The Bridge
Citizenship
Economic
Family
Housing
Justice
Welcoming


  British Columbia Quebec
Prairie Atlantic
Ontario International
Français   

 

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE CANADIAN CONTEXT:

A REVIEW OF LITERATURE

 

Draft Document

 

Anita Parhar
email: anitado@unixg.ubc.ca
University of British Columbia

February 1999

Ce document est disponable en français.


 

Introduction

Much scholarly discussion of Canadian society centers on 'social justice'. Some describe Canada as a ‘mosaic’ or a ‘flower garden,’ conjuring oversimplified images of diverse cultural and ethnic groups harmoniously coexisting. Others critically describe Canada as socially and ethnically stratified and Eurocentric, indicating that the nature of social justice is open to debate (Porter 1965; Fleras & Elliot, 1992; Henry et al., 1995; Kallen, 1995; Kymlica, 1995, 1998; Friesen, 1985).

This paper explores the contentious nature of social justice in Canada by examining how notions of social justice are conceptualized and articulated in many of Canada’s public policies and institutional practices. This literature review focuses on ethnic and cultural minorities; it does not include Aboriginal peoples, official language groups, issues of sexual orientation, gender, or disability, although issues of power relations discussed are closely related to the concerns of these groups.

In the first section of the paper, the definition of social justice is examined and a conceptual framework is presented (note: literature and theories presented here are not all specific to the Canadian context). This framework is then used in the second section to examine four areas of literature concerned with social justice in Canada. In the third and final section, a few closing comments are made about the varied notions of social justice and their articulation in policies and practices in Canada.

Conceptual Framework

The term social justice has come to mean many things. To some, the notion involves equality and the redistribution of power and resources (Young, 1990; Dworkin, 1981; Taylor, 1992; Montada & Lerner, 1996; Dei, 1996; Baynes, 1997). To others, social justice is framed on principles of deserving, fairness, entitlement, rights, equity, ethics, and/or morality (Walzer, 1983; Lerner, 1981; Tyler et al., 1997; Messick & Cook, 1983; Kallen, 1995; Sterbs, 1995; Coombs, 1995). It is important to note that there are theoretical differences between and among the various terms. I believe that it is useful to debate the differences, similarities, meanings, and uses of social justice, however, it is beyond the scope of this paper.

I have selected Tyler et al.’s (1997) four categorizations of social justice, Kymlicka’s (1995, 1998) notions of polyethnic rights and representation, and Taylor’s (1994) notion of recognition as the basis from which I will examine Canadian social justice literature.

Tyler et al. (1997) categorize articulations of social justice into four areas: relative deprivation; distributive justice; procedural justice; and retributive justice. In determining justness, Tyler et al. (1997) and Messick & Cook (1983) state that the theory of relative deprivation proposes that people compare what they have, and what they think they deserve or are entitled to, with others. Messick & Cook (1983) add that, during comparisons, an other’s outcome is believed to be easily obtainable and that no blame is put on the self for not having an outcome. Here comparisons take on either interpersonal or intergroup forms for an individual may decide that an injustice has occurred at a personal level or at a group level. For example, relative deprivation theory is often used to explain why disadvantaged individuals and groups engage in collective action such as protests and demands for equal pay. Relative deprivation can also explain why members of advantaged groups oppose employment equity policies or oppose voting for minority candidates in political elections.

Concerns of distributive justice, like relative distribution, are outcome based. Distributive justice focuses on the just distributions of goods, services, resources (Lerner & Lerner, 1981), rights, and duties (Hogan & Elmer, 1981). Tyler et al. (1997) state that equity theory, concerned with the allocation of pay and promotion in work settings, relies heavily on a notion of distributive justice. Messick & Cook (1983) state that equity theory and distributive justice propose that a situation be judged fair if there is a balance between inputs and outcomes or contributions and rewards comparable to that of others. Hogan & Elmer (1981) add that people are concerned with rewards being distributed equitably and with getting their fair share. For example, equity theory is often used as a framework for redistributive or compensatory policies such as affirmative action, employment equity, equal pay, universal health care, and for laws focusing on anti-discrimination. Issues of redress for past injustices are most often thought of as concerns of distributive justice.

The theory of procedural justice (Tyler et al., 1997; Messick & Cook, 1983) focuses on the process of decision making. Procedural justice involves examining the fairness of different mechanisms and procedures for resolving conflicts, making allocations, and implementing change to obtain equitable outcomes. Studies involving this form of justice examine fairness of legal trial procedures, plea bargaining, mediation, police interactions, performance appraisals, pay and promotion decisions, employee selection, workplace grievances, ethnic group representation, political participation, and recognition of distinct cultures. Research applying the theory of procedural justice, however, has been criticized for being reactive rather than proactive. It is thought to emphasize justice rules in determining whether a procedure is fair and focus on how people experience existing procedures, rather than focus on structural components and issues that need to be considered when actually designing procedural systems.

The theory of retributive justice, the negative side of distributive justice according to Hogan & Elmer (1981), is concerned with what to do when rules are broken or ignored. Tyler at al. (1997) state that this usually involves punishing the wrongdoer. Much of the research on this form of justice focuses on the criminal justice system. Often concerns of equity are contained within broader concerns of retributive justice. For example, in cases causing intentional harm and immoral behaviour such as murder, rape, or bank robbery, restoring equity is not seen as a just response to rule breaking. Because compensation is difficult or not possible, punishment for rule breaking is sought.

Young (1990) challenges the most common form of justice, distributive justice, arguing that social justice is not about distribution and allocation of material goods such as income, wealth, and jobs. Instead, social justice is about acknowledgment and affirmation of ethnic and cultural group difference in institutional practices. She criticizes theories of distributive justice for their failure to examine such questions as: who has power to make decisions; what sorts of decisions are made; what are the procedures for decision making; what are the social structures and institutional contexts which influence judgments of justice; and how does culture influence and affect peoples’ social position and opportunities. Young contends that a conception of social justice involves notions of oppression and domination not patterns of distribution. Injustice refers to the institutional constraint on group self-development (oppression) and on group self-determination (domination). Justice then involves the elimination of domination and oppression in all institutional structures and processes. Critiquing Young’s notion of social justice, Dallmayr (1997) categorizes hers as an articulation of procedural justice.

Kymlicka (1995, 1998) proposes that a concern for justice in part is a concern for rights and group representation. His theorization of rights includes a notion called polyethnic rights which are granted to ethnic groups and religious minorities in Canada to help them "express their cultural particularity and pride without it hampering their success in the economic and political institutions of the dominant society (1995, p. 31). Examples of polyethnic rights include the providing of funding to ethnic and cultural minorities for the preservation of cultural practices, and provisions for ethnic groups which exempt them from particular laws and regulations seen as disadvantageous to them. Kymlicka’s notion of polyethnic rights is important to this framework for it provides a model from which to examine group rights as well as to question whether these rights promote integration into dominant Canadian society or whether they challenge the ethnocentricity of society and dominant institutions.

Although Kymlicka’s (1995, 1998) notion is specific to his critique of the political process, his core notion of representation – whether the perspectives of all groups are genuinely being taken into account and included – can be incorporated into this framework. Kymlicka’s notion of representation can be used to question: from whose perspective?; who speaks for whom?, when?, and why?; whose interests?; from what position?; who benefits?; in what ways do they benefit?; whose values and beliefs?; and what are the political and economic forces involved?

Taylor’s (1994) notion of the recognition of difference completes this framework. Taylor proposes that the unique identity of every individual or group be recognized for their distinctness or nonsameness. Taylor states that in Canada this distinctiveness has been ignored or assimilated into a dominant identity. As a result, nonrecognition or misrecognition has taken on a form of oppression inflicting harm on people. Taylor believes that due recognition is a vital human need.

The key ideas of relative deprivation, distributive justice, procedural justice, retributive justice, polyethnic rights, representation, and recognition presented will be used in the next section to critically examine Canadian literature focusing on ethnic and cultural minorities. Due to limitations of time and the enormous scope of issues subsumed under ‘social justice’ four general areas of literature concerned with social justice will be examined: multiculturalism, anti-racism, rights, and employment equity.

 

Canadian Literature

Multiculturalism

Since the enactment of the Canadian Multicultural Policy there has been much discussion with respect to what multiculturalism means. In their popular book Multiculturalism in Canada, Fleras & Elliot (1992) discuss multiculturalism as sociological fact, ideology, policy, and process. They propose that expressions of multiculturalism are found at individual, group, societal, and institutional levels.

Other well-known scholars Henry et al. (1995) describe multiculturalism as having different levels of meaning. It is a description of the composition of Canada both historically and currently, referring to the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society. It is an ideology that holds that racial, cultural, religious, and linguistic diversity is an integral, beneficial, and necessary part of Canadian society and identity. It is a policy operating in various social institutions and levels of government, including the federal government (p. 328).

Both Fleras & Elliot (1992) and Henry et al. (1995) describe multiculturalism, at the level of sociological fact, taking on a descriptive form that refers to Canadian society as an ethnoracially complex composite of immigrants, refugees, aboriginal peoples, and colonizing groups each with diverse beliefs, customs, values, languages, and other cultural expressions. At this level, describing Canada as a multicultural society means that Canadian society is composed of multiple, distinct, and different cultural and ethnic groups (note: these categories are fluid and dynamic).

As ideology, multiculturalism encompasses a set of ideas and ideals in defense of valuing diversity. Critically examining multiculturalism as ideology, Moodley (1983) contends that it is a complex conception which encompasses a range of "notions of heritage, cultural diversity, recreation, and entertainment activities, cultural centres, and an entire way of life" (p. 320). Multicultural ideology expressed in the multicultural policy of Canada emphasizes the notion of managing diversity vis-a-vis promoting cultural heritage and promoting "respect and appreciation for the multicultural reality of Canada" (The Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 1988, s.5.1 (a)). This ideology is unique for it holds that racial, cultural, religious, and linguistic diversity is a source of enrichment and strength for national unity. Harles (1997) writes that multiculturalism is seen as "the quintessential Canadian value. It constitutes a distinctive feature of our celebration as a people, and distinguishes us from the melting pot of the United States" (p. 715). Consequently, culturally different members are encouraged to co-exist and relate positively to one another in the spirit of respect and accommodation (Fleras & Elliot, 1992).

At a policy level multicultural ideology is put into practice. Here multiculturalism refers to a political framework which justifies and legitimizes a "variety of government initiatives toward ‘managing ethnoracial diversity’" (Fleras & Elliot, 1993, p. 22). The framework for multiculturalism in Canada has evolved with the passage of the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1947, the passage of the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960, the adoption of the Official Languages Act in 1969, the enactment of the Multiculturalism Policy in 1971, the passage of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1977, the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution Act in 1982, the passage of the Employment Equity Act in 1986, and the legislation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1988 (Canadian Heritage, 1998; Nesbitt, 1998). Multicultural ideology expressed in these policies encapsulates element of freedom, equality, unity, individualism, universalism, diversity, self-image, and moral virtue. State policies subsequently legitimize provincial and municipal policies, initiatives, programs, and practices aimed at ‘managing diversity.’

As process, multiculturalism refers to the way by which multiculturalism is "deployed as a resource" (Fleras & Elliot, 1992, p. 93). As such multiculturalism is in a continual state of adjustment and negotiation. Multiculturalism is often used for various reasons as a resource by the state, by politicians, and by minority groups. However, it has been criticized for reinforcing the privileged status of the dominant group, for being deployed for the purpose of control and domination, and for commodifying culture (Moodley, 1983; Fleras & Elliot, 1992). Biles (1997) reports that in 1986, the then Minister of State for Multiculturalism, Otto Jelinek, endorsed multiculturalism as a resource. This proposed business oriented approach valued the resources of ethnocultural groups.

Sivak (1998), however, finds in a recent review of literature on multiculturalism in Canada, that much of the literature, including that of Fleras & Elliot (1992) is concerned with critiquing popular understandings of multiculturalism without engaging in dialogue about policy and its actual implementation within Canadian society. Sivak (1998) adds that many critiques of multiculturalism do not adequately address multiculturalism within all the complexities of the Canadian context, and do not look into the relationship between ideology, policy, and research. Instead, multiculturalism is referred to as though it is a "monolithic, static entity" (p. 49).

Sivak (1998) states that a standard critique is prevalent in most of Canadian literature. This critique involves the use of a culturalist framework that focuses on ethnic culture, cultural celebration, and promotion of cross-cultural interaction as a means of increasing cultural tolerance and understanding. This critique does not take into account issues of structural inequality. Sivak suggests that the literature fail to provide insight into such questions as what does unequal power look like in Canada? In what ways are people treated unequally? What does opposition look like in Canada? … How is the dominant culture manifested in everyday experiences and perceptions? What kinds of compromises do minority ethno-cultural groups make when they follow the norms that the dominant culture has laid out? (p. 41, 43)

The work of Joshee (1995a,b) and Ungerleider (1992), however, are exceptions to Sivak's criticisms. Joshee (1995b) examines the roots of multicultural policy, its formation, and its meaning from a historical perspective. She finds that Canada’s multicultural policy is the "result of over 50 years of policy development in the field of cultural diversity" (p. 38). Since World War II Canada’s policy has evolved from a focus on citizenship, to identity, to social justice, addressing issues of immigrant assimilation, ethnic identity, and intergroup relations.

From a similar perspective, Pal (1993) focuses on the origin of multiculturalism programs within the Citizenship Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State. Pal finds that from 1972 to 1990 government funding for multiculturalism programs was granted to a variety of groups and voluntary organizations, particularly select key national organizations. Pal contends that government funding for programs has reflected the societal fragmentation and separateness of ethnic groups and communities in the process of promoting ethnic identity. Pal adds that citizenship programs also emphasize particular notions of identity, participation, collective rights, and equality in political discourse.

Joshee (1995b) writes that during World War II initial cultural diversity policy promoted citizenship that was first linked to patriotism then to naturalization. In the mid 1950s policy shifted its focus to one of encouraging the maintenance of ethnic identities and communities and of encouraging positive intergroup relations between ethnic groups. Despite the rhetoric of the promotion of integration, in practice, the goal of cultural diversity was assimilation. In the 1980s cultural diversity policy shifted its focus to include elements of social justice, particularly the notion of participation. The goal of multiculturalism became one of ensuring that "all individuals have equal opportunities to participate regardless of race or ethnic origin," (p. 35) that individuals and communities are assisted "in the elimination of any barrier" (p. 34) to their "full and equitable participation" (p. 34) in society, and that "institutions in Canada be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character" (p. 34). This goal is evident in the current multiculturalism policy. Joshee adds that the government’s notion of providing assistance to help immigrants overcome barriers to participation is limited as ‘assistance’ is provided by the dominant group and mainly takes the form of language instruction and indoctrination of Canadian values, history, and politics.

Similarly applying Young’s (1990) and Kymlicka’s (1995, 1998) central concern of social justice -- the genuine recognition and inclusion of ethnic and cultural difference in all aspects of Canadian society -- indicates that the meaning of both recognition and inclusion in the state policy of multiculturalism take on narrow meanings. Joshee (1995b) finds that the approach to immigrant inclusion has remained staunchly assimilationist throughout the development of the policy, and the definition of ethnicity has been reduced to folk arts and language since the beginnings of the identity phase. The consequence of this is a policy that contradicts itself by first saying that cultural diversity is important then denigrating the very programs that were once designed to develop that diversity. It further negates itself by encompassing programs designed to promote assimilation (p. 36).  Joshee (1995b) contends that "none of the goals associated with multiculturalism will be achieved as long as these contradictory tendencies continue to exist" (p. 36).

Other scholars also critical of Canada’s multicultural policy note the notion of multiculturalism expressed in Canada's multiculturalism policy seems to reflect the point of view and interests of a dominant group providing a contradictory image of Canada as a mosaic (Fleras & Elliot, 1992). Kallen (1995) and Moodley (1995) suggest that while the policy acknowledges the presence of culturally different groups as part of the multicultural reality, it conceptualizes those groups as homogeneous. The ideology does not recognize the multiplicity of perceptions, behaviours, and practices of people in these groups as being real (Henry, 1995). On the one hand individuals belonging to ethnic groups are assigned cultural values, while on the other hand they are given equal opportunity to socially position themselves within the mosaic based solely on "individual talents, capabilities, and skills" (Kallen, 1995, p. 169). Problematic elements in the notion of individualism which assert that all people are different (viewed as a fact), and should appreciate the rights and liberties of the individual (seen as a value), emerge. A moral tension is prevalent between the values of individualism and equality and those of cultural or ethnic group distinctions.

Furthermore, section 5.1 (g) of The Canadian Multiculturalism Act states that "ethno-cultural minority communities [can be assisted] to conduct activities with a view to overcoming any discriminatory barrier, and in particular, discrimination based on race or national or ethnic origin." This assertion can be interpreted in a way that sees the majority group as not taking responsibility for discriminatory behaviour. Instead, the majority groups puts the onus on minority groups to overcome social and cultural barriers while at the same time claiming to value equal liberty and equal opportunity.

In addition, the notion of multiculturalism as articulated in the policy has been criticized for failing to recognize the pervasive nature of racial discrimination in society. In an extensive examination of racism in Canada, Henry et al. (1995) argue that racism is manifest in individuals and flourishes in the formal and informal practices of social, cultural, political, and economic institutions. They document the extent to which racism persists in law enforcement agencies, the justice system, government, education, media, human services, and the arts. They contend that racism prevents the full participation of all members of society in all aspects of Canadian life. In light of the criticisms, it seems that rather than recognizing and including ethnic and cultural group difference on the basis of Young’s (1990) conception of self-development and self-determination, the official multicultural policy encourages contradictory notions of assimilation and managing and accommodating difference within a dominant, Ethnocentric, homogeneous public.

Despite these numerous criticisms, Canada is considered unique as it is the only country that is legally committed to multiculturalism (Weiner, 1997). The multicultural policy encapsulated in The Multiculturalism Act of 1988 is seen by many as a proactive articulation by the government recognizing diversity and committing it to the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians (Kordan, 1997; Weiner, 1997). The government of Canada recognizes that every individual is entitled to receive equal treatment and protection under the law, that every individual has the right to practice his/her religion, and that every individual has equal opportunity, without discrimination, to live a fulfilled life. Also, implied in the policy is the recognition that inequality exists in Canadian economic, social, cultural and political life and that in Canada’s past discriminatory practices on the basis of race, colour, or ethnic origin occurred.

Taylor's (1991) conversations of multiculturalism and recognition are framed around notions of authenticity and identity. Taylor argues that the contemporary moral ideal of society be authenticity, that of each person being true to his/her own particular way of being. This authenticity can only be discovered and articulated by each individual but the process of defining who we are, our identity, and realizing our authenticity does not occur monologically. The process involves a continuing dialogue with, and struggle against, identities others want to recognize in us.

It can be argued that authenticity and the ideal of multiculturalism fit hand in hand. An example of this is the Canadian slogan 'unity in diversity' that has become popular as a result of the Canadian multicultural policy. This phrase seems to imply that all people in Canadian society can be united through an affirmation of their diversity or distinctiveness. Here both a relationship of particularity and group participation are seen as co-existing and mutually necessary, rather than seen as a dualism or as mutually exclusive. 'Unity in diversity' also suggests that people are committed to some shared values and principles. People are both publicly recognized as individuals free to express difference or as a member of a distinct group and individuals regardless of their small group affiliations are recognized as equal participants within society.

Parallels can be made between the development of particularity and diversity in the phrase 'unity in diversity' and Taylor's idea of authenticity. If the moral ideal is authenticity, in both cases the good life consists of developing individual particularities and of participating in the larger structures of society while developing a sense of belonging to the larger societal group. Valued simultaneously is the expression of difference at an individual level and the development of a collective or shared culture at a societal level. Examples of this are articulated in three sections of the multicultural policy of Canada. Section 3.1a states that the Government of Canada is committed to acknowledge the "... freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage." Section 3.1e ensures that " ... all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing diversity." And section 3.1i ensures the preservation and enhancement of the "... use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada..."

What is not being proposed is a notion of difference constructed within a paradigm which places sameness as its polar opposite, constructing, for example, the duality of Self--Other, dominant--subordinate, and superiority--inferiority. Neither is a notion of equality implying sameness in relation to the dominant group being put forth as does an assimilationist approach. Instead, unity in diversity involves a relationship built on the notion of difference which recognizes the equal value of different ways of being and sharing some standard of value on which the identities are considered as equal.

Ungerleider (1992), who like Joshee (1995a,b) examines Canadian multiculturalism policy, argues that the development of policies and practices associated with immigration, citizenship, multiculturalism, language, and human rights have helped establish a social justice infrastructure for Canadian society. With respect to multiculturalism, Ungerleider (1992) examines policies and programs which support social justice. Some of these include the establishment of a Race Relations unit in 1981 examining the state of race relation in major cities in Canada, a symposium on Race Relations and the Law in 1982, the establishment of a National Strategy on Race Relations in 1983, the establishment of civic committees in Canadian municipalities mandated to improve race relations, the development of a Municipal Race Relations Program in 1986, the development and implementation of an employment equity program in 1986, the adoption of race relations and multicultural education policies by school boards across Canada, numerous initiatives examining relations between police and minorities, the legislation of The Multiculturalism Act in 1988, and the redress settlement for Japanese-Canadians in 1988. Ungerleider asserts that social justice can be "substantially enhanced by attempts to achieve confluence" (p. 8) among immigration, citizenship, multiculturalism, language, and human rights policies.

One of the more comprehensive responses to the recognition of multiculturalism has taken form under the rubric of multicultural education. There is no universally accepted definition of multicultural education for the philosophies, approaches, and definitions have varied, shifted, and evolved since the 1960s. Moodley (1995) states that discussions of multicultural education in Canada "reveal a conglomerate of perspectives cross-fertilized by American and British variants" (p. 808). Moodley categorizes the most "commonly cited cross cutting themes" (p. 808) in conceptions of multicultural education as education for cultural pluralism, education about cultural difference, education for the culturally different, education for cultural preservation, and education for multicultural adaptation.

Approaches to multicultural education can be categorized as traditional and non-traditional. Fleras & Elliot (1992) indicate that advocates of the traditional models of multicultural education recognize that a dominant assimilationist ideology prevails in educational practices resulting in a lack of 'appreciation,' 'accommodation,' and 'management' of cultural diversity. They argue for an approach that involves reinforcing the belief that diversity is an asset to Canadian identity, developing culturally sensitive approaches to the delivery of services, and improving interactions between ethnically diverse people. However, their approach emphasizes celebration of folkloric cultures without acknowledging that racial discrimination is embedded within the policies and practices of institutional structures.

Traditional approaches to multicultural education have taken various forms which can be loosely categorized as the education of ethnoculturally different groups or a multicultural education as compensation approach, education about cultural differences or a multicultural education as enrichment approach, and education stressing cultural pluralism (Ng et al., 1995; Fleras & Elliot, 1992). These approaches, however, should not be viewed as static or mutually exclusive; they are dynamic, complex, and often contradictory.

These approaches to multicultural education have been criticized for reflecting the point of view and interests of dominant groups. In varying ways dominant groups continue to imply a devaluation of the 'other', while attempting to 'deal with' or 'manage' people who are viewed as culturally different. With an emphasis on a static, homogeneous culture and attitudinal changes, issues having profound social consequences are obscured. While fostering the retention of various cultural heritages through the promotion of respect and appreciation for others is a valuable endeavor, Henry et al. (1995) believe that multicultural education's concerns should go beyond those of changing or fixing prejudiced attitudes and personalities of individuals or developing an understanding of other cultures, customs, and mores via altering certain practices and programs.

Henry et al. (1995) argue that issues resulting in profound social change or social justice would need to recognize the pervasive nature of racial discrimination in society, and involve the critical examination of the historical role of political and economic exploitation in the organization of society and schools. Multicultural education, which stresses a cultural pluralism approach, comes close to such an examination, but falls short of altering social relations. Although in the cultural pluralism approach school practices are examined for bias and discrimination, the prevailing structures remain intact. This contributes to the maintenance of inequalities. Radical views of the transformative theorists, arguing that schools are sites where culture is produced and reproduced, go beyond the three previous traditional liberal-dominated approaches.

Transformative or radical pedagogical and empowerment approaches have emerged from non-Canadian theorists such as Apple (1995), Freire (1995), Giroux (1993), and Sleeter (1991). Although their approaches vary, they contend that radical ideas and critical thinking aimed at a more egalitarian, democratic, and just society can be developed in schools. A multiculturalism as empowerment approach, or education for equity (Fleras & Elliot, 1992), focuses on restructuring the system around the needs, concerns, and aspirations of minority groups. This approach addresses issues of power, decision-making, and agenda-setting. Areas of reform include school policies, the formal and informal curriculum, taught languages, assessment and evaluation procedures, instructional materials, teaching and learning styles, community participation, and staff attitudes and perceptions. Moodley (1995, p. 811) however writes that it is highly unlikely that Canadian schools promoting multicultural education will develop the "oppositional cultures which might provide the basis for a viable political force" promoted by Giroux (1983, p. 101). Nor is it likely that multicultural education can become a "form of resistance to oppressive social relationships," as Sleeter argues (1989, p. 59).

Moodley describes past and present Canadian multicultural education efforts as similar to those of a "melting pot on a slow burner" (p. 811).

A distinct model of multicultural education, which is unlike the above mentioned approaches but is unique is one focusing on ethnic-specificity (McLeod, 1984). Ethnic-specific programmes and schools have usually been organized by, or in part by, ethnocultural communities. The purposes of these programmes and schools have been to "counteract assimilative forces, extend the familiar socialisation, or generally broaden the child's or adult's knowledge or involvement in, or acquaintance with the ethnic heritage" (p. 34). Private, after-school, ethnocultural programmes that include language courses are the most common examples. Other examples include the adoption of linguistic, cultural, and religious programmes by specific ethnic groups for their children in full-time private or public schools. The programmes and schools with this focus include the teaching of language and culture of the Chinese, Italian, German, Portuguese, Hebrew, Hutterite, Mennonite, French, Punjabi, Greek, African (or Black-only schools), and Ukrainian ethnic groups. Here, a notion of social justice involves self-definition.

Similar to theorists advocating an empowerment approach, Conners (1984) promotes a multicultural approach to curriculum stating that, within multicultural education, the dominant approach focuses on knowledge about ethnic groups and cultures. Curriculum approaches such as multiple interpretations, which focus on examining material written from the insider's point of view, and a critical reflective approach, which focuses on the teachers' and students' own socio-cultural reality, rarely are used. Conners argues for a multicultural curriculum as action approach in addressing concerns of social justice. This approach requires a "shift in the locus of power concerning curriculum decision making" (p. 107). Rather than incorporating the experiences of minority ethnic members in the curriculum (again inclusion takes on a narrow definition), Conners advocates the decentralization of curriculum development so ethnically diverse groups can engage in meaningful dialogue and work together with curriculum planners. Only through action and participation or dialogue can multiculturalism be 'achieved.'

Concerns of social justice in approaches in the context of cultural diversity have also been articulated by theorists and scholars interested in moral education. Wright & LaBar (1984) echo Conners' (1984), Fleras & Elliot's (1992), and Ng et al.'s (1995) concern that traditional approaches focusing on teaching about cultures do not result in effects necessary for social change. Wright & LaBar (1984) argue that multiculturalism is a moral concern, and as such, multicultural education should promote good reasoning in students, a sense of self-worth in all people, a concept of society, and understanding of the concepts of prejudice and stereotyping. In their conceptualization, Wright & LaBar promote a notion of social justice that involves critical thinking and reasoning, equal treatment, and rights. Unfortunately, their focus is at an individual level; institutional and societal levels are not considered.

From another perspective, Coombs (1986) argues that social institutions are needed that do not discriminate against anyone because of cultural affiliation, and the value commitment that everyone has the right to choose whatever lifestyle is preferred so long as he or she does not thereby treat others immorally or infringe upon others' rights to choose their own life styles (p. 11).

For Coombs social justice involves equal consideration of interests, equal rights, equal opportunity, and political education.

Examining school district policies in British Columbia that address multiculturalism or multicultural education, Joshee & Parhar (1998) conclude that articulations of social justice vary from district to district. Conceptualizations of social justice include notions of respect, understanding, fairness, human rights, employment equity, and fair representation in the formal curriculum. They also find that often multiculturalism policies are associated with antiracism policies where conceptualizations of social justice are similar to the above mentioned but differ slightly in language. Here concerns include those of equal opportunity employment and equality of individuals.

 

Anti-racism

Through its introduction as government policy in 1971, its constitutional entrenchment in 1982, and legislative enactment in 1988, Canada has publicly recognized multiculturalism as a salient feature of Canadian society. The nature of ‘recognition’ and ‘inclusion’ of cultural and ethnic minorities, however, is open to debate. Many scholars have criticized multiculturalism as a hegemonic strategy used solely for incorporating immigrants and visible minority groups into dominant, Eurocentric, Canadian institutions and practices.

The strategy of incorporation, though, is seen by many other scholars as positive for they contend that integration, as opposed to assimilation, allows minority groups and individuals to choose how to live in society and that Canadianness is ambiguous (Harles, 1997). Integration also implies that everyone is involved in the continuing project of defining Canadian society. Whereas assimilation indicates conformity to pre-existing social, cultural, and political norms, integration or incorporation indicates that minority groups will be assisted and encouraged, through the removal of discriminatory barriers, towards achieving equality in economic, social, cultural, and political life (The Multiculturalism Act, 1988).

Dei (1993) believes that the challenge of diversity is not a matter of how to manage or incorporate it, rather it is a matter of achieving a "new inclusive understanding of our social world and to address the issues of social and human development and, particularly, the issue of social justice and respect for the fundamental freedoms and rights of all peoples" (p. 37). One strategy used towards achieving such an understanding and addressing issues of difference and inequality is that of anti-racism.

In her recent thesis examining ‘anti-racism’ in Canadian literature, Sivak (1998) states that there is no universally understood definition of anti-racism. The term, though, is often mistakenly used as though it has a generic meaning. Sivak notes that Canadian notions of anti-racism have developed from popular conceptualizations from Britain and the United States.

The area of education is first worth examining as innovations in education have led theories of antiracism and subsequently their progressive application. Sivak (1998) finds two conceptions of anti-racism education within the Canadian literature. One conception represents anti-racism as sharing the goals of multicultural education. Scholars such as James (1995), Solomon & Levine-Rasky (1996 a,b), Hesch (1995), Rezai-Rashti (1995), and Tator & Henry (1991) conceptualize anti-racism education as spring-boarding from multicultural education or involving a multicultural approach.

The other conception represents anti-racism education as a form of critical pedagogy and as having different or oppositional beliefs, aims, and strategies to multicultural education. In this latter notion there is no mention of multiculturalism. The work of Dei (1994, 1995, 1996), McCaskell (1995), Ng (1995), and Solomon (1995) are some examples.

Sivak (1998) finds two difficulties with notions of anti-racism in the Canadian literature: the lack of consistency in conceptualizations of anti-racism and the lack of focus on the complexities of both the Canadian context and multiculturalism. Sivak (p. 57) believes that "without a detailed understanding of the workings of multiculturalism," any "effective alternatives or amendments" cannot be developed.

One popular theory of anti-racism, which does not consider multiculturalism, has been proposed by George Dei. In his latest book, Dei (1996) contends that antiracism is an action-oriented strategy for institutional, systemic change to address racism and the interlocking systems of social oppression .… Anti-racism explicitly names the issues of race and social difference as issues of power and equity rather than as matters of cultural and ethnic variety (p. 25).

In short, anti-racism is a challenge to the status quo. Dei (1996) outlines ten principles to his theory of anti-racism education in great detail. Some of these principles include: recognizing the social effects and changing meanings of ‘race’ and racism; understanding the intersections of other forms of oppression such as class, gender, and sexuality; questioning the power and privilege of White males and those of all members of society as well as questioning the rationality for dominance in society; problematizing the marginalization of certain voices in society and the "delegitimation of the knowledge and experience of subordinated groups" (p.30); focusing on an "explication of the notion of ‘identity’" (p. 31) and how it’s linked with schooling; recognizing the need for an inclusive education system; and acknowledging the role of the education system in producing and reproducing a variety of inequalities in society.

Fleras & Elliot (1992) describe anti-racism education as encompassing a "distinctive orientation along with a unique set of objectives that set it apart from multicultural education" (p. 195). The primary thrust of anti-racism, they contend, is on changing behaviour and practice or as Moodley (1995) suggests the transformation and restructuring of the relations of dominance. Issues of power are key. Some scholars assert that multicultural education’s focus is on altering perceptions and attitudes which does little to alter relations of power (Walcott, 1990).

However, Moodley (1995) notes that some more sophisticated conceptualizations of multicultural education do incorporate ideas of anti-racism. Kehoe and Mansfield (1993), for example, support the view that multiculturalism's focus on intergroup harmony can be rethought and expanded to incorporate certain important concerns of antiracism education related to social equity. Fleras & Elliot (1992) state that often in practice educational institutions juxtapose the two perspectives. In an ethnographic study investigating the impact of multiculturalism and/or anti-racism policies, or as Chan (1998) calls race relations policies, in two British Columbia schools, Chan finds that although many educators in schools are aware of their district's policies, few efforts are being made to articulate policy into educational practices. In addition, conceptualizations of multicultural and anti-racism education are not widely understood by district educators.

In a critique of multicultural education in Toronto, Rahim (1990) concludes that the Toronto (Ontario) Board of Education has failed to implement multicultural education because Anglo-Saxon practices continue to guide pedagogic actions in most of the schools. Through this action the dominant group "exercises monopoly over knowledge and power as well as ensures its hegemony" (p. 42). Referring to Antonio Gramsci's notion of hegemony (Gramsci, 1971; Mouffe, 1979; Sassoon, 1982; Sasson, 1987). Rahim proposes that in Canada both multiculturalism as sociological fact and the ethnic stratification of society must be reconsidered from the perspective of ethnic hegemony rather than multiculturalism. Rahim adds that an anti-racist model, with its focus on examining and re-structuring relations of power and dominance is essential if educators are to give equal recognition and treatment to immigrant and minority students and communities.

Taylor's (1994) and Kymlicka's (1995, 1998) notions of representation and recognition support key elements of anti-racism theory such as questioning relations of power and dominance between and among groups. Asking from whose perspective?, whose interests?, who benefits?, and whose values and beliefs? become key in analyzing group relations and structures.

Other Canadian ethnographies (Mushkat, 1993; Morrison, 1994; Beaubier, 1996; Popatia, 1994; Yon, 1995; Carr, 1996; Carr & Klassen, 1995) focus on the examination of classroom and school practices from a multicultural perspective. These studies indicate that few school practices, programs, and structures are altered from an anti-racist perspective. In these studies social justice involves teaching about 'race related' issues such as stereotyping, bias, cultural difference, prejudice, and discrimination, and equity education. In addition, few school-wide programs and practices are altered to be inclusive of different cultural groups' knowledge, perspectives, and ways of being. These studies highlight the lack of value and importance educators place on inter-group relations. Schools are seen as bureaucratic organizations concerned with instrumental rationality; concerns for issues of inequality are given little, and often, no space. Although much has been written on the prevalence of prejudice, discrimination, and inequality in schools, little is being done to promote positive inter-group relations and re-structuring of school-wide practices.

There is other literature, beyond the scope of this paper, that examines various policies and practices from an anti-racism perspective such as those of policing, the justice system, the public sector, voluntary organizations, the arts, the media, and health care (Henry et al., 1995; Canada, 1984; Harney, 1996; Manyoni, 1986; Rontiris, 1997; Paredes, 1987; Currie & Kiefl, 1994; San & Magaly, 1996). Literature indicates that many efforts are being made to "combat racism towards visible minorities". In a review of research and policy developments on combating racism, Naidoo & Edwards (1991) contend that Canada's multicultural policy, multicultural programs and initiatives, human rights legislation, official reports on racism, and race relations programs are examples of Canada's commitment to combat racism and accelerate the integration of visible minorities. From their observations, Canada's approach to counter racism includes elements of multicultural ideology. Interestingly, methods and techniques used in combating racism often do not stem from an anti-racism perspective. Combating racism and assisting integration of minorities involves the altering of select practices but does not involve the restructuring of power relations. Similar to Ungerleider's (1992) conceptualization, Naidoo & Edwards (1991) view a combination of equity, rights, redress, and the elimination of racism as principles of social justice.

 

Rights

As Ungerleider (1992) and Naidoo & Edwards (1991) point out, concerns of social justice include concerns of rights. However, conceptualizations of rights are varied and take on different meanings and interpretations in different contexts. Literature indicates that rights are often conceived and categorized as: individual, collective, human, political, cultural, civil, and/or social. A close examination of the categorizations reveals a common underlying element, that of equality.

Canadian Human rights laws are thought of as legal instruments intended to aid in combating discriminatory behaviour and to protect people who are least able to look out for themselves (Frideres & Reeves, 1989; Falardeau-Ramsay, 1993). But human rights laws related to minority groups as they are articulated in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are criticized for not treating all persons on a footing of equality in terms of equal concern and equal respect (Phillips, 1989; Falardeau-Ramsay, 1993). Based on constructions of culture and/or ethnicity some groups are considered superordinate in relation to others. In addition, protection and remedies significantly differ provincially across Canada (McKenna, 1994). Opinion surveys and studies such as those by Bal (1997) and Lizotte (1997) find that even though multicultural and formal human rights legislation exist and are intended to protect the rights of individuals and minority groups, many non-White Canadians do not feel equality results from such legislation.

As policy, Canada has enacted human rights legislation following international human rights guidelines developed by the United Nations. Equality is one of the central principles defended by the Canadian legislative framework. The Canadian Human Rights Act affords all individuals equal opportunity and accommodation of their needs "to make for themselves the lives that they wish to have" (Canadian Human Rights Act, 1988) without being hindered by discriminatory practices based on race, ethnic origin, or colour.

The legal framework for the protection of minority rights is also outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Walker, 1997). Section 15(1) of the Charter outlines equality rights provisions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or colour. Section 15(2) permits the allowance of affirmative-action programs. Kallen (1995) adds that section 27 affords ethnic minorities protection of their multicultural heritage.

Fleras & Elliot (1992) believe that in the Charter, equality means "everyone has the same or equal right to be free from discrimination" (p. 87). They see the inclusion of multiculturalism within the Charter, though, as problematic because principles of diversity and particularism are at odds with equality that means sameness and universality. In a report by the Ministry of Citizenship, Phillips (1989) found that interpretation of the Charter is often inconsistent with its intent. With respect to equality, it is found that the courts apply an anti-discrimination principle rather than one of equality rights. The anti-discrimination argument is essentially negative: it provides freedom from discrimination. An equality principle is positive: it requires action to ensure the equality result (p.7).

Under the Charter, ethnic and racial minorities and or immigrants can make one of three types of claims if they believe they have been subject to human rights violations: individual rights claims, categorical claims, or collective cultural rights claims. Individual rights claims can be made by individuals who perceive that they have been personally or institutionally discriminated against.

Categorical claims can be made by individuals or ethnic collectivities that perceive that the minority as a whole has been disadvantaged as a result of past discrimination. The case of the Japanese-Canadian redress is one example (Kobayashi, 1992). Both individual and categorical rights claims are what Kallen (1995) calls equality-seeking claims. Such claims are made in cases seeking equality and equity of opportunity and treatment and of equal status of individuals.

Collective cultural rights claims can be made by minority groups whose members perceive the group as a whole has been subject to discrimination based on ethnicity, race, or religion. Claims can be made for recognition and protection of their group's distinctive cultural practices. Unlike individual and categorical rights claims, collective rights claims are based on the desire to secure difference and distinct group survival.

Critical of human rights systems in Canada, Kallen (1995) contends that the system is actually designed to deal with individual rights claims, not with categorical or collective rights claims. The individual complaint procedure itself is flawed for it fails to address group-based systemic inequalities. McKenna (1994) concurs, adding that the complaint-based system is defective because it relies on "victims with sufficient knowledge, courage, and tenacity to pursue a complaint that may lead to some remedy for the complaint" (p. 431). Discrimination and racist behaviours violate human rights. Even though human rights provisions are made in the Charter, the Charter is not a truly egalitarian human rights instrument. The Charter and its constitutional provisions perpetuate and "further legitimate long-institutionalized status inequalities between and among different ethnic and non-ethnic populations in Canada" (Kallen, 1995, p. 253). Human rights legislation intended to reduce or prevent discrimination through "fair and equitable treatment of different ethnic collectivities" (p. 228) has done little to reduce the societal ethnic and racial discrimination. What has happened Kallen (1995) reports, is that blatant racism has gone 'into the closet', and has been replaced with 'new racism', a subtler form of racism.

Kallen (1995) argues that in accordance with the human rights principles of equality, equal protection for the individual and collective rights of all people should be afforded. But ever since Confederation, Canada has constitutionally put forth an inegalitarian notion of special group status. The Charter recognizes the superordinate status of the English-Protestant and French-Catholic ethnic groups and protects their collective rights and language. No parallel protections exist for collective religious and linguistic rights of minority groups. In addition, a hierarchy can be found among minorities making individual and categorical claims for equal status and equal treatment; for example, ethnic minorities, aboriginal peoples, and women rank higher than people with physical disabilities.

In a study analyzing Canadian Human Rights Commission files, Frideres & Reeves (1989) find that cases of discrimination based on race, colour, ethnicity, and national origin are difficult to substantiate compared to those involving discrimination based on sex or disability. Both Frideres & Reeves (1989) and Falardeau-Ramsay (1993) support Kallen's observations, that human rights processes and systems are flawed. One problem is that the enforcement of human rights depends on "agencies investigating the complaints of human rights violations and taking action on behalf of individuals whose complaints are confirmed" (Frideres & Reeves, 1989, p. 313). Some agencies are successful enforcing human rights laws, while others are not. This is not necessarily because allegations are unfounded but because of the lack of effectiveness of the enforcement and organizational procedures of certain agencies.

As a supplement to these traditional human rights systems, Kymlika (1995, 1997) believes his conceptualization of minority group rights is necessary. In relation to ethnic and cultural minority groups, Kymlicka (1995) believes that literature discussing collective rights often uses the term too broadly and creates a false dichotomy with individual rights. Focusing on whether rights are exercised by individuals or groups/collectives "misses what is really at issue in cases of ethnocultural conflict" (Shapiro & Kymlicka, 1997, p. 4). The issue is whether the interests that people have originating from their ethnic identity or ethnocultural group membership are adequately recognized and protected by liberal-democratic rights. Kymlikca (1995) finds the term 'group-differentiated rights' of greater use in discussing ways Canada and other countries accommodate ethnic and cultural differences. He sees group-differentiated rights, those of polyethnic and special representation rights, being accorded to a group as a whole, or to individual members of a group. Rights such as "financial support and legal protection for certain practices associated with particular ethnic or religious groups," (p. 7) Kymlicka calls polyethnic rights. These rights intend to help "ethnic groups and religious minorities express their cultural particularity and pride without it hampering their success in the economic and political institutions of the dominant society" (p. 31). Usually polyethnic rights are intended to promote integration into the dominant society.

Kymlicka (1995) sees special representation rights, such as guaranteeing seats for ethnic groups within the legislature, as a response to systemic disadvantage. Unlike polyethnic rights that are not seen as temporary, group representation rights are considered temporary because it is believed that society should remove oppression and disadvantage, thereby eliminating the need for these special rights.

Kymlicka (1995) states that many defenders of group-specific rights for ethnic minorities support the view that "accommodation of differences is the essence of true equality" (p. 108). For Kymlicka, though, this is a limited notion. Equality involves ensuring that particular ethnic groups are fairly provided support. That is, that some groups are not disadvantaged while others are privileged. Supports such as those already made for dominant ethnic groups -- policies supporting identity, language, and culture -- must be made for minority groups. In his view equality also involves rethinking the fairness of decision-making procedures by which group-differentiated rights are defined and interpreted.

Also an advocate for group-rights claims, Levy (1997) identifies eight types of cultural rights-claims accommodating ethnic pluralism that has arisen from ethnocultural conflicts. Levy’s categorizations are inclusive of Kymlicka’s. These include: exemptions from laws which penalize or burden cultural practices; assistance to do those things the majority can do unassisted; self-government for ethnic, cultural, or ‘national’ minorities; external rules restricting non-members’ liberty to protect members’ culture; internal rules for members’ conduct enforced by ostracism, excommunication; recognition/enforcement of traditional legal code by the dominant legal system; representation of minorities in government bodies, guaranteed or facilitated; and symbolic claims to acknowledge the worth, status, or existence of various groups (p. 25).

Of these concerns exemptions claims, assistance, external and internal rules, representation, and symbolic claims have specifically arisen from needs of ethnic minorities.

Young (1997) an advocate of special group-representation rights for excluded groups such as minorities conceptualizes representation, specifically political representation, differently from Kymlicka (1995; Shapiro & Kymlicka, 1997) and Levy (1997). Young views representation as a "deferring relationship between constituents and representative, moving between three moments of authorization, representation, and accountability" (Young, 1997, p. 358) rather than as a condition of identity. On this view, "constituents and representatives defer to each other’s judgment, without ever assuming a unity of interests or identities" (Shapiro & Kymlicka, 1997, p. 15). Young proposes that citizens be represented along their interests, opinions, and social perspectives. Ensuring representation along all three dimensions, especially the representation of perspectives otherwise excluded, maximizes inclusivity and fairness.

 

Employment Equity

One of the main human rights related initiatives designed to address the rights of minority groups is Employment Equity. But, there has been some confusion and debate as to what employment equity is and how it affects Canadian institutions. Today, the term employment equity is often used interchangeably with the term affirmative action. The notion of employment equity, however, differs from that of affirmative action. Employment equity was first introduced by Judge Rosalie Silberman Abella in the Report of the Commission on Equality in Employment in October, 1984 (Elliot, 1994) and subsequently took on a specific meaning in the Employment Equity Act legislated in 1986 and revised in 1996.

Affirmative action on the other hand is a term that has been used in Canadian literature since the 1960s and has taken on numerous meanings (Gadacz, 1986; Abella, 1984; Weinfeld, 1981). Weinfeld (1981) examining the growth of the policy of affirmative action from a historical perspective writes that in Canada the notion of affirmative action originated in the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism report. Investigating the degree of francophone participation in the federal public service and use of the French language the Royal Commission found an under-representation of francophones in the public service. As a result, under 'affirmative action', "numerous steps were taken to promote the use of French in the public service and to increase francaphone participation" (Weinfeld, 1981, p. 26).

Legal foundation for affirmative action at the federal level was laid with the passage of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Human rights legislation acknowledges not only the individual, but also the systemic nature of discrimination and guarantees the allowance of affirmative action programs on a voluntary basis (Sheppard, 1993; Frideres & Reeves, 1989; Agos, 1986; Weinfeld, 1981). Allan (1988) and Stasiulis (1987) state that because Canadian affirmative action programs have been voluntary and have often uncritically been based on models used in the United States, the overall effects of affirmative action have been limited.

In 1984, in her report on equality in employment, Judge Abella coined the term employment equity stating the term affirmative action is misunderstood by people, and is ambiguous and confusing. By employment equity Abella (1984) means employment practices that are "designed to eliminate discriminatory barriers and to provide in a meaningful way equitable opportunities in employment" (p. 7). She also uses the term to describe "programs of positive remedy for discrimination in the Canadian workplace" (p. 7). The purpose of employment equity, she states, is to acknowledge and eradicate systemic discrimination. A systemic approach rather than approaching discrimination from the perspective of a single perpetrator and the single victim, … acknowledges that by and large the systems and practices we customarily and often unwittingly adopt may have an unjustifiably negative effect on certain groups in society (p. 9).

In addition to the Abella report, the Equality Now! report found that systemic discrimination exists in many areas of employment resulting in, among other things, the under-representation of visible minorities. These and other studies indicate that discrimination exists in employment practices of hiring, recruitment, training, development, job classification, promotion, salary, benefits, discipline, and termination (First Perspective, 1997a; Young, 1989; Allan, 1988).

In response to many of the recommendations in the Abella (1984) report the federal government put into place two mandatory programs: the Employment Equity Act and the Federal Contractors' Program. The federal Employment Equity Act was passed in 1986 and revised in 1996. It is often described as a response to a government awareness that women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and visible minorities do not "share equally in the economic and social benefits gained from employment" (Employment Equity--discussion paper, 1985). Under employment equity, "employers take proactive, positive measures to make their work places more equitable," (Canadian Labour Law Reports, section 7901, p. 11 505) rather than reactively responding to instances of discrimination or focusing on compensation for individuals of past discrimination (Sheppard, 1993).

Employment equity rules that the four designated disadvantaged groups, specifically visible minorities for the interests of this paper, are to be proportionately represented in the workforce, and are not to be denied employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability or merit. Employment equity requires employers to: identify employment barriers and remove them, implement special measure initiatives, and make reasonable accommodations (First Perspective, 1997; Weiner, 1993; Coates, 1986). Special measure initiatives are designed to accelerate the entry and the promotion of qualified visible minorities so that representation in the workforce reflects the composition of society. Kymlicka (1998) calls this mirror representation. Targeted recruitment techniques and special training initiatives are aimed at correcting inequity in employment practices stemming from past discrimination. Reasonable accommodation is a technique aimed at altering employment policies and practices so that no one is discriminated against based on race; such measures involve adjusting work schedules, redesigning job duties, upgrading facilities, and providing support services (First Perspective, 1997a).

Employers who are required to implement Employment Equity under the Act include persons in the federal public service and all industries regulated by the federal government. Under the Federal Contractors Program, contractors who do business with the Government of Canada are required to implement employment equity measures. At a provincial level, the Quebec government has a similar contract compliance program that applies to certain employers having contracts with the Quebec government.

Also, Ontario briefly implemented comprehensive employment equity legislation. From September 1994 to December 1995 mandatory employment equity laws applied to both public and private sector employees (Elliott, 1994; Weiner, 1993; Grosman & Martin, 1994; Employment Equity Commissioner, 1992; Equity in universities, 1992; Tsuji, 1985; Cheng, 1987). Ontario's Act, however, has "now been repealed in favour of a voluntary Equal Opportunity Plan, which involves various government measures to assist employers in expanding the diversity of their workforces" (Canadian Labour Law Reports, section 7901, p. 11 505). In each of the other provinces in Canada, provincial human rights codes prohibit discriminatory practices in employment on the basis of race and colour. In Manitoba and Quebec Human Rights Codes specifically permit implementation of affirmative action programs.

For an employer, implementation of employment equity involves four major steps: conducting a workforce survey and analysis, conducting a review of their employment systems, developing and implementing an employment equity plan, and establishing and maintaining a reporting and monitoring plan. As part of mandatory reporting requirements, employers' annually submit reports (Employers' Annual Reports, Employment Equity Act, 1997; Employment Equity: Annual Report, 1995-96; Employment Equity Action Plans, 1991). Employment Equity reports include statistical information and narrative descriptions on distribution of employment salaries, and employees hired, promoted, and terminated. The aim of the report is to provide an overview of employers' workforce reflecting efforts being made to achieve equitable representation of visible minorities in the workforce.

After reviewing employers' annual reports, the Department of Human Resources Development submits a report to Parliament outlining improvements made by employers towards the achievement of equality in the workplace. Employment Equity Act: Annual Reports, 1994, 1997). The President of the Treasury also submits reports to Parliament highlighting policies and programs the Treasury Board and federal institutions have put into place supporting employment equity. The Treasury's report also analyzes statistics related to the representation and distribution designated groups in the Public Service (Employment Equity in the Federal Public Service, Annual Report to Parliament, 1994-1995, 1997).

Although many efforts are being made through legislation to make Employment Equity 'mandatory', many scholars have questioned the quality of Employment Equity legislation. Allan (1988) argues that the Employment Equity Act cannot be called mandatory in a meaningful sense of the word since it's applicability is restricted to the federal level, specifically businesses federally owned or regulated. Instead, Allan proposes that legislation should be comprehensive in setting legal enforcements, and in making changes in workforce representation covering all jurisdictions including the federal government itself. Employment Equity should be required in all private and public sectors and in large and small workplaces. Similarly, the Federal Contractors' Program needs to be legislated and must cover small workplaces instead of businesses with 100 or more employees. Allan (1988) finds that presently the contract compliance program does not affect many visible minorities because they are concentrated in small workplace with fewer than 100 employees.

Sheppard (1993) contends that the Employment Equity Act's enforcement mechanisms are relatively weak, as fines for non-compliance are low and that human rights commissions are limited in their resources and powers to deal with the complexity of systemic discrimination. Allan (1988) proposes that Employment Equity legislation should actually be enforced by an independent employment equity commission and complemented by a complaint procedure.

The collection of statistics on the racial background of employees and employers has also been criticized, as has been the category of visible minority. Ironically, by requiring identification and categorization of "racial" groups, the data collection process results in institutionalizing race rather than challenging its social construction. As for the category of visible minority, Moodley (1987, 1995) argues that the formulation of "visible minority" is problematic for it treats people seen as visible minorities as monolithic. She states that the history, claims, and experiences of discrimination of different visible groups in Canada are distinct and that there are actually crucial differences between "ethnic" groups and that of racial groups. Pendakur & Pendakur (1998) in a study examining a component of Employment Equity -- ethnically-based earnings differentials -- find that both the categories of white ethnic and visible minority are problematic. Weinfeld (1998) finds demographic comparisons of immigrant groups difficult because the term visible minority does not account for differences between and among various groups.

Most of the arguments presented in literature on Employment Equity are in favour theoretically of the notion and for legislation; that the goals of employment equity are to eliminate employment barriers caused by discrimination and disadvantage, to "remedy the effects of past disadvantage and discrimination and prevent future disadvantage and discrimination, and improve the representation, access and distribution of designated groups in the workforce and labour market" (Carr, 1995, p. 31). Leck et al. (1995) find that organizations are slowly succeeding in particular areas. They report that the wage gap in lower salary categories has reduced between advantaged and disadvantaged groups such as visible minorities. Unfortunately, the wage gap has widened in higher salary categories. Similarly McKenna (1994) finds that the Act has had some impact on the representation of visible minorities in employment.

There are, however, critics of Employment Equity legislation who are skeptical of its effects or are in favour of its abolishment (Stasiulis, 1989). The Canadian Human Rights Advocate (1990) states that the Employment Equity Act has had little practical impact. Other criticisms are often presented as myths and counteracted with facts. Some of the common myths include: Employment Equity gives jobs to unqualified people; Employment Equity is costly for employers in terms of time and money; Employment Equity means reverse discrimination in favour of visible minorities; Employment Equity threatens the seniority system; there is little racial discrimination in Canadian workplaces; and wage gaps between white and visible minorities can be attributed to educational and occupational characteristics of workers (Allan, 1988; Young, 1989; The Evidence Series, 1998).

Sheppard (1993, p. 19) views many of these arguments and counter-arguments as stemming from two different understandings of the relationship between equality and equity: "One vision views equity programs as exceptions to the principle of formal equality" (formal equality means equal treatment regardless of circumstance or sameness). "Without special constitutional or statutory exemptions, equity initiatives are considered to violate equality protections. In direct contrast is a vision which understands equity initiatives as expressions of a commitment to substantive equality" (substantive equality means having group differences acknowledged and reflected in laws and in social and institutional practices and policies). "From this perspective, equity initiatives are conducive to equality, not exceptions to it." It is understandable that the two understandings cause some confusion as the literature often does not define what is meant by the terms equality and equity. In relation to equity programs and legislation even sections of the Charter have been interpreted in different ways: as both complementary and contradictory. In addition, interpretation of the Charter at times has differed from intentions and interpretations of the Employment Equity Act (Sheppard, 1993).

In examining notions of equality in employment, it is important to keep in mind Judge Abella's (1984) definition. She explains that at one time equality was thought of as only meaning sameness where treating persons as equals meant treating everyone the same. Now we know that to treat everyone the same may be to offend the notion of equality. Ignoring differences may mean ignoring legitimate needs. It is not fair to use the differences between people as an excuse to exclude them arbitrarily from equitable participation. Equality means nothing if it does not mean that we are of equal worth regardless of differences in … race, [or] ethnicity… . The projected, mythical, and attributed meaning of these differences cannot be permitted to exclude full participation. Ignoring differences and refusing to accommodate them is a denial of equal access and opportunity (p. 3).

Criticism of employment equity legislation over the years has resulted in recent amendments to the federal Employment Equity Act. The Canadian Labour Law Reports (section 7901, p. 11 505) state that 1996 amendments expand the scope of the Act, provide greater detail on the employment equity obligations of employers, require more extensive consultations between employers and employee representatives during the employment equity process, and gives the Canadian Human Rights Commission expanded powers for overseeing and enforcing the legislation.

In time studies and analyses may indicate the effects of these amendments on equality in employment.

 

Conclusion

A review of literature indicates that in Canada 'social justice' means many things. One of the difficulties in gaining a comprehensive understanding of how various notions of social justice are articulated in institutional practices and how they affect the lives of 'visible minority' groups or 'racial,' ethnic, and cultural minorities is a lack of consistency in the use of terms and categorizations. Theoretical discussions often take into consideration and debate different meanings of notions such as 'race,' ethnicity, culture, multiculture, multiethnic, and multiculturalism but legislation and many research studies do not.

It is important to remember that race, ethnicity, culture, and minority are socially constructed, fluid, and contested categories. They are defined and redefined by political and historical struggles. Notions of difference are given legitimacy and presented as real and natural. Constructions of race, ethnicity, culture, and minority are generated, justified, and perpetuated in different ways to legitimate and further the interests and identities of certain peoples. Canada's system of social stratification has produced group-level inequalities in political, economic, social, and cultural arenas across the nation.

The challenge for researchers and policy makers is to come to understand how multiculturalism, antiracism, rights, and affirmative action policies contribute to this problem perpetuating numerous constructed notions of 'Other'. They must grapple with the difficult task of challenging the constructions while recognizing that policies and practices based on those very constructions have produced and reproduced systemic discrimination and gross inequalities.

Researchers can assist with this daunting task by exploring how various constructed notions affect everyday practices within institutions that in turn affect the lives of dominant and non-dominant groups. Research examining how practitioners, grass-roots organizations, and communities implement various social justice initiatives and what notions such as equality, inclusion, difference, and representation mean is vital. Also, a greater effort devoted to consultation with minority groups is required to understand and effectively address their needs, as the claims of various ethnic groups are distinct. In this way policy can have deeper meaning, greater applicability, and a link between theory, policy, and practice can be better developed. Another benefit would be research conducted with greater breadth in these areas. Studies conducted in Ontario provide insights into understanding issues of social justice, but Ontario is one of many other provinces in Canada. Other provincial organizations, municipalities, and community organizations should not be neglected.

Literature indicates that within many of Canada's public policies and institutional practices equality is a recurrent theme. But equality has many different meanings. Equality has been articulated as: same treatment, preservation of distinctiveness, same concern, same respect, equal result, fair and just opportunity, equal access, equal participation, full and equitable inclusion, equality of process, respect of group difference without oppression, recognition of uniqueness, appreciation of difference, affirmation of particularities, accommodation of difference, collective communication, restructuring of power relations, redress, institutional transformation, and equal protection. This poses another challenge to policy makers who need to think through the meanings, interpretations, and resulting effects of contradictory notions in existing policies before creating new policies.

Similarly, 'inclusion' and 'representation' must be thoughtfully re-examined before they are espoused in the name of equality. So far in policies, the idea of inclusivity has meant drawing minorities into existing structures designed by and for the majority. This dynamic accepts both a center and a margin and condones practices based on Eurocentric ideologies. Kymlikca's polyethnic rights and notion of special representation also assumes this center. Although they are important concepts and must be understood as part of his broader conceptualization of group rights in relation to national and ethnic groups, polyethnic rights promote integration. Terms such as integration, accommodation, and tolerance are problematic as they too assume a center and a margin.

Through this examination of policies and institutional practices, it has become evident that there is a heavy emphasis on the notion of social justice as distributive justice. The idea of distributive justice may be a contributor to some of the difficulties and challenges already mentioned. Hogan & Elmer (1981) criticize social justice as distributive justice for reflecting a power holder's view of the world. How to distribute resources defensibly is a problem that concerns deans, parents, political leaders, and other persons who must keep peace among the flock that they tend. They are concerned with keeping themselves running -- they rarely consider how to allocate the available resources fairly. They are primarily interested in getting their fair share, and this is quite a different issue (p. 129).

Another problem with distributive justice Hogan & Elmer (1981) point out is that it assumes the "persons among whom the resources are to be distributed are strangers" (p. 129). In practice, people are not actually strangers as they identify with each other in some way. Distribution then becomes a matter of parity rather than equity.

With an emphasis on just distribution of goods, services, resources, and rights, key concerns of process, participation, and genuine recognition are not given due consideration. The result becomes what Taylor (1994) calls misrecognition. The key principle of 'inclusiveness' also takes on limited meaning. It seems that a de-emphasis on distribution and an increased emphasis on notions of equality, inclusiveness, and recognition along with a focus on examining relations of power would be more useful in addressing the many issues surrounding social justice in Canada. Challenges remain in seeking ways to ensure equality between, within, and among majority and minority groups, and to find ways for groups that are socially defined by 'differences' such as race, ethnicity, and culture to live in a society that is able to ensure equality and justice in a meaningful way.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abella, R. S. (1984). Report of the Commission on Equality in Employment. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

Agocs, C. (1986). Affirmative action, Canadian style: A reconnaissance. Canadian Public Policy, 12(1): 148-162.

Allan, J. (1988). Employment equity: How we can use it to fight workplace racism. Toronto: Cross Cultural Communication Centre.

Anand, S. S. (1997). Expressions of racial hatred and criminal law: The Canadian response. Unpublished thesis, University of Alberta.

Apple, M. W, & Beane, J. A. (1995). Democratic schools. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Bal, S. J. (1997). An inquiry into the status of the racialized 'other' in the institution of art in Canada. Unpublished masters thesis, Carleton University.

Baynes, K. (1997). Equality and difference in democratic theory. In R. Bontekoe & M. Stepaniants (Eds.), Justice and democracy: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 51-59). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Beaubier, D. M. (1996). Ontario’s multicultural education curriculum and its implementation in a secondary classroom. Unpublished master’s thesis, Queen’s University.

Benimadhu, P. & Wright, R. (1992). Implementing employment equity: A Canadian experience. Report 94-92. Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada.

Biles, J. (1997). It is all a matter of priority: Multiculturalism under Mulroney (1984-1988). Unpublished research paper, School of Canadian Studies, Ottawa.

Bissoondath, N. (1994). Selling illusions: The cult of multiculturalism in Canada. Toronto: Penguin.

Black, B. (1994). Report on human rights in British Columbia. Report to the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights.

Bontekoe, R. & Stepaniants, M. (1997). Justice and democracy. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Brodie, I. R. (1997). Interest groups and Supreme Court of Canada (Charter rights, judiciary). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary.

Canada. (1984). Equality Now! Report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities. Ottawa: House of Commons.

Canada. (1988). The Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Ottawa: Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada.

Canada. (1988). Visible minority workers are at greater economic risk. The Evidence Series, 2. Canadian Heritage.

Canada. (1991). Employment equity action plans.

Canada. (1994). Employment Equity Act: Annual reports. Ottawa: Ministry of Human Resources Development.

Canada. (1994-1995). Employment equity in the federal public service, annual report to Parliament. Ottawa: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Canada. (1995-96). Employment equity: Annual report.

Canada. (1995). Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

Canada. (1997). Employers’ annual reports, Employment Equity Act.

Canada. (1997). Employment Equity Act: Annual reports.

Canada. (1997). Employment equity in the federal public service, annual report to Parliament. Ottawa: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Canada. (1998). Canadian Human Rights Act. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

Canada. (1998). Employment Equity Act. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

Canadian Heritage. (1998). Backgrounder: The policy and legislative framework for multiculturalism. Ottawa.

Canadian Human Rights Advocate. (1988). Employers gut job equity act. 4(7), 1, 12-13.

Canadian Human Rights Advocate. (1990). Minister says federal (employment) Equity Act is model for pro-active minority rights. 6(4), 16.

Canadian Human Rights Advocate. (1990). Employment equity discussion paper puts enforcement authority up for grabs. 6(5), 11-12.

Canadian Labour Law Reporter. (1993). Don Mills, Ontario: CCH Canadian Limited. Volumes 1-4.

Carr, P.R. (1995). Employment Equity for racial minorities in the teaching profession. Multicultural Education Journal, 13(1), 28-42.

Carr, P.R. (1995/1996). Stuck in the middle?: A case study of how principals manage equity-related change in education. Unpublished Paper.

Carr, P.R. & Klassen, T.R. (1995). The role of racial minority teachers in anti-racist education. Unpublished Paper.

Carr, P.R. & Klassen, T.R. (1996). Institutional barriers to the implementation of anti-racist education: A case study of the secondary system in a large, racially diverse, urban school board. Unpublished Paper.

Chan, Adrienne. (1998). Impact of race relations policy on practice. Prepared for the David Lam Chair in Multicultural Education. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

Cheng, M. L. (1987). Who seeks the work? A pre-employment pilot survey

Toronto Board of Education. Information Services Division, Library Services

Department, Research Section.

Cheng, M. L. (1987). Representation of visible/racial minorities in the Toronto Board of Education work force, part I. Toronto: Toronto Board of Education, Information Services Division, Library Services Department. Research Section.

Coates, M. L. (1986). Employment equity: Issues, approaches and public policy framework. Research and Current Issues Series, 44. Kingston: Industrial Relations Centre Queen’s University.

Colom-Gonzalez, F. (1996). Dimension of citizenship: Canada in comparative perspective. International Journal of Canadian Studies, 14, 95-109.

Conners, B. (1984). A multicultural curriculum as action for social justice. In S. Shapson & V. D’Oyley (Eds.), Bilingual and multicultural education: Canadian perspectives (pp. 104-111). Clevedon, England: Colourways Press Ltd.

Coombs, J.R. (1986). Multicultural education and social justice. In J.H. Knoll (Ed.), International year book of adult education (pp. 1-13). Koln: Bohlau Verlag.

Cunningham, D. (1997). Cracks in the employment-equity façade: legal rulings call into question government hiring programs. B.C. Reports, 8(49), 22-24.

Currie, A. & Kiefl, G. (1994). Ethnocultural groups and the justice system in Canada: A review of the issues. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, Research and Statistics Dictorate.

Dallmayr, F. (1997). Justice and global democracy. In R. Bontekoe & M. Stepaniants (Eds.), Justice and democracy: Cross cultural perspectives (pp.443-465). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Dei, G. (1993). The challenges of anti-racist education in Canada. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 25(2), 36-51.

Dei, G. (1994). Reflections of an anti-racist pedagogue. In Lorna Erwin & David MacLennan (Eds.), Sociology of Education in Canada: Critical Perspectives on Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 290-310). Toronto: Copp Clark Longman Ltd.

Dei, G. (1995). Integrative anti-racism: intersection of race, class, and gender. Race, Class & Gender, 2(3), 11-30.

Dei, G. (1996). Critical perspectives in anti-racism: an introduction. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 33(3), 247-267.

Dei, G. (1996). Anti-racism education theory and practice. Halifax: Fernwood.

Dickinson, G.M. & Dolmage, W.R. (1996). Education, religion, and the courts in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Education, 21(4), 363-383.

Dworkin, R. (1981). What is equality? Part one: Equality and welfare. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10(3), 283-345.

Elliott, C. J. (1994). Employment Equity. Toronto: Department of Continuing Legal Education, The Law Society of Upper Canada.

Employment Equity -- discussion paper: information and proposed contents of regulations for reports. Hull, Quebec: Employment and Immigration Canada, Employment Equity Branch.

Employment Equity Commissioner. (1992). Opening doors: A report on the employment equity consultations. Toronto: Ministry of Citizenship.

Employment inequity: The representation on visible minorities in the federal government, 1988-1991. (1992). Ottawa: Canadian Ethnocultural Council.

Equity in universities: A challenge for the decade. (1992). Ottawa: Ontario University Employment and Educational Equity Network.

Falardeau- Ramsay, M. (1993). The changing face of Human Rights in Canada. Constitutional Forum, 4(3), 61-66.

First Perspective. (1997a). Key concepts in employment equity. 5 (12), 22

First Perspective. (1997b). What is employment equity? 5 (12), 23.

Fleras, A., & Elliot, J. L. (1992). Multiculturalism in Canada: The challenge of diversity. Scarborough: Nelson Canada.

Freire, P. (1995). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum.

Frideres, J.S. & Reeves, W.J. (1989). The ability to implement human rights legislation in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology, 26(2), 311-332.

Friesen, J. W. (1993). When cultures clash: Case studies in multiculturalism. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises.

Gadacz, R. R. (1986). Employment equity: issues and perspectives. Edmonton: CSC Consulting Services.

Gascon, C. (1995). Police services survey on employment of designated groups through employment equity. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Police-Race Relations c/o Canadian Police College.

Ghosh, R. & Ray, D. (1995). Social change and education in Canada (3rd ed.). Toronto: Harcourt Brace.

Giroux, H. (1993). Living dangerously: Multiculturalism and the politics of difference. New York: Peter Lang.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers.

Grosman, B. A. & Martin, J. R. (1994). Discrimination in employment in Ontario. Aurora, Ontario: Canada Law Books Inc.

Harles, J.C. (1997). Integration before assimilation: Immigration, multiculturalism and the Canadian polity. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 30(4), 711-736.

Harney, S. (1996). Anti-racism, Ontario style. Race & Class, 37(3). 35-45.

Hart, J. & Bauman, R. (1995). Explorations in difference: Law, culture, and politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Harvey, E.B. & Blakely, J.H. (1993). Employment equity goal setting and external availability data. Social Indicators, 28, 245-266.

Henry, F., Tator, C., Mattis, W., Rees, T. (1995). The colour of democracy: Racism in Canadian society. Toronto: Harcourt Brace.

Hesch, R. (1995). Aboriginal teacher as organic intellectuals. In R. Ng, P. Staton, & J, Scane (Eds.) Anti-racism, feminism, and critical approaches to education (pp. 99-128). Westport: Bergin & Garvey.

Hesch, R. (1996). Antiracist educators sui generis? The dialectics of Aboriginal teacher education. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 33(3), 269-287.

Hogan, R. & Elmer, N. (1981). Retributive justice. In M. Lerner & S. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 125-143). New York: Plenum Press.

Howe, B.R. (1991). The evolution of Human Rights policy in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 24(4), 783-802.

Hryniuk, S. (1992). 20 years of multiculturalism: success & failures. Winnipeg: St. John’s College Press.

James, C. (1995). Multicultural and anti-racism education in Canada. Race, Gender & Class, 2(3), 31-47.

Jenkinson, M. (1995). Here comes the quota patrol: Ottawa seeks unwarranted searches to enforce employment equity. B.C. Reports, 6(41), 10.

Jenkinson, M. (1995). It’s the racial qotas police: now Ottawa wants unwarranted searches to enforce its employment equity law. Alberta Report, 22(26), 6-7.

Joshee, R. (1995a). Federal policies on cultural diversity and education, 1940-1971. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.

Joshee, R. (1995b). An historical approach to understanding Canadian multicultural policy. In T. Wotherspoon & P. Jungbluth (Eds.), Multicultural education in a changing global economy: Canada and the Netherlands (pp. 23-40). New York: Waxmann Munster.

Joshee, R. (1997). Canadian multiculturalism as a creature of contradiction and expansion. Department of Educational Studies, University of British Columbia

Joshee, R. & Parhar, A. (1998). Analysis of B.C. school district policies addressing multicultural education. Prepared for the David Lam Chair in Multicultural Education. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

Kallen, E. (1995). Ethnicity and human rights in Canada (2nd ed.). Ontario: Oxford University Press.

Kehoe, J. & Echols, F. (1984). Educational approaches for combating prejudice and racism. In S. Shapson & V. D’Oyley (Eds.), Bilingual and multicultural education: Canadian perspectives (pp. 130-139). Clevedon, England: Colourways Press Ltd.

Kehoe, J. W., & Mansfield, E. (1993). The limitations of multicultural education and anti-racist education. (pp. 3-8). In State of the art report on multiculturalism. Toronto: CCMIE.

Kelly, J. G. (1986). Equal opportunity management: Understanding affirmative action and employment equity. Don Mills, Ontario: CCH Canadian Limited.

Kobayashi, A. (1992). The Japansese-Canadian redress settlement and its implications for 'race relations.' Canadian Ethnic Studies, 24(1),1-17.

Kordan, B. (1997). Multiculturalism, citizenship and the Canadian nation. Canadian Speeches, 11(1), 53-57.

Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship. Oxford: Claredon Press.

Kymlicka, W. (1998). Finding our way: Rethinking ethnocultural relations in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Leck, J.D., St. Onge, S. & Lalancette, I. (1995). Wage gap changes among organizations subject to the Employment Equity Act. Canadian Public Policy, 21(4), 387-400.

Lerner, M. J., & Lerner, S. C. (1981). The justice motive in social behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Levy, J. T. (1997). Classifying cultural rights. In I. Shapiro & W. Kymlicka

(Eds.), Ethnic and group rights (pp. 22-66). New York: New York University Press.

Lizotte, M. A. (1997). Visible minority support staff and their perceptions of the employment environment at the University of Alberta. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Alberta.

Lum, J.M. (1995). The federal Employment Equity Act: Goals vs. implementation. Canadian Public Administration, 38(1), 45-78.

Manyoni, J. R. (1989). The discrimination triangle: School, housing, and work, a Canadian view. Ottawa: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University.

Mapel, D. (1989). Social justice reconsidered. Urbana: University of Chicago Press.

McCaskell, T. (1995). Anti-racism education and practice in the public school system. In Stephen Richer & Lorna Weir (Eds.), In Beyond Political Correctness: Toward the Inclusive University (pp. 253-72). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Mentzer, M.S., & Fizel, J.L. (1992). Affirmative action and ethnic inequality in Canada: The impact of the Employment Equity Act of 1986. Ethnic Groups, 9(4), 203-217.

Messick, D. M., & Cook, K. (1983). Equity theory. New York: Praeger.

McKague, O. (1991). Racism in Canada. Saskatoon: Fifth House Publishers.

McKenna, I.B. (1994). Legal protection against racial discrimination in Canada. New Community, 20(3), 415-436.

McLeod, K.A. (1984). Multiculturalism and multicultural education. In R.J. Samuda, J.W. Berry, & M. Laferriere (Eds.) Multiculturalism in Canada (pp. 30-49). Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.

McRoberts, K. (1993). Constructing Canadian identities. Constitutional Forum, 4(4), 93-96.

Montada, L., & Lerner, M. (1996). Current societal concerns about justice. New York: Plenum Press.

Moodley, K.A. (1983). Canadian multiculturalism as ideology. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 6 (3), 321-331.

Moodley, K.A. (1987). The predicament of racial affirmative action. In Leo Driedger (ed.) Ethnic Canada: Identities & inequalities (pp. 395-407).

Moodley, K.A. (1995). Multicultural education in Canada: Historical development and current status. In Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. (Eds.) Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 801-820). New York: MacMillan.

Morrison, D. D. (1994). Elementary teacher’s perspectives concerning race relations and clarification of issues related to implementing antiracism education strategies in their classrooms. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Toronto.

Mouffee, C. (1979). Gramsci and Marxist theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Mushkat, D. (1993). Dismantling cultural barriers in the educational context: A theoretical and empirical case study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Queen’s University.

Naidoo. J.C., & Edwards, R.G. (1991). Combating racism involving visible minorities: A review of relevant research and policy development. Canadian Social Work, 8(2), 211-236.

Nedelsky, J. (1995). Reconceiving rights as relationship. In J. Hart & R. W. Bauman (Eds.) Explorations in difference: Law, culture, and politics (pp. 67-88). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Nesbitt, B. (1998). Draft text of Erica Claus' speech to Parliamentarians, Abidjan.

Ng, R. (1995). Teaching against the grain: Contradictions and possibilities. In R. Ng, P. Staton, & J, Scane (Eds.) Anti-racism, feminism, and critical approaches to education (pp. 129-152). Westport: Bergin & Garvey.

Ng, R., Staton, P., & Scane, J. (1995). Anti-racism, feminism, and critical approaches to education. Westport: Bergin & Garvey

Pal, L. (1993). Interests of state: the politics of language, multiculturalism and feminism in Canada. Montreal: Queen’s University Press.

Paredes, M. (1987). Immigrant women and second-language education: A study of unequal access to linguistic resources. Resources for Feminist Research, 16(1), 23-27.

Pendakur, K. & Pendakur R. (1998). The colour of money: Earning differentials among ethnic groups in Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics, 31(3), 518-548.

Phillips, G. (1989). A theoretical context for employment equity. Toronto: Ministry of Citizenship.

Porter, J. (1965). The vertical mosaic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Public Service Commission of Canada Staffing Programs Branch. (1984). Public service commission initiatives in affirmative action. Ottawa: Public Service Commission of Canada.

Public Service Commission of Canada Visible Minority Groups Programs. (1993). Moving upward and onward: A reference guide for members of visible minority groups in the federal public service. Ottawa: Visible Minority Groups Programs, Program Development (Employment Equity) Directorate.

Rahim, A. (1990). Multiculturalism or ethnic hegemony: A critique of multicultural education in Toronto. Journal of Ethnic Studies, 18(3), 29-46.

Rawls, J. (1957). Justice as fairness. The Journal of Philosophy, 54, 653-62.

Regan, T. & VanDeer, D. (1983). And justice for all. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

Report to the Council from the Committee on Employment and Educational Equity. (1994). Toronto: The Committee.

Rezai-Rashti, G. (1995). Multicultural education, anti-racist education, and critical pedagogy: Reflections on everyday practice. In R. Ng, P. Staton, & J, Scane (Eds.) Anti-racism, feminism, and critical approaches to education (pp. 3-20). Westport: Bergin & Garvey.

Rontiris, G. (1997). Health Canada ordered to eliminate systemic barriers to visible minorities. Lab Alert, 6(2).

San & Magaly (1996). To bring forth a voice: The Latin American women's collective in Toronto. Fireweed, 54, 8-28.

Sasson, A. (1982). Approaches to Gramsci. London: Writers and Readers.

Sassoon, A. (1987). Gramsci's politics. London: Hutchinson.

Shapiro, I. & Kymlicka, W. (1997). Ethnicity and group rights. New York: New York University Press.

Sheppard, C. (1993). Study paper on litigating the relationship between equity and equality. Toronto: The Commission.

Sivak, A.M. (1998). An inquiry into the contextual specificity of Canadian literature on anti-racist education. Unpublished masters thesis, University of British Columbia.

Sleeter, C. (1991). Empowerment through multicultural education. New York: State University of New York Press.

Solomon, P.R. (1995). Why teach from a multicultural and anti-racist perspective in Canada? Race, Class & Gender, 2(3), 49-66.

Solomon, P.R. & Levine-Rasky, C. (1996a). When principle meets practice: Teachers' contradictory responses to antiracist education. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, XLII(1), 19-33.

Solomon, P.R. & Levine-Rasky, C. (1996b). Transforming teacher education for an antiracism pedagogy. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 33(3), 337-359.

Stasiulis, D. (1989). Affirmative action for visible minorities in Canada. In O. Dwivedi et al., (Eds.), Canada 2000: The new politics of race (pp. 233-391). Guelph, Ontario: Department of Political Studies, University of Guelph.

Stasiulis, D. K. (1995). Affirmative action for visible minorities and the new politics of race in Canada. Carleton University: Department of Sociology and Anthropology.

Sterba, J.P. (1995). Reconciling conceptions of justice. In J.P. Sterba, T.R. Machan, A.M. Jaggar, W.A. Galston, C.C. Gould, M. Fisk & R.C. Solomon, (Eds.), Morality & social justice: Point/counterpoint (pp. 1-38). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Inc.

Suriva, S.K. (1993). The representation of visible minorities in Canadian police: employment equity beyond rhetoric. Police Studies, 16(2), 44-62.

Tator, C. & Henry, F. (1991). Multicultural education: Translating policy into practice. Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship.

Taylor, C. (1991). The malaise of modernity. Concord, Ontario: Anansi.

Taylor, C. (1994). Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Taylor, P.S. (1997). Ottawa speeds up its racial hiring quotas: Ethno-politics replaces merit in the wake of a Human Rights Commission edict. B.C. Reports, 8(32), 8-9.

Taylor, P.S. (1997). Ottawa torques up its racial hiring quotas: the last pretense of promotions based on merit seems to have vanished. Western Reports, 12(11), 6-7.

Thompson, P.R. & MacDonald, J.L. (1989). Multicultural health education: Responding to the challenge. Health Promotion in Canada, 28(2), 8-11.

Tsuji, G. K.. (1986). Visible minority representation in Toronto Board of Education staff changes. Toronto: Toronto Board of Education.

Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder: Westview Press.

Ungerleider, C.S. (1992). Immigration, multiculturalism, and citizenship: The development of the Canadian social justice infrastructure. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 24(3), 7-22.

Walcott, R. (1990). Theorizing anti-racism education: Decentering white supremacy in education. The Western Canadian Anthropologist, 7(2), 109-20.

Walker, J. (1997). "Race," rights and the law in the Supreme Court of Canada: Historical case studies. Canada: The Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History and Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice. New York: Basic Books.

Wayland, S.V. (1997). Religious expression in public schools: kirpans in Canada, hijab in France. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 20(3), 545-561.

Weinberg, P. (1992). Labour & employment law: economic impact; employment equity; social contract. Canadian Lawyer, 18(2), 37, 40-42.

Weiner, N. (1993). Employment equity: Making it work. Markham, Ontario: Butterworks.

Weiner, N. (1997). Making cultural diversity work. Scarborough, Ontario: Carswell.

Weinfeld, M. (1981). The development of affirmative action in Canada. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 13(2), 23-39.

Weinfeld, M. (1988). A preliminary stock-taking on immigration research in Canada. Ottawa: Metropolis Project and Strategic Policy, Planning and Research, Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Wilson, V.S. (1993). Tapestry vision of Canadian multiculturalism. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 26(4), 645-669.

Wright, I. & LaBar C. (1984). Multiculturalism and morality. In S. Shapson & V. D’Oyley (Eds.), Bilingual and multicultural education: Canadian perspectives (pp. 112-129). Clevedon, England: Colourways Press Ltd.

Wyatt, J. (1984). Implications of multiculturalism for curriculum. In S. Shapson & V. D’Oyley (Eds.), Bilingual and multicultural education: Canadian perspectives (pp. 93-103). Clevedon, England: Colourways Press Ltd.

Yon, D. (1995). Unstable Terrain: Explorations in identity, race, and culture in a Toronto high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, York University.

Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. NJ: Princeton University Press.

Young, M. (1984). Affirmative action/employment equity. Library of Parliament Research Branch.


Return to Index Page.

Page updated: April 29, 1999

          Home | About Us| Events | Partners | Publications | Media Centre | Policy Priorities | Ottawa Team