Multiculturalism and Immigration

What is the relationship?

In Canada, multiculturalism is not just a policy. It is enshrined in the Constitution. It has its own Statute. It has its own, albeit small, bureaucracy.

The Multicultural bureaucracy/ Minister reports annually on their efforts to try and make sure that federal institutions reflect the country’s diversity. It can’t be an easy job juggling all diversity balls: ethnic, sexual, racial, linguistic, official language, native peoples, provincial & regional cultures.  

My problem is not diversity. As a Torontonian, I love the mix. I love all sorts of folks dealing with each other in a respectful manner. Over the decades I’ve acted and lobbied on behalf of Muslims, Chinese, Sikhs, and Koreans etc. I couldn’t live without it.  

My problem, as an immigration lawyer, is that I am getting a little tired of Ottawa denying that it dictates what Toronto and the country should look like.

Experience has taught me that there is role for the state in making sure that no-one gets left behind.It’s perfectly OK for the state to make sure that all my neighbours are accommodated. It’s good for the state to plan for what the country may look like in twenty years.

But it’s quite another thing for the state to dictate what the county should look like.

It’s beyond the pale that our diversity is defined by hidden quotas, not community needs.

Naturally, Ottawa denies the existence of opaque policies mandating goals through immigration quotas. But let’s look at the reality of how Prime Ministers have defined Canadian diversity through immigration without seeking Parliamentary approval:

• Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau cut immigration from 250,000 to about 80,000. His motivation was to protect French Canada against waves of English speaking immigrants. He also removed “race” as a determining factor for immigration.     
• Prime Minister Mulroney agreed that immigration should be driven by a need to keep the English – French balance. Thus, former English and French colonies would henceforth generate the vast bulk of our new Canadian diversity. Mulroney also recognized Quebec’s control over its language driven immigration quotas. Mulroney also looked at the demographics and invented the 1% immigration model     
• Prime Minister Chretien went along with Mulroney’s dramatic polices. But rather than build on Mulroney, Chretien gave away the store to consultants and their friends in Ottawa. He had no public policy interest in immigrant recruitment, selection or retention. His legacy to diversity includes a failed immigrant retention rate of under 50 percent and over 1 million Canadian passports floating around the world.
• Prime Minister Martin started to clear up the mess with an eye to growing the population based on community needs.
• Prime Minister Harper fit the Chrétien mould. His only claim to diversity fame was inventing the concept of “shared values”.  Harper made no effort to define “shared values”. But his Ministers issued visas to English and  Irish on the basis of their “shared values”   
• Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has channeled Harper, with the exception that his “shared values” promote Francophonie. His March 17 , 2016 policy granting work permits without LMIA’s to French speaking applicants was diversity building on linguistic steroids   

Every year, Parliament gets an opportunity to debate the government’s immigration policy. The report details the numbers and specific programs.

But Parliament never, never, never hears that the defence of the French language defines all immigration quotas.

Every year, Parliament gets an opportunity to debate the government’s diversity/multicultural policy. The report details the numbers and programs.

But Parliament never, never, never discusses the role of the defence of the French linguistic visa ratios.

These ratios define every other aspect of immigrant selection which, in turn, go a long way in determining our diversity.

The bottom line is that, without a word from Parliament, we have rearranged a big piece of Canadian diversity.

If Canada is such a fragile institution that it cannot peep a word about a core foundation of its diversity, then maybe Lucien Bouchard was right … maybe Canada is not a country.

Richard Boraks, December 19 2016