Building an intercultural future

On May 22, the Bouchard-Taylor Commission released their report “Building the Future: a time for reconciliation,” outlining the status of cross-cultural relations in Québec and providing recommendations on how to move forward in integration, accommodation and respect.

The commission was created in February 2007, following several explosive accommodation issues within the province. These issues ranged from the implementation of certain life standards in the town of Hérouxville, which were criticised for being anti-Muslim, to controversy over women-only prenatal classes. These and other issues were pounced on by the media, who proclaimed an “accommodation crisis.” In response, the provincial government established the Bouchard-Taylor Commission.

The commission sought to explore public perception of integration and accommodation, and was mandated to make recommendations on how Québec could proceed based on these findings and on Québec societal norms. The two commissioners, sociologist Gérard Bouchard and philosopher Charles Taylor, held consultations around the province, in which individuals, groups and organizations participated. From these meetings, they developed their report.

One important and unique finding of the report was their focus on how the media portrayed accommodation issues. They found that the media incorrectly covered a significant majority of issues, creating more furor around the issue and linking them more strongly to immigrants and ethnic minorities than the issues warranted. They suggest that if these events had been portrayed with proper facts, the resulting accommodation crisis could have been avoided.

Moving on to their description of Québec society, the commissioners argue that multiculturalism does not have a place within Québec, stating that multiculturalism in English Canada is not concerned with linguistic and cultural protection of a majority ethnic group like French-Canadians in Québec. Rather, they apply the term ‘interculturalism’ to Québec’s situation and make recommendations based on this concept. Interculturalism, while not specifically defined, institutes French as the common language, highlights pluralism, puts special emphasis on integration of newcomers into Québec culture, and advocates interaction and intercommunity action.

The report makes several other sweeping recommendations. One of the most controversial calls for the removal of the crucifix from above the Speaker’s chair in the legislature to a place where its historical value can be valued and recognized. Also included in the report are recommendations to prevent certain public officials (including judges and police officers) from wearing religious signs.

The report does not outline full solutions and conclusions. Because of limited time and scope, the report sets out various questions for further study, including exploring interculturalism and determining what is meant by secularism in Québec. It sets out parameters for discovering what Québec society could (and perhaps should) look like. These questions are important, relevant and, as the report recommends, require serious and in-depth research to find the answers.

Reactions to the report have been mixed. The Québec National Assembly responded immediately by denouncing the recommendation to remove the crucifix from the legislature, unanimously passing a motion rejecting it. Outside of Québec, the report received little coverage, despite the fact that integration and cultural relations are issues across Canada. Some political commentators noted the depth of the report, commending the research but arguing that the recommendations fell short, and raising clarifying questions about interculturalism and secularism.

In addition to these questions, others arise. The report calls for “reciprocity” amongst all members of society, seeking both welcoming attitudes and willingness to integrate. But what are newcomers to integrate into? Without having a full and complete understanding of societal norms like secularism and interculturalism, how are we to know when people are fully integrated? How are we to measure successful integration and accommodation?

What does interculturalism look like in practice? How can minority groups express and articulate their own cultures within interculturalism – simply in areas like diet and dress, or in deeper expressions and commitments?

Other questions arise from differing sentiments in the report: at one point, the report says that “Cultural, and, in particular, religious differences need not be confined to the private domain... it is healthier to display our differences and get to know those of the Other than to deny or marginalize them” (p. 41 of the Abridged Report). Yet this seems to conflict with the report’s recommendation to prevent certain public officials from wearing any religious signs. How are these ideas to be reconciled?

There are a lot of issues here – ranging from what equality means to how we can be most welcoming to what levels of integration we should expect. Learning how to live out diversity in community is not an easy task – while this report thoughtfully sets out specific issues, we are left with more questions. As the report concludes, “the question remains the same for all Quebecers: will we play the mutual trust and integration card or will we shift towards mistrust, which will engender and exacerbate the very effects that we are seeking to avoid?”