Search

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 provides an overview of the Latin American population in Canada based on data extracted from the 2011 census and from a survey conducted in 2013 with an oversample of Latin American immigrants, as well as from other sources. It deals with the ways in which Latin Americans are categorized and how they self-identify in Canada--with the U.S. reality as a point of reference--and with a focus on Latin Americans' cultural attitudes and values in a Québec-rest of Canada comparative perspective. [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]