I decided to answer Question #2 this week, by looking at the Multiculturalism Act of 1989. I chose this piece of legislatiom because I am interesed in its intensely widespread and profound effects, which are more tangible in today’s Canadian society than ever before. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act has been and continues to be an essential component in shaping not only communal relationships, but also those Canadians share with their federal, provincial and even municipal governments.  I examined a copy of the Act as found on the Government of Canada’s website for Justice and Laws. 

The intention of the Act has been, from the beginning, to facilitate cooperation, acceptance and synergy between all citizens and residents of Canada, no matter their countries of origin, race or religion. Some of the Act’s central points include recognizing ‘the importance of preserving and enhancing the multicultural heritage of Canadians’ and noting that ‘ all Canadians, whether by birth or by choice, enjoy equal status, are entitled to the same rights, powers and privileges and are subject to the same obligations, duties and liabilities’. Essentially, the Multiculturalism Act serves to celebrate and include all racial and cultural ethnicities that reside within Canada. Equal protection and status are claimed to be offered to citizens and residents, and cross- cultural understanding and appreciation are claimed to be fostered under the Multiculturalism Act.

It is unfortunate, then, to note that not all of the points mandated by the Act have been followed. In particular, Section 1d of the Multiculturalism Policy within the Act states that it is a policy of the Government of Canada to ‘recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development’.

In examining the relationship between Canada’s Indigenous population and the nation’s government, it is clear that the above statement has not held true for Canada. The current state of affairs is such that growth and progress within relations appears stunted; it seems to me that there are many underlying issues surrounding the Indigenous community that are preventing progress. This leads me to question the lengths to which the Canadian government has gone (or perhaps not gone) in order to ‘enhance [the] development’ of Canada’s Indigenous peoples.

Regarding Daniel Coleman’s stance on white civility, his claim that ‘White Canadian culture is obsessed and organized by its obsession, with the problem of its own civility’ (5) seems to be in line with the tumultuous relationship between Canada’s government and its Indigenous people.  While the act may have been created and put in place for the purpose of protecting and benefiting Canada’s citizens and residents, it seems that promises were made in 1989 that have not been upheld.

While it is true that in a lot of Canada, particularly in metropolitan areas like Toronto, Vancouver and Montréal, multiculturalism is embraced and celebrated, hidden violence and injustice still exists and it should not be forgotten.  The ‘the uncivil past’ is separated ‘from the civil present’ (Coleman 34), and this permits a façade of normalcy to be perpetuated in modern Canadian society.

The question I have now is: How does Canadian society move forward? How can the Multiculturalism Act be amended in a way that will truly ensure the inclusion of all Canada’s residents?

Works Cited

“Canadian Multiculturalism Act.” Justice Laws Website. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 June 2015.