Search

Did the introduction of the Charter of Quebec Values in September 2013 signal a repudiation of Quebec's longstanding consensus on liberal-pluralism in its dominant integration model? While the Charter died as a result of the election defeat of the minority Parti Québécois government in May, 2014, its salience and impact continues to be felt, in that it has moved the normative benchmarks around ethnocultural and ethno-religious diversity and represents a qualitatively new framework for regulating the terms of belonging in Quebec. This paper, however, contends that such a reading of the legacy of the Charter misses a significant part of the story. A broader contextual overview reveals that recent events in Quebec are conditioned by variables associated with the unfinished nature of a constitutive project for national integration. Regardless of whether or not the proposed Charter signaled a permanent normative turn in Quebec, or merely an intensification and greater polarization of an interminable argument, this paper will attempt to provide some context with which to interpret this 'trial balloon' of the minority Parti Québécois government in power from 2012-2014. I argue that this short-lived incursion into more exclusionary politics are the direct result of a variety of factors that go beyond standard normative principles usually attributed to citizenship and actually reflect structural difficulties associated with Quebec's status as an unrecognized minority nation. The article will proceed to highlight the primary identity-forging initiatives undertaken by Quebec in lieu of citizenship, and conclude with some reflections on some distortions that may be attributable to a protracted, frustrated and unfinished constitutive journey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a comparison between the two ways of managing immigration and diversity existing in Canada: multiculturalism (Canada-wide) and interculturalism (Quebec). While some authors (see Juteau, McAndrew and Pietrantonio 1998) argue that the two policies are more similar than different, others, like Gérard Bouchard (2011), argue that interculturalism is a rather unique model of managing diversity in Quebec. In this paper we aim to make a contribution to the debate by providing an analysis of the way both models understand immigrants' participation in their new society. Indeed, both models seem to consider participation as having a central role in the process of integrating newcomers. However, we will show that the reasons put forward by inter-culturalism and by multiculturalism to explain their interest in participation are very different. On the one hand, multiculturalism recognizes the importance of participation as a way of protecting individual identities, in line with the spirit of liberalism. On the other hand, for interculturalism, the issue of participation seems to be more fundamental: not only is participation one of the founding pillars of the policy, but it is also consistent with the political, legal and historical characteristics of the province of Quebec. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents an organizational analysis of the immigration and ethnic diversity debate as articulated by the Quebec government through its ministère de l'Immigration. Both structural and discursive transformations of the ministry are examined, and the two are set in the larger socio-political context of the times. The ministry mandated to regulate matters of immigration in Quebec has undergone a number of transformations throughout the thirty-four years of its history, from the ministère de l'Immigration du Québec (MIQ:1968-1981) to the ministère des Communautés culturelles et de l'Immigration (MCCI:1981-1993), to the ministère des Affaires internationales, de l'Immigration et des Communautés culturelles (MAIICC' 19931996) and finally, to the ministère des Relations avec les citoyens et de l'Immigration (MRCI:1996-). Both nominal and structural changes have marked these transformations. The thesis of this paper is that Quebec's ambivalence to immigration and diversity is reflected in, and symbolized by, the various transformations of its ministry. The paper examines the linguistic and structural nature of the changes, outlines the major issues of Quebec's immigration debate, and briefly compares the historical trajectory of Canada and Quebec's official visions of pluralism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the determinants of ethno-religious intermarriage in Quebec over a century as an indication of integration in a province where minority/majority relations are distinct from the rest of Canada. Drawing on previous work by Kalmijn and others outside of Canada, we distinguish between cultural preferences and structural factors and continue a long tradition of such studies within Canada by using the manuscript censuses. We use data from 1881 (entire census), 1911 and 1941 censuses (newly available CCRI samples), to examine ethno-religious intermarriage among couples who were married at the time of the census for three successive generations thirty years apart. Using multilevel analysis we try to distinguish between the role of individual level determinants such as the ethno-religious identity, knowledge of French and English, level of education and immigrant status as well as characteristics of the areas in which these couples lived, such as type of milieu (rural and urban), sex ratio and degree of cultural diversity, separately for men and women. We confirm the importance of contextual variables both on their own and in addition to spouses' characteristics. The models are relatively stable over the entire period and point to the importance of structural factors as well as the ethnic diversity of the area at the contextual level; cultural preferences also play a role, most especially among the Jewish. British Catholics (mostly Irish) show a particularly high propensity to marry across language and religious lines, reflecting their special position in Quebec society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Popular and academic discourses perceive Quebec's approach to pluralism, called interculturalism, as being very different from Canada's multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is seen as fragmenting; interculturalism as dialogical and unifying. Yet the hallmark policies of both governments are, in fact, very similar in their approach to cultural pluralism. In policy terms, interculturalism and multiculturalism strike a similar balance between individual fights, the accommodation of cultural difference, and the promotion of social cohesion. Why, then, is there this divergence between perception and policy? Unpacking both, this paper fosters a more accurate understanding of the terms of the multiculturalism/ interculturalism debate. It argues that in this case, demographic and historical contexts as well as national mythologizing are more important in explaining popular and academic discourse than substantive policy differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]