism philosophies and policies of varying
scope and importance (Garcea 2006; Poirier 2004). There tends to be a conflation of
national, provincial and even existing and emerging municipal multiculturalism
philosophies and policies, all of which are treated as a single undifferentiated whole.
The only exception to this is the attention given to Quebecs interculturalism public
philosophy and public policy.
Seventh, the postulations are potentially problematical. The reason for this is
that, ironically perhaps, the postulations regarding the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism philosophy and public policy generate debates that are potentially fragmentary in their own right. This is particularly true when the debates become highly
rancorous and confrontational (Burnet 1979). In some instances, such debates emerge
not only because of fundamental differences between the protagonists regarding the
value of multiculturalism philosophy or public policy, but also because of the conceptual ambiguity that surrounds both multiculturalism philosophy and public policy
(Abu-Laban and Stasiulis 1992; Li 1999; Padolsky 2000; Stoffman 2002 and 2004).
Evidence of such debates is found in the views expressed by one analyst who suggests
that multiculturalism both at the societal and policy levels in Canada is an illusion. At
the societal level he asserts that, although Canada is culturally diverse, it is not truly
multicultural because there is a dominant or hegemonic culture. Canadas multiculturalism policy is not highly cosmopolitan and accepting of diversity because people
who exercise some of their cultural values or traditions are likely to find themselves
arrested for doing so (Stoffman 2002; Stoffman 2004). The ambiguity surrounding
multiculturalism is also articulated by another analyst who notes that the disagreements over multiculturalism policy do not necessarily represent divergent opinions on a universally accepted version of multiculturalism since such a version does
not exist; rather, they often indicate different emphases attributed to multiculturalism (Li 1999, 148). He adds that the multiculturalism debate can never be resolved
as long as the content and meaning of multiculturalism are left ambiguous to suit the
interest of individuals and social groups in Canada (ibid.). While there is some merit
to this suggestion, the notion that the phenomenon of institutionalized ambivalence
(Tuohy 1992) accounts for some of the unity and harmony in the Canadian polity
would suggest that it is the search for clarity at the policy, statutory, and constitutional
levels that should be pursued judiciously by policy makers.
Eighth, the postulations are rooted in three major perspectives regarding alternative policy options, namely the anti-multiculturalism perspective, the laissez-faire
multiculturalism perspective, and the reformist multiculturalism perspective. These
perspectives differ either on the value of the multiculturalism public philosophy
and public policy or on the potentially fruitful directions for reform to them. They

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 155

Joseph Garcea

| 155

provide alternative policy directions that may be placed on a continuum consisting

of radical departures from the current paradigm at one end and minor adjustments
at the other end.
The anti-multiculturalism perspective is articulated by analysts who are
opposed to multiculturalism both as a philosophy and as a public policy (e.g., Porter
1965, Bibby 1990, Barry 2001). There are at least two sub-categories of the anti-multiculturalism perspectiveone that advocates monoculturalism over multiculturalism (e.g., Bibby 1990; Bissoondath 1994; Esses and Gardner 1996; Gwyn 1996;
Granatstein 1998; Kay 1998), and another that advocates interculturalism over multiculturalism (e.g., Breton 1986; Hutcheon 1994; Gagnon 2000; Gagnon and Iacovino
2002). The fundamental difference between the monoculturalism perspective and
the interculturalism perspective is that, unlike the former, the latter is open to diversity management initiatives driven by state or societal actors designed to recognize
and reconcile cultural diversity within the polity. In some instances, however, it is
difficult to distinguish between the monoculturalism and interculturalism perspectives. This is particularly true when the latter assumes a form that privileges a particular culture based on language, social norms, religious norms, or nationhood
within the context of diversity management.
The laissez-faire multiculturalism perspective is articulated by those who support multiculturalism as a philosophy, but oppose state intervention in both the
construction and propagation of multiculturalism philosophy and public policy
(e.g., Day 2000; Ogmundson 1992). Those who espouse this perspective believe that
the state should not engage either in articulating a vision of cultural co-existence or
in managing diversity. Instead, the state should leave it to societal forces and dynamics to construct and reconstruct cultural identities.
The reform multiculturalism perspective is articulated by those who support
multiculturalism both as a public philosophy and as a public policy, but are critical
of some aspect(s) of the precise substantive content of either the philosophy or the
public policy (e.g., Li 1994; Li 2003; Cohen-Almagor 2001; Howard-Hassmann
1999; Sugurasiri 1999; Mirchandani and Tastsoglou 2000). They believe that more
could and should be done to improve the multiculturalism public philosophy and/or
the multiculturalism public policy for the purpose of better managing diversity to
minimize or eliminate fragmentation.

POLICY DIRECTIONS IN LIGHT OF POSTULATIONS

The postulations regarding the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism should not
be dismissed as insignificant. The reason for this is that many of them have considerable support among intellectuals and members of the general public, and are likely

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 156

156 |

Canadian Ethnic Studies/tudes ethniques au Canada

to continue to have in the near future. Regardless of their validity, they tend to be
quite significant in providing critiques of multiculturalism public philosophy and
public policy. For this reason policy makers engaged in managing diversity should be
cognizant of those postulations, along with those related to other multiculturalism
dialectics (Fleras and Elliott 2002, 108), and they should be prepared to address them
both whenever there is any discussion of multiculturalism public philosophy or
public policy and also in undertaking any policy analysis and reform initiatives in
managing diversity.
The postulations should be assessed to determine which of them point to real
problems and which of them point to perceived problems both in relation to the
multiculturalism philosophy and the multiculturalism policy. The aphorism that
perception is reality serves as a reminder not only that differentiating between
these two types of problems is by no means easy, but, more important, that perceived
problems may be as significant as, and possibly even more significant than, real
problems.
Furthermore, in identifying real and perceived problems, special attention
should be devoted both to the symbolic and the substantive dimensions of multiculturalism philosophy and policy. The reason for this is that both dimensions are
important, especially given that, as Breton (1986, 27) noted in his analysis of the
relationship between multiculturalism and nation-building, people have symbolic as
well as material interests. Thus, the symbolic dimensions of multiculturalism philosophy and policy may be as important as, if not more important than, the substantive dimensions.
After differentiating between real and perceived problems at the substantive and
symbolic levels, policy makers should assess the relative tractability of the various
problems associated with existing multiculturalism philosophy and policy to determine, among other things, the proper sequence in which to tackle them, the nature
and scope of the initiatives that will be required to deal with them, and, insofar as
possible, the positive and negative effects, if any, that those changes might have. In
identifying and implementing any such initiatives, policy makers should consider
very carefully the current and potential roles and responsibilities of key actors in the
governmental, non-governmental, educational, research, and media sectors.
Regardless of precisely what they focus on and what they do when dealing with
various symbolic or substantive aspects of multiculturalism philosophy and policy,
policy makers should ensure that neither the efficacy nor the morality of the
Canadian management of diversity is adversely affected. It may well be that greater
efficacy and morality in diversity management is to be found either in a modified or
reformed version of the current multicultural paradigm or hybridized multiculturalism/interculturalism paradigm that has emerged at the national level during the

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 157

Joseph Garcea

| 157

past two decades, or in a substantially different paradigm. However, that is a matter

that should be the subjected to very careful analysis before any radical changes are
made to the status quo.
Given that Canada is a liberal democracy that ostensibly is committed to
respecting and protecting the rights of individuals and minorities, it must operate
within the parameters of the multiculturalism and interculturalism paradigms
because they embody the values of that particular aspect of liberal democracy (Kay
1998, 33). Thus, so long as Canada wishes to remain a liberal democracy, the critical
question is not whether Canada should or should not operate according to either the
multiculturalism or the interculturalism paradigm. Instead, the critical question is
according to what particular configuration of either of these two paradigms, or some
hybrid version of the two, it should operate.
In answering that question, the differences between the multiculturalism and
interculturalism paradigms should not be overestimated. The two public philosophies, which invariably are not conceptualized in a very precise manner, have much
more in common than is generally acknowledged. The explicit or implied distinction commonly made between multiculturalism and interculturalism to the effect
that the former is somehow more segregationist and the latter is more integrationist
is highly questionable. This is especially true in the Canadian context where the general consensus is that an integrationist modus vivendi is more desirable than a segregationist modus vivendi. The prevailing Canadian political culture is much more
favourably predisposed to building bridges than to building walls. The most important policy task is to ensure that this virtuous aspect of Canadian political culture is
perpetuated.

NOTES
1. The concept of multiculturalism public philosophy is influenced by Manzers (1985, 13) conceptualization of
public philosophy.
2. What is referred to as multicultural public philosophy in this article is generally referred to as ideology
(Moodley 1983), and what is referred to as multiculturalism public policy in this article is commonly referred to as official multicultural policy.
3. For the intents and purposes of this article, a postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be self-evident, and a postulator is someone who articulates such a proposition as the basis of an argument.

WORKS CITED
Abu-Laban, Yasmeen. 1994. The Politics of Race and Ethnicity: Multiculturalism as a Contested Arena. In
Canadian Politics: An Introduction to the Discipline, ed. James P. Bickerton and Alain G. Gagnon, 242263. Scarborough: Broadview Press.
Abu-Laban, Yasmeen, and Daiva Stasiulis. 1992. Ethnic Pluralism under Siege: Popular and Partisan
Opposition to Multiculturalism. Canadian Public Policy 18.4: 365-387.

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 158

158 |

Canadian Ethnic Studies/tudes ethniques au Canada

Bannerji, Himani. 2000. The Dark Side of the Nation: Essays on Multiculturalism, Nationalism, and Gender.
Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.
Barry, Brian. 2001. Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Bibby, Reginald W. 1990. Mosaic Madness: The Poverty and Potential of Life in Canada. Toronto: Stoddart.
Bissoondath, Neil. 1994. Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada. Toronto: Penguin Books.
Breton, E. 2000. Canadian Federalism, Multiculturalism, and the Twenty-First Century. International
Review of Canadian Studies 21: 155-175.
Breton, R. 1986. Multiculturalism and Canadian Nation-Building. In The Politics of Gender, Ethnicity, and
Language in Canada, ed. A. Cairns and C. Williams, 27-66. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Brimelow, Peter. 1988. The Patriot Game: Canada and the Canadian Question Revisited. Stanford: Hoover
Institution Press.
Brotz, Howard. 1980. Multiculturalism Policy in Canada: A Muddle. Canadian Public Policy 6.1: 41-46.
Burnet, Jean. 1979. Myths and Multiculturalism. Canadian Journal of Education 4.4: 43-58.
Cohen-Almagor, R. 2001. Liberalism and the Limits of Multiculturalism. Journal of Canadian Studies 36.1:
80-93.
Day, Richard J. F. 2000. Multiculturalism and the History of Canadian Diversity. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Esses, V. M., and R. C. Gardner. 1996. Multiculturalism in Canada: Context and Current Status. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science 28.3: 145-152.
Field, Dick. 2003. Multiculturalism Undermines Values Held by Canadians. In A Country Nourished on
Self-Doubt: Documents in Post-Confederation Canadian History, 2nd ed., Thomas Thorner and Thor
Frohn-Nielsen, 397. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
Fleras, Augie, and Jean Leonard Elliott. 2002. Engaging Diversity: Multiculturalism in Canada.
Scarborough: Nelson.
Gagnon, Alain-G. 2000. Unity and Diversity in Canada Under Trudeau and Chrtien. In Democracy
and Cultural Diversity, ed. Dennis Austin and Michael ONeill, 12-26. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Gagnon, A-G., and R. Iacovino. 2002. Framing Citizenship Status in an Age of Polyethnicity: Quebecs
Model of Interculturalism. In Canada: The State of the Federation 2001, Canadian Political Cultures in
Transition, ed. H. Telford and H. Lazar, 313-342. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
Gairdner, William. 1990. The Trouble with Canada: A Citizen Speaks Out. Toronto: Stoddart.
Garcea, Joseph. 2006. Provincial Multiculturalism Policies in Canada, 1974-2004: A Content Analysis.
Canadian Ethnic Studies 38.3: 1-20.
Granatstein, J. L. 1998. Who Killed Canadian History? Toronto: Harper Collins.
Gregg, A. 2006. Identity Crisis: Is Canadian Multiculturalism Dangerously Outdated? The Walrus 3.2: 38-47.
Gwyn, Richard. 1996. Nationalism without Walls: The Unbearable Lightness of Being Canadian. Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart.
Howard-Hassman, Rhoda E. 1999. Canadian as an Ethnic Category: Implications for Multiculturalism
and National Unity. Canadian Public Policy 25.4: 523-537.
Hutcheon, Pat D. 1994. Is There a Dark Side to Multiculturalism? Humanist in Canada, summer: 26-29.
James, C. E. 1996. Race, Culture, and Identity. In Perspectives on Racism and Human Services Sector: A Case
of Change, ed. C. E. James, 15-55. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
James, C. E., and A. Shadd, eds. 2001. Talking about Identity: Encounters in Race, Ethnicity, and Language.
Toronto: Between the Lines.
Kay, Jonathan. 1998. Explaining the Modern Backlash against Multiculturalism. Policy Options 19: 30-34.
Kallen, E. 1982. Multiculturalism, Ideology, Policy, and Reality. Journal of Canadian Studies 17.1:51-63.
Kymlicka, Will. 1998. Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada. Toronto: Oxford
University Press.
Kruger, E., M. Mulder, and B. Korenic. 2004. Canada after 11 September: Security Measures and
Preferred Immigrants. Mediterranean Quarterly 15.4: 72-87.
Li, Peter S. 2003. Deconstructing Canadas Discourse of Immigrant Integration. Journal of International
Migration and Immigration 4.3: 315-333.

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 159

Joseph Garcea

| 159

. 1999. The Multiculturalism Debate. In Race and Ethnic Relations in Canada, 2nd ed., ed. Peter S.
Li. Don Mills: Oxford University Press.
. 1994. A World Apart: The Multicultural World of Visible Minorities and the Art World of
Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 31.4: 365-391.
Manzer, Ronald. 1985. Public Policies and Political Development in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Mazurek, Kas. 1992. Defusing a Radical Social Policy: The Undermining of Multiculturalism. In Twenty
Years of Multiculturalism: Successes and Failures, ed. Stella Hryniuk, 17-28. Winnipeg: St. Johns
College Press.
McRoberts, Kenneth. 2003. Conceiving Diversity: Dualism, Multiculturalism, and Multinationalism. In
New Trends in Canadian Federalism, 2nd ed., ed. Francois Rocher and Miriam Smith, 85-110.
Peterborough: Broadview Press.
. 1997. Misconceiving Canada: The Struggle for National Unity. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Mirchandani, Kiran, and Tastsoglou, Evangelia. 2000. Towards a Diversity Beyond Tolerance. Studies in
Political Economy 61: 49-78.
Moodley, Kogila. 1983. Canadian Multiculturalism as Ideology. Ethnic and Racial Studies 6.3: 320-332.
Ogmundson, Richard. 1992. On the Right to be Canadian. In Twenty Years of Multiculturalism: Successes
and Failures, ed. Stella Hryniuk, 45-58. Winnipeg: St. Johns College Press.
Padolsky, Evan. 2000. Multiculturalism at the Millennium. In Journal of Canadian Studies 35.4: 138-260.
Paquet, Gilles. 1988. Multiculturalism as National Policy. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.
Peter, Karl. 1981. The Myth of Multiculturalism and Other Political Fables. In Ethnicity, Power, and Politics
in Canada, ed. J. Dahlie and T. Fernando, 56-67, Toronto: Methuen.
Poirier, Christian. 2004. Diversity Management in Canadian Cities: The Dynamics and Issues of the
Representation of Ethnic Interests. In Rendez-Vous Immigration 2004, ed. Helene Destrempes and Joe
Ruggeri, 541-554. Moncton: Policy Studies Centre and Atlantic Metropolis Centre.
Porter, John. 1965. The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Roy, Patricia E. 1995. The Fifth Force: Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 538.1: 199-209.
Saul, Roger. 2005. Multiculturalism: A Discourse of Contradictions. In Possibilities and Limitations:
Multicultural Policies and Programs in Canada, ed. Carl James. Halifax: Fernwood.
Stoffman, Daniel. 2002. Who Gets In: Whats Wrong with Canadas Immigration Policy, and How to Fix it.
Toronto: Macfarlane, Walter, and Ross.
Stoffman, Daniel. 2004. The Illusion of Multiculturalism. In Multiculturalism and Immigration in Canada:
An Introductory Reader, ed. Elspeth Cameron, 217-242. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.
Sugunasiri, Suwanda. 1999. How to Kick Multiculturalism in Its Teeth: Towards a Better Tomorrow with
Critical Compassion. Toronto: Village Publishing House.
Tully, James. 1995. Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tuohy, Carolyn. 1992. Policy and Politics in Canada: Institutionalized Ambivalence. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Wilson, V. Seymour. 1993. The Tapestry Vision of Canadian Multiculturalism. Canadian Journal of
Political Science 26.4: 645-669.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to express his appreciation to Dr. Anna Kirova and Dr. Lloyd Wong, as well as to his research assistants for their respective contribution in the preparation of this article. This article was produced with research assistance funded by Canadian Heritage and the Prairie Metropolis Centre.

CES Vol 40 Issue 01 text:June 2008 issue - FINAL 23/06/09 10:31 PM Page 160

160 |

Canadian Ethnic Studies/tudes ethniques au Canada

JOSEPH GARCEA is an associate professor in the department of Political Studies at

the University of Saskatchewan. His research and publications focus on immigration, citizenship, diversity management, and multilevel governance.