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 auto-determination 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 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.

Table 1 Principal measures at the multicultural level in Canada
Full size table

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 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.Footnote 1 This situation by itself sums up the ambiguity of Canadian multiculturalism which, on the one hand, may pride itself 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).

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.

Table 2 Time-line of residential schools in Canada
Full size table

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).

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 those arising from visible minorities,Footnote 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 decision-makers 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 (Levin-Rasky, 2014). Through the media coverage of this event, several reproaches aimed at 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,Footnote 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 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.

Table 3 Percentage of the population aged 25–64 years holding various diplomas, according to immigrant status and period of immigration, Canada, 2016
Full size table

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 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 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 French-speaking/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. 1.

    The promotion of equal opportunity;

  2. 2.

    The mastery of French, the common language of public life;

  3. 3.

    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, 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 kirpanFootnote 4 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 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).

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.