Abstract:
On September 11th, 2001 there were two airplanes hit to
the World Trade Center, and claimed three thousands souls.[1]
On the same faithful day as the US was going through mayhem and disbelief.
There was another apparent airplane hit to the Pentagon in Arlington County,
Virginia. The above incident triggered
emotion among Muslims around the world. There were some Muslim individuals that
they came to the street and stated that Western value of democracy, freedom and
human rights had no merit, and these individuals would not adopt their new homelands
way of life. They echoed a clear message to the Western politicians and
activists that they worked so hard for them to accommodate these individuals,
in their new homeland, in the name of multicultural has failed.[2]
Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka are prominent figures, who have written
extensively scholarly papers about multiculturalism that
Canadian Multiculturalism was fruitful due to “the multiculturalism clause of the constitution.
Section 27 states that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be ‘interpreted
in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the
multicultural heritage of Canadians’. This clause does not guarantee that
multiculturalism policies will exist in perpetuity in Canada, or that the funds
available for these programmes will not be cut.”[3]
Theory of
change:
In this section, it is discussing the body of evidence[4]
and “strategies chosen will secure the desired results.”[5]
It involves review of the literatures[6]
that “promotes plausibility.”[7]
In this case, it is policy of multiculturalism in Canada. Will Kymlicka would
argue that the issue of multiculturalism is going back to one hundred fifty
years ago that white Europeans came to Canada and made Canada their home.[8]
Mackey Eva stated that how everyone must submitted to British cultural
hegemony.[9] In this historical epoch French – Canadians
and Aboriginal people did not fit in the British cultural context.[10]
It ignited a conflict among three founders of Canada.[11]
It is also an absolute fact that Aboriginal people are founder of Canada. In
1960s more immigrants came to Canada, and their ascribed status did not fit in
British cultural identify.[12]
It opened the door to have a discussion how to resolve differences among
diverse ethnic groups in Canada.[13]
In 1971, former Prime Minister of Canada Pierre Trudeau passed a law that
recognized Canada as a bilingual nation within framework of multicultural
policy to bring harmony to Canada.[14]
In the post “9/11 world, pundits have attempted to enshrine liberal democracy
as the only system that guarantees human freedom and emancipation. Such a
willfully impartial rewriting of liberal democratic ideal is interesting since
it conceals the brutal forces of unfreedom that made freedom an ideal for
others in the first instance.”[15]
Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka published a joint paper under tile of “Canadian
Multiculturalism: Global Anxieties and Local Debates” that they refuted any
claim that multicultural policy was a failure in Canada. European nations were
moving toward civic – integration because chemical composition of their
multicultural policy was different than Canadian version.
It is federal
government responsibility to promote multicultural policy in Canada; it has
allocated fifteen million dollars annually to safeguard Canada’s social
cohesion. It is this measure preventing Canada becomes a failed state.
The below graph is taking from Statistic
Canada:[16]
|
Geography
|
2013
|
2014
|
|
Q1
|
Q2
|
Q3
|
Q4
|
Q1
|
|
Canada
|
34,940,975
|
35,025,296
|
35,158,304
|
35,295,770
|
35,344,962
|
|
Newfoundland and Labrador
|
527,754
|
527,690
|
526,702
|
527,464
|
526,896
|
|
Prince Edward Island
|
144,963
|
144,825
|
145,237
|
145,295
|
145,211
|
|
Nova Scotia
|
943,573
|
941,709
|
940,789
|
940,567
|
940,592
|
|
New Brunswick
|
756,228
|
755,635
|
756,050
|
755,710
|
755,464
|
|
Quebec
|
8,115,740
|
8,129,546
|
8,155,334
|
8,174,510
|
8,179,712
|
|
Ontario
|
13,474,940
|
13,498,102
|
13,537,994
|
13,585,887
|
13,598,676
|
|
Manitoba
|
1,257,951
|
1,260,919
|
1,265,015
|
1,268,915
|
1,272,062
|
|
Saskatchewan
|
1,097,447
|
1,101,408
|
1,108,303
|
1,114,170
|
1,117,503
|
|
Alberta
|
3,948,242
|
3,982,240
|
4,025,074
|
4,060,719
|
4,082,571
|
|
British Columbia
|
4,558,900
|
4,567,947
|
4,581,978
|
4,606,375
|
4,609,946
|
|
Yukon
|
36,421
|
36,629
|
36,700
|
36,690
|
36,586
|
|
Northwest Territories
|
43,672
|
43,604
|
43,537
|
43,523
|
43,641
|
|
Nunavut
|
35,144
|
35,042
|
35,591
|
35,945
|
36,102
|
According to Statistic Canada “at the national level, population
growth is the result of two components—migratory increase and natural increase.
First, the migratory increase is comprised primarily of the difference between
immigrants who entered Canada and emigrants who left the country. Canada
received more than 280,700 immigrants in 2010, the highest level recorded since
the 1950s. This was 28,500 more immigrants than in 2009. The increase in
immigration in 2010 was offset by a decline in the net inflow of non-permanent
residents. Non-permanent residents (also called temporary residents) are people
from another country who have a work or study permit, or who are refugee
claimants, and family members living in Canada with them. In 2010, the net
number of non-permanent residents was slightly less than 12,900 compared to a
little more than 55,400 in 2009 and almost 71,400 in 2008. As a result, net
international migration in 2010 was estimated at 244,400 persons, down from
258,900 persons the previous year.”[17]
According to the CTV news “Statistics Canada says that by 2031, almost one-half
of Canadians over the age of 15 will be foreign-born or have at least one
foreign-born parent. The number of visible minorities will likely double by
then. And almost all those visible minorities will be living in cities,
primarily Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.”[18]
Executive summary
Purpose of the Evaluation:
The below model is borrowed from University of Wisconsin[19]
in order to discuss Multicultural Policy
of Canada in light of current time that how Canada is using multiculturalism to
create a social cohesive society in light of pervasive bigotry exist in Canada.
In addition, the format of this model is borrowed from Citizenship and
Immigration Canada.
Situation:
Will Kymlicka is a Canadian liberal intellectual thinker, who has
written extensively on subject matter of Multiculturalism in Canada. Mr.
Kymlicka in one of his articles stated that Canada has over 150 years of
accommodating newcomers in Canada.[20]
These newcomers were not posing threat to British heritage. They would adopt
British lifestyles and practices.[21]
In the last thirty years, the method of integration in the mainstream society
has shifted from assimilation to multiculturalism.[22]
Graham Fuller in his book “A
World without Islam” explains that after World War Two European nations
were rebuilding their economic infrastructure from ashes of war. In 1960s, the Western European nations were
able to build their economic and they needed workers to do manual works in the
factories. They developed policies to bring workers from Third World nations
that they were recently decolonized from European nations. These workers
brought their families to these new lands.
There was a clear cut shift from white person to color person. These
individual may standout clearly in society due to their ascribed status that
they possessed at the time of birth. They could not integrate in the mainstream
society.
In Canada, there was an on-going issue of French as a distinct society,
and Aboriginal people rightfully claimed that they were colonized by English
and French newcomers. Lester Pearson was the first Prime Minister of
Canada, who was trying to deal with issue of multiculturalism in Canada.[23]
In 1960s Pearson wanted to have a distinct Canadian flag which did not
associate with United Kingdom’s Union Jack. Initially, there was this idea of
three Maple Leaves that they were symbols of French, English and Aboriginal
roots. Other ethnic groups brought to attention of dignitaries that they too
contributed to enrichment of Canada and they could not be forgotten what they
have done for Canada. In 1965, Canada adopted a Maple Leaf flag as a Canadian
identity.[24]
In 1970, Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister of Canada, and Front de
liberation du Quebec FLQ engaged in kidnapping two politicians and caused civil
unrest in Canada. Mr. Trudeau used War Measure Act and ended October Crisis in
Canada. However, the tension between French and English in Canada did not
dissipate. He claimed that he was aware of globalization as a force of erosion
of national boundaries among nations.[25] He decided to have a multicultural policy
within framework of bilingualism.[26]
Current situation of race relation in Canada is not in good terms.
The federal government has acknowledged that racism does exist in Canada, and
there is “continued presence of prejudice, racism and discrimination in
Canadian society, there is a need for multiculturalism programming in Canada.
The Multiculturalism Program’s approach, which facilitates interaction among
different communities in order to increase mutual awareness and understanding,
has been found by a variety of academic research to be an effective means to
promote social cohesion.”[27]
In addition, Citizenship and Immigration Canada stated that Speeches from the
Throne do not refer to “multiculturalism programming as a policy priority.”[28]
During qualitative research method, it came to light that the federal
government needs to play a leadership role to change dynamic of race in Canada.[29]
There is an ascertain that “federal roles and responsibilities, although
provinces, municipalities and other organizations such as non-profit and
businesses also have a complementary role to play. The federal role, according
to interviewees, is to provide leadership, promotion and education in relation
to multiculturalism, and to support the delivery of consistent and best
practices across the country.”[30]
The federal government has several goals to accomplish or intended
outcome:
1. “to build an integrated,
socially cohesive society;
2. to improve the
responsiveness of institutions to meet the needs of a diverse population; and
3. to actively engage in
discussions on multiculturalism and diversity at an international level.”[31]
Inputs:
According to Dr. Martha Dow the input is about what we invest. It
means that how resources are allocated toward program to yield a result. It
requires having funds, time, staffs, volunteers, and partners.[32]
The federal government has allocated $15,344,852.00 CDN toward promotion of
multicultural policy in Canada. During research for this paper, there is no
evidence that there was a specific timeframe for finishing this project. It is
projecting this light that this is an on-going progress to integrate ethnic
groups in mainstream society that they do not feel alienated in Canada. The
federal government is assisting provincial governments and local governments to
promote multiculturalism in Canada. The federal government has different branches
that they focus on promotion of multiculturalism in Canada. “Program
responsibilities are shared among many sectors, branches, directorates and
units, and there have been reorganizations of the program since its transfer
from Canadian Heritage to CIC in October 2008. This has made effective program
governance a challenge, particularly with respect to communication,
coordination and shared decision-making. There is a lack of clarity with
respect to the responsibilities of the various units involved in the
Multiculturalism Program and some decisions have been undertaken without
appropriate input from both the policy and program units.”[33]
In addition, there are non profit organizations that they receive funds from
the federal and provincial governments to promote multiculturalism in
Canada. “As part of the Paul Yuzyk Award
for Multiculturalism, the Award recipient is required to choose a registered
not-for-profit Canadian organization or association (but not an individual) to
which the Multiculturalism Program will direct a $20,000 grant.”[34]
The federal government stipulated that this non – profit organization needs to
“have a history of at least three years delivering projects relevant to the
objectives of the Multiculturalism Program and must demonstrate a track record
of achievements for these projects.”[35]
Table 1-1: Expenditures
for the Multiculturalism Program[36]
|
Item
|
Fiscal
Year
|
|
2008-09
|
2009-10
|
2010-11
|
|
Grants and
Contributions
|
$4,147,619
|
$4,205,565
|
$6,829,468
|
|
Salary
|
N/A
|
$5,841,336
|
$6,270,737
|
|
O&M
|
N/A
|
$3,104,721
|
$2,244,647
|
|
Total
|
—
|
$13,151,622
|
$15,344,852
|
Outputs:
According to Dr. Martha Dow, output would be what we do; such as,
conduct, develop, deliver, train and facilitates. Kymlicka has argued that civic participation
is an instrument to integrate ethnic minorities in the bigger picture of
Canada, and feeling less alienated. Chinese Canadians in Toronto have formed a
coalition to assist Chinese – Canadians to engage in civic public life in area
of running for public offices so that other Chinese – Canadians gain
inspiration from her/him and contribute to Canada’s life.[37] The Civic Engagement Canada stands by below
principles.
- “encouraging more
Chinese Canadians to vote
- moving towards a more
civic aware and involved citizenship
- promoting greater understanding
of public issues and policies
- inspiring more Chinese
Canadians to run for public office”[38]
Moreover, the federal government identified the below activities to
integrate newcomers to rest of Canada.
- “ethnocultural/racial
minorities participate in public decision-making (civic participation);
- communities and the
broad public engage in informed dialogue and sustained action to combat
racism (anti-racism/anti-hate/cross-cultural understanding);
- public institutions
eliminate systemic barriers (institutional change); and
- federal polices,
programs and services respond to diversity (federal institutional change).
In July 2009, Cabinet
approved three new objectives for the Multiculturalism Program, which came into
effect on April 1, 2010:
- to build an integrated,
socially cohesive society;
- to improve the
responsiveness of institutions to meet the needs of a diverse population;
and
- to actively engage in
discussions on multiculturalism and diversity at an international level.”[39]
Delivery approach and
multiculturalism activities:
The federal government is
responsible for delivering programs in regard to multiculturalism and has
developed branches of government to deal with delivering multiculturalism
programs across Canada “within CIC, including the Citizenship and
Multiculturalism Branch (CMB), the Integration Program Management Branch
(IPMB), and the Communications Branch. Some activities, including those
associated with the international engagement, public education and promotion,
and institutional components are undertaken directly by the Department. The
program also administers Inter-Action, a grants and contributions (Gs&Cs)
component, which provides organizations with funding to undertake projects and
events.”
[40] The federal government’s branch of “the
Gs&Cs component of the Multiculturalism Program is administered both at CIC
National Headquarters (NHQ) and in each of CIC’s five regions. Thus,
responsibilities for this component are shared between the Regional Program
Delivery and NHQ Program Delivery units, both of which are housed in IPMB.”
[41]
Participation:
It involves how
clients, decision makers, and agencies are interacting with one another to
deliver services.[42]
Projects and events:
In April 2010, a call for
proposals (CFP) process was launched for the projects stream, an organization
may propose a project for receiving a fund.
[43] “The
funding guidelines for Inter-Action do not specify a minimum or maximum dollar
value for funding, although it notes that recently approved projects ranged
from $25K to $1.4 million per project. Proposals received through the CFP
process were assessed by Multiculturalism Program Officers using standard
assessment criteria that were used across the regions and then were recommended
to the Minister for approval.”
[44] The
CFP also fund projects through
Strategic Initiatives,[45]
they are designed toward programs “to be responsive to community and regional
needs by addressing current and emerging priority issues and applications can
be submitted at any time.”
[46]
In addition, the federal government, in 2010-11 Inter-Action developed a system
of smaller scale, “one-time initiatives and are funded up to a maximum of $15K.
Events are funded through grants and are delivered only by the regions.”
[47]
Public education and promotion:
The federal
government has a branch of “public education and promotion component is the
responsibility of the Public Education and Marketing (PEM) unit, Communications
Branch.”[48] This branch has five core initiatives[49] as
follow, a) Asian Heritage Month (AHM); b) Black History Month (BHM); c) the
Paul Yuzyk Award for Multiculturalism (PYA); d) the Mathieu Da Costa (MDC) and
e) Challenge and the National Video Challenge (NVC).[50] The
PEM is “responsible for all aspects of delivery including the development and
distribution of marketing and promotional tools via the web, in the media, and
to targeted institutions such as schools and libraries.”[51]
It performs other tasks too which are including evaluation of submissions,[52]
it “holds awards ceremonies to recognize winners, and holds other events in
support of the initiatives. The Policy and Knowledge Development unit, CMB
provided policy support to PEM with respect to these activities.”[53]
Federal and other public institutions:
The Policy and Knowledge
Development unit, CMB the primary task of it is to coordinate and develop
Annual
Report on the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.[54] It is providing
support to federal institutions for the development of their “submissions
(e.g., holding workshops, responding to telephone inquiries, developing a
reporting template).”
[55]
This group also carries other duties to promote multiculturalism by
coordinating “the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Officials Responsible for
Multicultural Issues Network (FPTORMI) and the coordination of the Multiculturalism
Champions Network (MCN).”
[56] FPTORMI is a forum for information to be
exchange among federal and provincial governments.
[57]
The MCN is also a forum for “sharing best practices on approaches to diversity
among federal institutions.”
[58]
International engagement:
The CMB is responsible to
promote the multicultural policy by engaging at international level.
[59] “Under
this component, CIC ensures that Canada is represented at international fora,
conferences, and workshops and that it fulfills international reporting
commitments.”
[60] The areas that it is
involved with “International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance
and Research (ITF), the Global Centre for Pluralism (GCP), and the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).”
[61] Moreover,
there are other tasks that it has a mandate to fulfill; such as, “conferences,
workshops, and Ministerial briefings and speeches.”
[62]
Outcomes:
According to Dr. Martha Dow,
there are three segments in the outcome area. Short – term, mid – term and long
– term. In the short – term, it is looking for learning, awareness, knowledge,
attitudes, and skills. In the mid – term
is moving toward action, behaviour, practice, policies and social action. In
this program evaluation, it did not have long – term. It was tied in the impact
of the program evaluation. Still, more immigrants are coming to Canada, and
multicultural policy is evolving.
In past thirty years Canada has
become a home for many people from around the world.
The high portion of babies born in Canada currently
their parents were not born in Canada, they came to Canada from other nations.
[63]
Short – term:
This is the stage that Canadians
are learning and becoming aware of ethnic groups are coming to Canada and
demographic of Canada is changing. It is no longer a homogeneous society.
Author claims that the immigration population
“increased from 3.9 million in 1986, to 6.2 million in 2006,
accounting for 15.6% and 19.8% of the Canadian population respectively.
[64]
Statistics Canada projects future demographic of Canada that as long as current
trend continues, ethnic minorities’ proportion could reach slightly over 22% by
2017.
[65]
In 1901 Census recorded that
there were about 25 different ethnic groups in Canada,
[66]
there are currently over 200 of them.
[67]
In 1966, European countries composed of 75% of all Canadian immigrants,
[68]
in 2010 European countries are composing 16% of immigrant in Canada.
[69]
The percentage for immigrants has grown for Asia from 9% to 46%,
[70] Africa
from 3% to 25%
[71] and the Middle East has
grown dramatically.
[72] “The
percentage of permanent residents from South and Central America also doubled
over this fifty-year period, and represented 10% of the total immigrant
population in 2010.”
[73]
As a result, the number of
visible minority population in Canada is increasing.
[74] Since
1981 and 2001, “the number of people belonging to a visible minority group
almost quadrupled, from 1.1 million, to approximately 4.0 million.”
[75] Consequently,
there has been a rise in proportion of visible minorities from 5% to 13% of the
total Canadian population.
[76] The
Citizenship Immigration Canada is predicting number of visible minority would
increase,
[77] with the result that in
2017,
[78]
the “visible minority population will reach 7.1 million, representing
approximately 20% of all Canadians. Further, a recent Statistics Canada study
projected that, by 2031, visible minorities will represent between 29% and 32%
of the total Canadian population.”
[79]
These different ethnic groups
bring their values to Canada, and Canada is no longer a country that only
practices Judo – Christianity faiths. There are other faith groups in Canada
that they practice their faiths. “Between 1991 and 2001 Censuses, there were
large increases among those who reported Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist
denominations as their religion (increases over this ten-year period of 129%,
89%, 89% and 94% respectively).”
[80] Statistics
Canada asserted that non-Christian religious communities will rise to “14% of
the total population in 2031, compared to 6.3% in 2001.”
[81]
Table 3-1: Permanent
residents in Canada, by source area (1966 and 2010):[82]
|
Region
|
1966
|
2010
|
|
#
|
%
|
#
|
%
|
|
Africa
and the Middle East
|
5,842
|
3.0
|
66,693
|
25.1
|
|
Asia
and Pacific
|
18,111
|
9.3
|
135,006
|
46.1
|
|
South
and Central America
|
7,790
|
4.0
|
28,355
|
9.9
|
|
United
States
|
17,527
|
9.0
|
9,243
|
3.3
|
|
Europe
and United Kingdom
|
145,473
|
74.7
|
41,319
|
15.6
|
|
Unknown
|
0
|
0
|
65
|
0
|
|
Total
|
194,743
|
100
|
280,681
|
100
|
In 2009 police services reported
that there were 1, 473 hate-motivated crimes with 54% motivated by
race/ethnicity and 29% motivated by religion.
[83] In
2010, Environics Canada indicated that Muslims and Aboriginal Peoples more
likely to face discrimination “(76% and 74% of respondents respectively said
that these groups are “often” or “sometimes” the subject of discrimination),
followed closely by Pakistanis/East Indians (73%) and Blacks (70%).”
[84] In
2009 Angus-Reid poll found that “72% of Canadians had a favourable opinion of
Christianity, compared to 28% for Islam, 30% for Sikhism, and 41% for Hinduism.
Judaism and Buddhism also had comparatively low support (53% and 57%
respectively).”
[85]
Program delivery:
The report indicated that there
were no changes in the way the “international engagement, institutional, or
public education and promotion components were delivered under the old
objectives.”
[86] The Gs&Cs re-branded
as Inter-Action that there were three changes.
[87]
- The CFP process established eligibility criteria, assessment
guidelines, and service standards for processing applications across all
regions.[88]
- “A new events stream was created to address the needs of
community groups that organize events to encourage different communities
to come together. Note that a few event-type activities also appear to
have been funded prior to 2010.”[89]
- “Strategic initiatives were introduced to respond to needs
outside of the CFP process.”[90]
Mid – term:
Statistic Canada
did not provide a time line that how long has taken to reach to this point, but
it can be said that it is more than five years that Canada has this
multicultural policy implemented. It is true the policy has been changed since
2010 in order to alter format of the policy to meet current demands.
Program performance:
Evaluator of the federal
government clearly states her/his reason for short coming of her/his report
that “the evaluation was designed to assess the achievement of both the
immediate and intermediate outcomes for the Multiculturalism Program identified
in the program logic model. The ultimate outcomes were not addressed due to the
inherent challenges associated with measuring the impacts of social programs;
and the difficulties with understanding what other factors may have influenced
results. For the purposes of reporting the achievement of expected outcomes,
immediate and intermediate outcomes are discussed together.”
[91]
Highlights of social actions:
The federal government is taking credit for “increased
awareness of civic memory and pride, respect for core democratic values and
increased intercultural / interfaith understanding.”[92] The
federal government’s branch the Gs&Cs has been promoting public education
in order to create a social cohesive society that it has contributed to
- Increased “awareness of core democratic values, Canadian
history, institutions, ethnocultural, and/or religious diversity (immediate
outcome);
- Program participants have increased civic memory and pride and
respect for core democratic values (intermediate outcome); and
- Program participants and federal and targeted institutions have
increased intercultural / interfaith understanding (intermediate
outcome).”[93]
There was an increased awareness
of ethnocultural and/or religious diversity and increasing intercultural /
interfaith understanding.
- “97% (n=38) agreed or strongly agreed they had a chance to
interact with someone from a different culture or religion;
- 98% (n=38) agreed or strongly agreed that they learned
something about another group different from theirs; and
- 98% (n=38) agreed or strongly agreed that they had a better
understanding of realities and challenges that different ethnocultural or
religious groups face.”[94]
Responses related to the
Citizenship Challenge project (19 responses) also showed that participants had
positive results with respect to the intended outcomes:
- “89% (n=17) agreed or strongly agreed that they learned
something new about Canadian history, Canadian institutions, and Canadian
symbols;
- 83% (n=14) agreed or strongly agreed that they learned about
their rights and responsibilities; and
- 89% (n=17) agreed or strongly agreed that they had a stronger
sense of belonging or attachment to Canada.”[95]
Respondents also indicted
positive results regarding increased respect for core democratic values:
- “95% (n=16) agreed or strongly agreed that they learned
something about the rights and freedoms in Canada;
- 94% (n=15) agreed or strongly agreed that they learned something
about Canada’s legal system and democratic processes; and
- 94% (n=15) agreed or strongly agreed that they have an
increased respect for Canada’s democratic values.”[96]
As usual numbers are subject to
credibility. Author of this report uses word of cautious to avoid bias in
her/his work by stating that “it is not known how representative they are of
the entire population of project participants. Little additional outcome
information was available for projects. Telephone survey respondents and the
evaluation reports indicated that the objectives of the projects were achieved,
although it was not possible to know to what extent these achievements
contributed to the outcomes of the Multiculturalism Program. Three of the five
project evaluations reviewed contained an element of increased awareness;
however, only one was related to the actual program objectives (increased
awareness of civic rights and responsibilities). The other two were intended to
increase awareness of the incidence of racism.”
[97]
It is vital that a survey to be conducted within means of random selections to
avoid bias.
[98] Therefore, “it is
difficult to determine the extent to which projects and events have achieved
the program outcomes.”
[99]
- “92% (n=37) of respondents agreed or
strongly agreed that they learned new ways in which institutions can be
more responsive; and
- 76% (n=29) of
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were planning on making
changes to their programs, policies and services.”[100]
Summary of actual
program expenditures, by program component:[101]
|
Program component
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
2009-10
|
2010-11
|
|
Salary and O&M
|
Gs&Cs
|
Total
|
Salary and O&M
|
Gs&Cs
|
Total
|
|
Grants
and Contributions (NHQ)
|
$1,385,808
|
$1,154,162
|
$2,539,970
|
$961,525
|
$2,784,003
|
$3,745,528
|
|
Grants
and Contributions (Regions)
|
$2,618,317
|
$3,051,403
|
$5,669,720
|
$2,754,820
|
$4,045,465
|
$6,800,285
|
|
Institutional,
International
|
$3,725,944
|
|
$3,725,944
|
$3,790,487
|
|
$3,790,487
|
|
Communications
(including NHQ salaries and O&M for NHQ and Regions)
|
$1,215,988
|
|
$1,215,988
|
$1,008,552
|
|
$1,008,552
|
|
Total
|
$7,730,069
|
$4,205,565
|
$13,151,622
|
$7,506,832
|
$6,829,468
|
$15,344,852
|
Outside forces are shaping this program evaluation.
Dr. Martha Dow stated that there were assumption, as well as,
external forces were shaping a program evaluation.
Assumption:
There was an assumption that the federal government has a
responsibility to allocate fifteen million dollars annually toward
multiculturalism in order to have a cohesive society so Canada would not become
another failed state like former Yugoslavia.
External forces:
It was post 9/11 that changed the world as we lived in. The world
began to experience Clash of Civilizations as Samuel Huntington theorized that
how Muslims would wage war against Western powers due to past grievances. European nations began to experience real
danger to safety and security of their nations because in light of airplanes
crashed at World Trade Center, it triggered emotion among some Muslims that
this was the actual time for some form of Judgment Day.[102]
They openly expressed their anger against Western value of liberalism.[103]
Medias began to censure policy of multiculturalism and fear of Islam was
serious in Western nations that Koran was promoting holy war (jihad) against
infidels.[104] There were ordinary
individuals that they did not want to be caught in the middle of fire that they
were not cause of it. However, there were academic intellectuals in Canada that
they looked at Canada’s multiculturalism from different light that it was
different than European multiculturalism. These scholars did not act base on
emotion, but they used reason to understand 21st century of
multiculturalism and how to keep Canada in peace.
This portion of the paper is moving toward next stage of testing
Model Quality: SMART and FIT. Initially in this section, it is defining some of
the terms in order to have a clear idea what is at stake.
“Specific: what to do is
clear enough to act on and is connected to outcomes.
Measurable: the content can be both quantified and qualified.
Action oriented: the content is selected to provoke change in
awareness, knowledge, skill, and/or behavior.
Realistic: the content is both plausible and feasible.
Timed: the content specifics a duration and illustrates the time –
dependent sequence of outcomes for progress toward results.”[105]
Fit: frequency of occurrence
Intensity: strength of the given effort
Targeted: a specific market or audience[106]
Specific: what to do is clear enough to act on and is connected to
outcomes. The federal government would develop policies to promote multicultural
policy in Canada so that those policies would reduce degree of racism in Canada.
The federal government allocated fifteen million dollars toward
multiculturalism that they are distributed among Non – profit organizations as
well as governments branches to promote multiculturalism in Canada.
Measurable: the content can be both quantified and qualified. The
federal government used qualitative research to gather data about current
situation of multiculturalism in Canada. It indicated that people are respecting
and taking a great pride in liberal – democratic values.
Action oriented: the content is selected to provoke change in
awareness, knowledge, skill, and/or behavior. There are branches of government
that they promote multicultural policies in order to integrate newcomers in the
mainstream society and not feeling alienate in Canada. It is true that
Canadians are forming their own enclave places like China town, but more
newcomers are coming to Canada and feel less homesick.
Realistic: the content is both plausible and feasible. The approach
has been successful in short term and mid term. Author of the program
evaluation did not mention anything about long term plan because it is an on –
going progress. It is intertwined in the impact of the program that it is
continuing to bring harmony to Canada.
Timed: the content specifics a duration and illustrates the time –
dependent sequence of outcomes for progress toward results.”[107]
There was no set time frame to accomplish its goals. Canada is a young nation
compare to another nation. Still, it is evolving and developing its identity.
Fit: frequency of occurrence. It is an on-going project to strengthen
Canada’s national identity as one Canada despite diversity of population in
Canada.
Intensity: strength of the given effort. Canada has allocated
substantial amount of money to bring all different ethnic groups in one circle.
It has been successful to do it.
Targeted: a specific market or audience.
In 2011, Canada had a
foreign-born population of about 6,775,800 people. They represented 20.6% of
the total population, the highest proportion among the G8 countries. Between
2006 and 2011, around 1,162,900 foreign-born people immigrated to Canada. These
recent immigrants made up 17.2% of the foreign-born population and 3.5% of the
total population in Canada.
[108] Interestingly
there were more than 200 ethnic origins in Canada that they were reported in
the 2011 National Household Survey.
[109]
In 2011, there were 13 different ethnic origins that they had surpassed
the 1-million mark.
[110]
It is
over 22.1
million people, two-thirds of Canada's population that they reported who were
affiliated with a Christian religion.[111] The
other denomination of Christianity was Roman Catholics that they presented
roughly 12,728,900 who were by far the largest Christian group,[112]
and the United Church was the second largest group that it had about 2,007,600.[113]
There were slightly over 1 million individuals identified themselves as “Muslim,
representing 3.2% of the nation's total population. Hindus represented 1.5%,
Sikhs 1.4%, Buddhists 1.1% and Jewish 1.0%. More than 7.8 million people,
nearly one-quarter of the population (23.9%), had no religious affiliation.”[114]
Some cautious steps toward progress of the program:
Author of this program evaluation stated that “the new CFP process
added consistency and transparency to the way in which project priorities were
defined and proposals were assessed, which also brought the Multiculturalism
Program in alignment with other CIC Gs&Cs programming. However, due to the
intentional broadness of the language in the CFP, the dollar value of
applications received far outweighed the funds available for projects. In
addition, the approval process was found to be lengthy and not sufficiently
transparent.”[115] Furthermore, there is an
issue of income inequality in Canada. There is an issue of poverty in Canada,
it is confirmed “radicalized communities face high levels of poverty. The 2006
Census showed that the overall poverty rate in Canada was 11%. But for
radicalized persons it was 22%.”[116] The “radicalized communities are a growing
problem. For example, in Toronto, the number of radicalized families living in
poverty increased 362% between 1980 and 2000, far greater than their population
growth of 219%.”[117]
Even education is not enhancing life-chance of people toward job opportunities.
“At higher levels of education, 11% of non-radicalized persons living in
poverty had a university certificate or degree, compared to 25% of radicalized
persons.”[118]
Therefore, the federal government needs to come some form of
affirmative action to ensure that ethnic groups would be able to gain
meaningful employment so that they can be productive member of society.
Endnote:
[1] Chaan, May, Lisa
Helps, Anna Stanley, Sonali Thakkar. “Home
and Native Land: Unsettling Multiculturalism in Canada”. N.p.: Between the Lines Toronto, 2011. 16.
Print.
[2] Chaan, May, Lisa
Helps, Anna Stanley, Sonali Thakkar. “Home
and Native Land: Unsettling Multiculturalism in Canada”. N.p.: Between the Lines Toronto, 2011. 16.
Print.
[3] Banting, Keith, Will
Kymlicka. “Canadian Multiculturalism:
Global Anxieties and Locale Debates”.
British Jounral of Canadian Studies. 2010, Vol 23 Issue 1. 47. 2 Charts,
1 Graph.
[4] Knowlton, Lisa. Cynthia Philips. “The Logic Model Guidebook: Better Strategies for Great Results.”
N.p.: Sage, 2013. 16. Print.
[5] Knowlton, Lisa. Cynthia Philips. “The Logic Model Guidebook: Better Strategies for Great Results.”
N.p.: Sage, 2013. 16. Print.
[6] Knowlton, Lisa. Cynthia Philips. “The Logic Model Guidebook: Better Strategies for Great Results.”
N.p.: Sage, 2013. 16. Print.
[7] Knowlton, Lisa. Cynthia Philips. “The Logic Model Guidebook: Better Strategies for Great Results.”
N.p.: Sage, 2013. 16. Print.
[8] Kymlicka, Will. “The Theory
and Practice of Immigrant Multiculturalism.” Oxford University Press,
2001.152.Print.
[9] Mackey, Eva. “Managing the
House of Difference.” N.p.: University of Toronto, 1999.50.Print.
[10] Mackey, Eva. “Managing the
House of Difference.” N.p.: University of Toronto, 1999.50.Print.
[11] Mackey, Eva. “Managing the
House of Difference.” N.p.: University of Toronto, 1999.50.Print.
[12] Mackey, Eva. “Managing the
House of Difference.” N.p.: University of Toronto, 1999.52.Print.
[13] Mackey, Eva. “Managing the House
of Difference.” N.p.: University of Toronto, 1999.52.Print.
[14] Mackey, Eva. “Managing the
House of Difference.” N.p.: University of Toronto, 1999.52.Print.
[15] Chaan, May, Lisa
Helps, Anna Stanley, Sonali Thakkar. “Home
and Native Land: Unsettling Multiculturalism in Canada”. N.p.: Between the Lines Toronto, 2011. 16.
Print.
[20] Kymlicka, Will. “The Theory and
Practice of Immigrant Multiculturalism.” N.p.: Oxford University Press,
2001. 152. Print.
[21] Kymlicka, Will. “The Theory
and Practice of Immigrant Multiculturalism.” N.p.: Oxford University Press,
2001. 152. Print.
[22] Kymlicka, Will. “The Theory
and Practice of Immigrant Multiculturalism.” N.p.: Oxford University Press,
2001. 153. Print.
[23] Mackey, Eva. “Managing the House of Difference.” N.p.:
Routledge, 2002. 50. Print.
[24] Mackey, Eva. “Managing the House of Difference.” N.p.:
Routledge, 2002. 57. Print.
[25] Fierleck, Katherine. “The Development of Political Thought in
Canada.” N.p.: University of Toronto Press, 2011.Print
[26] Fierleck, Katherine. “The Development of Political Thought in
Canada.” N.p.: University of Toronto Press, 2011.Print
[102] Fuller, Graham. “A World
Without Islam.” N.p.: Little Brown and Company, 2011.Print.
[103] Fuller, Graham. “A World
Without Islam.” N.p.: Little Brown and Company, 2011.Print.
[104] Fuller, Graham. “A World
Without Islam.” N.p.: Little Brown and Company, 2011.Print.
[105] Knowlton, Lisa. Cynthia,
Phillips. “The Logic Model Guidebook: Better Strategies for
Great Results.” N.p.: Sage,
2013. 53.Print.
[106] Knowlton, Lisa.
Cynthia, Phillips. “The Logic Model
Guidebook: Better
Strategies for Great Results”
N.p.: Sage, 2013. 54.Print.
[107] Knowlton, Lisa.
Cynthia, Phillips. “The Logic Model
Guidebook: Better
Strategies for Great Results”
N.p.: Sage, 2013. 53.Print.
[108] Statistic Canada <http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm> 04 April
2014
[109] Statistic Canada <http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm> 04 April 2014
[110] Statistic Canada <http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm> 04 April 2014
[111] Statistic Canada <http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm> 04 April 2014
[112] Statistic Canada <http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm> 04 April 2014
[113] Statistic Canada <http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm> 04 April 2014
[114] Statistic Canada <http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm> 04 April 2014
