Résumé exécutif: Canada

Overall Score: 7

This assessment was completed in 2021.

Canada is known internationally as a multicultural country, and many Canadians see pluralism as a central part of the cultural and national identity of the country. However, the Global Pluralism Monitor assessment of Canada tells a more complicated story, in particular about the experiences of Quebec as a sub-state nation, ethno-racialized minorities (particularly recent immigrants), and Indigenous Peoples.

Two major threads run through this report. The first highlights how the extent to which pluralism has been realized varies across the 20 indicators in the Monitor’s assessment framework. The accommodation of pluralism is much stronger in some domains than others. The second thread highlights the dramatic differences across different minorities and Indigenous Peoples in Canada, with some minorities enjoying much stronger protections than others.

Pluralism in Canada is reflected most clearly in the legal commitments that constitute the framework for group relations in the country. The rankings for the international, constitutional, and domestic legal protections in the first section are quite strong, although less so for Indigenous Peoples compared to the Québécois or immigrants.

State practices to implement the commitment to pluralism that is embedded in the legal framework can often fall short, and rankings in this group of indicators are mixed. Data on diverse groups is regularly collected by the government and other institutions, and minority groups are able to advance their claims in domestic politics.  However, the implementation of legal commitments is uneven, and gaps in data related to health and the justice system persist. The role of social actors in providing leadership for pluralism is also quite mixed. Major political parties have strong electoral incentives to respond to diverse groups, including large minorities; and the predominant voices in civil society are generally supportive. Nevertheless, the mainstream media are by no means uniformly enthusiastic in their coverage of pluralism and the private sector tends not to generate active champions of minority interests.

The weakest rankings come when attention shifts to group-based inequalities. The country does relatively well in ensuring political equality, but much less well on economic inequality and social inequality, especially again in relation to Indigenous Peoples. However, the report also notes strong performance against indicators related to intergroup relations and individuals’ sense of belonging in Canadian society.

This mixed pattern can largely be attributed to the fact that pluralism in Canada is most apparent in the political domain: the formal legal structures; the role of political parties; and the ability of minorities and Indigenous Peoples to advance their claims.  Furthermore, the ideal of multiculturalism regularly emerges in surveys as an important symbol of Canadian culture and identity, and has contributed to a supportive culture of intergroup relations and the sense of belonging among some groups, especially immigrant minorities. The results of the Monitor survey conducted as part of this assessment emphasized this by demonstrating overwhelmingly that respondents had high levels of trust towards others, regardless of their ethnic, religious, or cultural background. However, this self-perception of Canadian society as inclusive and multicultural can mean that persistent systemic inequalities are invisibilized. In contrast to the ways that it is actualized in the political domain, pluralism is less rooted in economic and social structures. Economic and social inequalities are real, and the private sector and the media are not consistent champions of pluralism.

The political underpinnings of pluralism do not mean that existing accommodations for minorities and Indigenous Peoples can be solely attributed to the benevolence of the Canadian state. Many of the provisions that protect pluralism are the result of minorities’ and Indigenous Peoples’ effective use of institutional and electoral openings to shape policy, and their adoption often generated political conflict, sometimes intense conflict. This is particularly true for Québécois, who have been able to use the political opportunities generated by Canadian federalism and the need for political parties to win seats in Quebec, as well as the threat of secession, to advance policies to protect Québécois identity. To a lesser degree, this is true of ethnoracialized minorities, who have used electoral leverage and opportunities to push Canadian governments to protect and support pluralism.

The second major thread running through this report is that the accommodation of pluralism varies enormously across different minorities in Canada. The story of French-speaking Québécois and immigrant minorities is much stronger on almost all indicators than the experiences of Indigenous Peoples. Clearly, the promise of pluralism is not experienced equally by minority groups and Indigenous Peoples. Canada’s international reputation as an exemplar of pluralism has reflected its record in accommodating newcomers to the country and making room for a minority nation in Quebec. However, the image of Canada as a successful postnational state is now compromised by growing recognition inside and outside the country of its deep failures in the accommodation of the original occupants of the territory shared with Canada.