THE POLITICS OF MANAGING DIVERSITY. WHAT IS AT STAKE IN QUEBEC? Micheline Labelle Centre de recherche sur l’immigration, l’ethnicité et la citoyenneté Université du Québec à Montréal Preliminary Version Paper presented at the Conference Quebec and Canada in the New Century : New Dynamics, New Opportunities Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s University Kingston, October 31-November 1, 2003 2 First, I would like to thank the Institute of Governmental Relations of Queen’s University for giving me the opportunity to be with you this morning. Special thanks to Professor Harvey Lazar, Michael Murphy and Daniel Salée for their invitation. Among the specific questions that the organizers have asked, the following are of particular interest for this presentation: "What role is played by external factors, such as the increasingly multicultural character of Quebec’s immigrant population? And does this detract from or merely alter the complexion of Quebec nationalism?" I will address these specific questions. However, before I proceed, I want to clarify that when we speak of Quebec society, we cannot reduce the notion of diversity to refer strictly to immigration. Debates on Quebec nationalism and sovereignty are being redefined not simply because of immigration. Beyond the immigrant population, the presence of ethnic minorities and Aboriginal peoples has to be considered. Although according to the programme for this conference this talk was to be entitled "The Cultural and Ideological Influences of Immigration", I have changed its title to "The Politics of Managing Diversity: what is at stake in Quebec" to better reflect this reality. My paper will first attempt to give a brief overview of how the Canadian government manages immigration, citizenship and multiculturalism. It is against this backdrop that we are best positioned to understand debates that take place around questions relating to managing diversity in Quebec society. I will pursue further by highlighting some of the most important debates that have taken place on issues of diversity and questions of sovereignty in the post- referendum era. 1. Canadian approaches to immigration and diversity During the past decade, most western societies have been looking for institutional and political ways to renew their approaches to citizenship. This renewal has taken place mainly 3 through immigration policies that increasingly emphasize the development of control mechanisms aimed at regulating immigrant entry. This shift is part of a socio-political and ideological vision that brings into focus issues of security and that acts as "a moralizing discourse, articulated around the idea of anomie and the loss of values" (Bigo, in Labelle and Salée, 2001). The Canadian state is no different on this matter. It has proceeded to implement changes to its policies in the area of immigration, multiculturalism and citizenship that work towards these ends. I look at each in turn. Immigration- With respect to immigration, the Canadian state wants to control more closely the immigration flows to Canada for their quality and volume to ensure Canada’s competitive advantage in a global economy (Canada CIC 1998a). Some observers believe that by implementing control mechanisms on immigration, the State is working to appease widespread fears in society towards immigrants. These fears are upheld through negative stereotypes that portray immigrants and refugees as criminals, as security threats, as potential drains on social service resources, and as individuals that have stakes in the violent conflicts taking place in their country of origin. Values that are held as core values include active citizenship, responsibility and partnership. In the period between 1991 and 2001, agreements on questions of immigration were signed between the federal government and each of the provinces and territories. The Metropolis Project was launched in 1996. Its aim was to bring together policy-makers, researchers and NGO to exchange on and develop policies to better manage migration and diversity. As early as 1992, Alan Simmons wrote: "The state is engaged in a hegemonic project involving a pro-active dialogue to gather information, to monitor support and opposition, and to attempt to control diverse interest groups... New social actors —ethnic groups, humanitarian organizations, the provinces— have come to play a more prominent role, within a field dominated by the federal state" (1992: 411). 4 Preoccupations about security were central in the pre-September 11 context and are even more so now. Canada has collaborated with the United States towards developing a common security perimeter. Since then, there have been various agreements such as the Smart Border Declaration (2001) to harmonize various policies between the two countries and the Safe Third Country Agreement (2002) to control the flow of asylum seekers. On the domestic front, security measures are key concerns of the "Anti-Terrorism Bill" (Bill C-36) (2001) and of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (2002). This has led critical voices to claim that the security measures in the new immigration policy are simultaneously increasing penalties and reducing individual rights and protections for refugees and immigrants (Canadian Council for Refugees, cited in Abu-Laban and Gabriel 2003: 299). Moreover, these new legislations have raised concerns around racial profiling and restrictions on civil liberties, particularly for people of Arab or Muslim origin (Abu-Laban and Gabriel, 2003: 300). Multiculturalism- The changes in policy content around multiculturalism in recent years have emerged largely in response to the public's and official's admonitions that the people interested in taking up Canadian citizenship must be made to understand that "loyalty to Canada must be given pride of place" (Canadian Heritage, 1994). With this in mind, the Multiculturalism programme was modified in 1997 to focus on a three-pronged approach that clearly emphasizes values to be associated with citizenship: Canadian identity (people of all backgrounds should «feel a sense of belonging and attachment to Canada»); civic participation (everyone must be an 'active citizen', concerned with shaping "the future of their communities and their country"); and social justice (everyone must be involved in "building a society that ensures fair and equitable treatment and that respects the dignity of and accommodates people of all origins") (Canadian Heritage, 1997: 1). The federal government has progressively moved to resolve the ongoing tension between multiculturalism and citizenship in favour of the latter. The Multiculturalism programme has been subjected to a shrinking budget (from 27 million dollars annually in 1990 to 18,7 million dollars in 1997). Recent discussions about multiculturalism have followed the neo-liberal tendencies also observed around questions of 5 immigration and citizenship. To uphold the principle of active citizenship, current proposals for grants must highlight «community initiative, partnership, and self-help» (Canadian Heritage 1998). Direct funding to ethnocultural organizations is now seen as problematic. Capitalizing on the idea of special interests, it has been argued that direct funding to ethnocultural organizations upholds the perception that multiculturalism is a programme for special interest groups rather than for all Canadians. A final change has been to infuse the management of diversity with a market ideology. Here, multiculturalism becomes a good that ensures Canadian access to the global market and improves our global competitiveness (Abu-Laban and Gabriel 2001: 114- 116). Recent debates outside government on questions relating to multiculturalism focus on the impact of neo-liberalism on the funding of ethnic groups, on the congruity between the principles of liberalism and multiculturalism, on the awareness of multiple sources of discrimination and racism, on the effectiveness of employment equity programmes, and the meaning of given identities (Labelle and Rocher, 2003). Citizenship- The new citizenship bill (C-18) that is currently before the House of Commons requires potential Canadians to make a strong commitment to Canada. The key changes brought forward through this bill include 1) a new oath that includes a direct expression of loyalty to Canada; 2) a longer period of time in which the permanent resident must have been in Canada prior to applying for citizenship; 3) new powers for the Minister to annul citizenship obtained through the use of false identity; and 4) a more active role for citizenship commissioners (currently designed as citizenship judges) in promoting Canadian citizenship (CIC, News Release, 2002). In October of this year, the Metropolis Project initiated a dialogue around a proposal for a Citizenship Charter. Having described the Canadian model of integration as a "two way street model" enshrined in the Multiculturalism Act and in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, it states that some critics argue that "diversity leads to greater change and the loss or weakening of our national identity". The Citizenship Charter is then proposed as "a useful public 6 policy tool to encourage a sense of attachment and belonging to Canada and thus facilitate the integration of newcomers" (Metropolis Conversation Series, 13, 2003). Looking at this in the context of the 1995 Quebec referendum or even in a post- referendum perspective, we can observe that the Canadian state has attempted and is still trying to impose the