Measuring ethnocultural diversity using the Canadian census.

Bourhis, Richard Y.

ABSTRACT/RESUME

The first part of this paper provides an overview of the circumstances which help account for the development of "ethnic origin" and "visible minority" questions in the Canadian Census. The second part reviews aspects of the debate which occurred in Canada and France on the advantages and disadvantages of using ethnic origin and visible minority items in census questionnaires. Finally, selective features of ethnocultural diversity in Quebec are provided, based on responses to ethnic diversity and visible minority questions used in the Canadian census. This overview shows that census questions dealing with linguistic, cultural, and visible minority background complement each other and can help government decision makers, ethnocultural communities, NGOs, and scholars address key diversity issues within Canadian society.

La premiere partie de cet article off re un apercu des circonstances historiques et politiques qui ont contribue al elaboration des questions portant surl' <<origine ethnique>> et les <<minorities visibles>> dans le recensement du Canada. La deuxieme partie passe en revue divers aspects du debat souleve en France et au Canada concernant les avantages et desavantages de l'inclusion de questions surl 'origine ethnique et les minorites visibles dans les questionnaires de recensement. L'article se termine par une breve analyse des donnees du recensement de 2001 portant sur la diversite ethnoculturelle au Quebec. Ce bref tour d'horizon demontre que les questions du recensement canadien portent sur la langue, l'origine ethnique et les minorites visibles sont complementaires et permettent aux decideurs gouveroementaux, aux membres des communautes culturelles, aux ONG et aux universitaires de mieux gerer les defis lies a la diversite culturelle au Canada.

INTRODUCTION

 Data available in Canada on ethnicity are rich, pertain to a long
 period of time, and are of high quality--of very high quality when
 compared internationally. Krotki and Reid, 1994, p. 17

The first part of this paper provides an overview of the circumstances which help account for the development of "ethnic origin" and "visible minority" questions in the Canadian census. The second reviews aspects of the debate which occurred in Canada and France on the advantages and disadvantages of using ethnic origin and visible minority items in census questionnaires. Selective features of ethnic diversity in Quebec, based on responses to ethnic origin and visible minority questions included in the Canadian census, are then outlined.

THE CONTEXT OF "ETHNIC ORIGIN" AND "VISIBLE MINORITY" QUESTIONS IN THE CANADIAN CENSUS

There are a number of historical and sociological circumstances which help account for the development of ethnic origin and visible minority questions in the Canadian census. Some key circumstances are discussed below in the order of their historical emergence as the linguistic, ethnic, and religious composition of Canada changed during the last century.

Canada has a long tradition of tracking the demolinguistic fate of its "two founding people": those of French descent and those of British descent. The European colonisation of what is now Canada began with immigrants from France who established settlements and trading posts in "La Nouvelle France" beginning in the sixteenth century. Following the military defeat of the French and the signing of the treaty of Paris in 1763, the colony changed hands and became part of the British Empire. The establishment of the Dominion of Canada rested on the fragile coexistence of British and French immigrants. The French, concentrated in the Province of Quebec, were granted their own Parliament and tax-levying powers. They also obtained the right to maintain the French language and Catholic religion through the control of their own institutions (Quebec Act 1774). The stability of this French-English political co-existence in the Dominion of Canada proved to be particularly important for the British Crown during the American War of Independence in the 1770s.

In the twentieth century, the tracking of the French and British origin population in the census became especially relevant during the "Quiet Revolution" in Quebec. The rise of the Quebec separatist movement in the 1960s made it crucial for the Canadian Government to show that French-Canadians could aspire to equal status as one of the "two founding people" within the Canadian Federation. Following the report of the "Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism" (1963-1970), the Canadian Government adopted its Official Languages Act in 1969. This act, enshrining both English and French as the official languages of Canada, was improved and updated in 1988 (Fortier 1994). Importantly, the educational provisions of the official languages act were enshrined in Canada's Constitution of 1982. By providing federal services in French and English and guaranteeing funding for French minority schooling in Anglo-Canada, the Official Languages Act was meant to improve the status of French across Canada and slow the linguistic assimilation of the one million French Canadians living outside of Quebec (Bourhis 1994a). The Official Languages Act also guaranteed English minority schooling in the French majority province of Quebec. Taken together, these measures sought to promote the liguistic maintenance of Canada's two official language groups in regions of the country where they were in the minority (Bourhis and Marshall 1999). By providing eucational and federal services in French and English, these laws enshrined the right of Canada's "two founding people" to remain unilingual in the official language of their choice.

Given these nation-building imperatives, it became even more important for the census to not only track citizens of French and British ethnic background, but to also refine its language questions on knowledge and use of French, English, and other languages across Canada. Language questions included in the 2001 census (Q13 to Q16) are the classic ones used to monitor Canada's linguistic duality, while Q48, dealing with the language of work, is a recent addition in the 2001 census.

 Q13. Can this person speak English or French well enough to
 conduct a conversation?

 English only; French only; Both English and French;
 Neither English nor French

 Q14. What language (s), other than English or French, can this
 person speak well enough to conduct a conversation?

 None; or specify other language(s) (three blank spaces)

 Q15a. What language does this person speak most often at home?

 English; French; Other--Specify (three blank spaces)

 Q15b. Does this person speak any other languages on a regular
 basis at home?

 No; Yes, English; Yes, French; Yes, Other-Specify (three
 blank spaces)

 Q16. What is the language that this person first learned at home
 in childhood and still understands? If this person no longer
 understands the first language learned, indicate the second
 language learned.

 English; French; Other-Specify (three blank spaces)

 Q48a. In this job, what language did this person use most often?

 English, French, Other-Specify (one blank space)

 Q48b. Did this person use any other languages on a regular basis
 in this job?

 No, Yes, English, Yes, French, Yes, Other- Specify (one
 blank space)

These write-in language questions allow the Federal and Provincial governments, scholars, and citizens to monitor the language maintenance, language shift, and language loss of Canada's two official language groups as well as that of other linguistic minorities in Canada (Bourhis 2001a, b; Ricento and Burnaby 1998; de Vries 1994). Such linguistic analyses are used by public policy makers at the federal and provincial levels to adjust and change language policies concerning Canada's two official language groups: the French and the English (Bourhis 1984; Bouchard and Bourhis 2002; Fortier 1994). The traditional French-Canadian and English-Canadian linguistic communities themselves also use the information to monitor the fate of their language and to lobby for the federal, provincial, or municipal interventions deemed necessary to maintain their own group's ethnolinguistic vitality (Bourhis 2001a; Harwood, Giles and Bourhis 1994; Jedwab 2001; Landry and Rousselle 2003).

Given the traditional linkage between the linguistic and religious background of French-Canadian Catholics and English-Canadian Protestants, the Canadian Census has a tradition of including a question on religious affiliation every ten years. More recently, the more open immigration laws of the 1970s also brought to the fore the issue of prejudice and discrimination based on religious affiliations other than Catholic or Protestant. The range of denominations provided as examples in the religion question of the 2001 census was extensive. As seen below, Q22 provided the option of writing-in the religious denomination which best described the respondent's own religious affiliation and that of the other persons residing in the respondent's dwelling.

 Q22. What is this person's religion?
 Indicate a specific denomination or religion even if this
 person is not currently a practising member of that group.
 For example, Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, United
 Church, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Greek Orthodox,
 Jewish, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, etc. No religion.
 Specify one denomination or religion only (one blank space).

Taken together, the language and religion questions of the Canadian Census remain quite effective in not only charting the fate of Canada's "two founding people," but are also quite useful in documenting the increasing linguistic and religious diversity of the Canadian population as a whole.

The fifth and last volume of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism made it clear that ethnocultural communities other than those of French and British ancestry also contributed to the culture and fabric of Canadian society. It was long established ethnocultural communities in Western Canada (e.g. Ukrainians, Germans) who most successfully lobbied for official recognition as contributors to the Canadian mosaic. Consequently, Canada adopted its Multiculturalism policy in 1971 which was then enshrined as the Multiculturalism Act of 1988, the first pluralism law of its kind in the world (Fleras and Elliot 1992, 1999). Key features of the Multiculturalism Act include the following statement:

 The Government of Canada recognises the diversity of Canadians ...
 as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and is committed
 to a policy of multiculturalism designed to preserve and enhance the
 multicultural heritage of Canadians while working to achieve the
 equality of all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and
 political life of Canada.

While seeking to improve the acceptance of ethnocultural diversity by all Canadians, the law served as a public policy tool for defusing potential intergroup tensions that could arise from the increasingly multiethnic and multilingual composition of the Canadian population (Breton 1984). Thus, from 1971 onward it became even more important to maintain the use of the ethnic origin question in the Canadian Census. This necessity was enshrined in both the Multiculturalism Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Multiculturalism Act declared it to be "the policy of the Government of Canada that all federal institutions shall ... collect statistical data in order to enable the development of policies, programs and practices that are sensitive and responsive to the multicultual reality of Canada" (section 3.2.d). Furthermore, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms stated: "The Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians." While mainly addressed to the judiciary, this element of the Charter imposed a duty on the Government of Canada, the sole authority capable of collecting the data, to provide the courts with factual information on the multicultural heritage of Canadians. Thus, the ethnic origin question became vital as a way of not only respecting the spirit of the Canadian Charter but also of monitoring the very diversity that was the target of the official policy on Multiculturalism.

In their extensive overview, White, Badets, and Renaud (1993) provided a detailed analysis of the issues and challenges involved in measuring ethnic origin in the Canadian Census from 1767 to 1991. The wording and ethnic labels provided for ethnic origin questions of the census varied across the decades reflecting not only changes in Canadian immigration policies but also changes in "myth founding" premises about the desirability of cultural and ethnic diversity as a basis for nation building in Canada. For instance, in addition to the examples of cultural groups provided in the ethnic origin question, the 1951 to 1991 Census provided only one open-ended option to report respondents' ancestry. However the cumulative effect of the more open immigration policies of the 1970s and the growing rate of exogamy observed in the population did increase the ethnic and cultural diversity of the country. Consequently, the ethnic origin question drafted for the 1996 and 2001 census included four write-in options as a way of more fully describing respondents' ancestry. As many as twenty-five labels were provided as examples of ethnic ancestry in the ethnic origin question (Q17) of the 2001 census. Respondents could thus report their ancestry as being made up of a combination of four ethnic origins, and as many as eight ethnic labels were accepted as valid entries in the census. Here is the preamble to the ethnic origin question provided in the 200l census:

 Q17: While most people in Canada view themselves as Canadians,
 information on their ancestral origins has been collected
 since the 1901 Census to capture the changing composition of
 Canada's diverse population. Therefore this question refers to
 the origins of the person's ancestors. To which ethnic or
 cultural group (s) did this person's ancestors belong?
 Specify as many groups as applicable (four blank spaces):
 For example, Canadian, French, English, Chinese, Italian,
 German, Scottish, Irish, Cree, Micmac, Metis, Inuit (Eskimo),
 East Indian, Ukrainian, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Filipino,
 Jewish, Greek, Jamaican, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Chilean,
 Somali, etc.

Question 17 gave the option of multiple ethnic origin responses for each respondent and each person listed within the surveyed dwelling (up to eight). The inclusion of multiple responses to the ethnic origin question yielded more challenging data to analyse for scholars, NGOs, and scientific civil servants from different government ministries. Though more complex, the 1996 and 2001 ethnic ancestry question reflected the multiethnic background of Canadian citizens more accurately (White et al. 1993). Multiple responses to the ethnic origin item allowed cultural communities, policy makers, and scholars to monitor the degree of "ethnic mixing" and exogamy that was emerging in the Canadian population (Krotki and Reid 1994). The option of indicating more than one ethnic origin was also concordant with social psychological research showing that most individuals have multiple group identities (Nagel 1994; Turner et al. 1987). Belonging to more than one cultural/ethnic ancestry has been shown to break down simplistic "us/them" categorisations within multicultural environments (Capozza and Brown 2000). The criss-crossing category memberships which characterises multiple group memberships is related to more positive intergroup contacts and the reduction of prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behaviours (Bourhis and Gagnon1994; Brewer and Gaertner 2001).

Symbolically, ethnic origin questions in the census also served to enshrine the status and importance of ethnocultural communities, other than the English and the French, as full-fledged members of Canadian society. Documenting the vitality of cultural communities through census data on ethnic origin also enshrined the potential role of such minorities in re-defining and transforming the content of Canadian national identity. Thus the ethnic origin question provided demographic data which could be used to document the emerging founding myth of an officially multicultural Canada, qualitatively "distinct" from the assimilationist "melting pot" policy adopted by the neighbours south of the border (Berry 1997, 2001; Berry and Laponce 1994; Bourhis et al. 1997).

An early critique of the multiculturalism model was levied by Quebec nationalists who asserted that the policy demoted French Canadians to the status of any other ethnocultural minority of recent immigrant background (Rocher 1973). Quebec nationalists depicted the Multiculturalism policy as another example of how Anglo-Canada refused to recognise French Canadians on an equal footing with the English of Canada. The Multiculturalism policy asserted that in Canada "although there are two official languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other." Indeed the adoption of the Multiculturalism policy announced the political demise of the concept of Canada's "two founding people" (Bourhis 1994b).

Not surprisingly, another critique of the Multiculturalism policy emerged from the more traditional Anglo-British sectors of Canadian society whose status as a "founding people" was also challenged by the Multiculturalism policy (Driedger 1996). The policy represented a shift from the long established anglo-conformity policy of assimilation toward the British cultural symbols of the nine English majority provinces of Canada (Fleras and Elliot 1992, 1999). It challenged the dominance of anglo-conformity reified as the common, super-ordinate "Canadian identity" shared by all Canadians regardless of ethnic, linguistic, or religious background (Breton 1988). Without a common unifying core defining what is a "Canadian," how could immigrants and ethnocultural communities develop a sense of "belonging" and "loyalty" to their new country of settlement? By officially recognising the distinctiveness of all ethnic communities, the Multiculturalism policy was seen by many "old-stock" English Canadians as fundamentally divisive for Canadian identity (Bibby 1990).

The ethnic origin question of the 1991 census was criticised by old-stock English-Canadians for excluding from its broad range of examples the very label most likely to unite all citizens: Canadian. Right up to census day on June 4th 1991, the Toronto Sun ran a "Count-Me-Canadian" campaign that urged citizens to state Canadian as a response to the ethnic origin question of the census (Boyd 1999). Results of the 1991 census showed that as many as 4% of respondents spontaneously indicated Canadian as their ancestry on the ethnic origin question. Boyd (1996) referred to this Canadian origin result as a "dormant response waiting to be invoked," especially for British-ancestry respondents characterised by centuries of residency in Canada. In addition to crediting the Count-Me-Canadian campaign for the 1991 census results, Boyd (1999) proposed that "increasing levels of immigration, changed source countries, and the strengthening of neo-liberal ideologies may have set the stage for an upsurge in "Canadian" responses, particularly in certain geographical areas" (p. 7). Thus, Anglo-British ambivalence toward two decades of government-sponsored changes in both immigration and integration (Multiculturalism) policies had some impact on ethnic origin responses in the 1991 census.

Given the popularity of the Canadian label provided by Anglo-British respondents in the 1991 census, Statistics Canada included the Canadian label as the fifth pre-coded example for the ethnic origin question in the 1996 Census. To this day, the order of ethnic ancestry examples provided on the ethnic origin question is based on the most frequently reported ethnic origins obtained in the previous census. Following the high rate of endorsement of the Canadian label obtained in the 1996 census (38%; Boyd 1999), Canadian was provided as the first example of the ethnic origin question in the 2001 census (Canadian in the English-language census, Canadien in the French-language census).

The growing awareness of the social and economic plight of Canada' s Aboriginal people and the rising militancy of "First Nations" activists further contributed to the demise of the "two founding people" view of Canadian national identity (Frideres and Gadacz 2001). Rising interest in the fate of Canada's North American Indians, Metis, and Inuits was reflected in the increasing number of census questions used to monitor Canada's Aboriginal people. By the 2001 census, three questions were designed to monitor the demographic fate of Canada' s Aboriginal peoples (Q18, 20, 21). These questions were the following:

 Q18. Is this person an Aboriginal person, that is, North American
 Indian, Metis or Inuit (Eskimo)? If yes mark 'X' in the circle
 that best describes this person now.

 No, Yes: [ ] North American Indian,--Metis,
 Inuit (Eskimo).

 Q20. Is this person a member of an Indian Band/First Nation?

 No, Yes: [ ] member of an Indian Band/First Nation.
 Specify Indian Band/First Nation (for example, Musqueam)
 (one blank space).

 Q21. Is this person a Treaty Indian or a Registered Indian as
 defined by the Indian Act of Canada?

 No, Yes: [ ]Treaty Indian or Registered Indian.

These three questions are considered by the concerned communities as especially useful for monitoring the presence and status of Aboriginals who inhabit reserves across Canada (Frideres and Gadacz 2001). As regards the ethnic origin question, examples of a person's ancestry included Native Indian in the 1951 census. Native Indian Band and Native Indian Non-Band were the labels offered in the 1971 census, and more specific labels such as Inuit, Status, or Registered Indian, Non-status Indian, and Metis were provided in the 1981 Census. In the 1991 census, the ethnic origin question included the pre-coded labels of North American Indian, Metis, and Inuit/Metis. By the 1996 and 2001 censuses the examples provided for the ethnic origin question (Q 17) included: Cree, Micmac, Metis, and Inuit (Eskimo). The ethnic origin questions included in the 1996 and 2001 census are considered crucial for monitoring the demographic reality of Aboriginal populations who are not residing on reserves, or are no longer Treaty Indians or members of an Indian band. Taken together, questions 17, 18, 20, and 21 of the 2001 census are considered by many Aboriginal communities as complementary items necessary to monitor the fate of all Aboriginals across Canada, on or off reserves. It remains that for historical and political reasons, a proportion of Aboriginals on certain reserves refuse to complete the Canadian census.

With a less restrictive immigration policy adopted from the early 1970s on (Knowles 1997), the increasing presence of visible minorities made the issue of racism and discrimination more salient in Canada. By the mid 1990s, concerned government departments, NGOs, and visible minorities themselves felt that the ethnic origin question was no longer sufficient to properly track the presence of visible minorities in Canadian society, let alone provide the necessary baseline data needed to monitor patterns of inequality in employment, housing, and the justice system. Consequently, the 1996 and 2001 Canadian censuses added a new "visible minority" question that was presented with the following preamble, inviting respondents to choose one or more pre-coded labels which best represented their category membership and/or add a category membership of their choice in the single blank space provided:

 Q19: This information is collected to support programs that
 promote equal opportunity for everyone to share in the
 social, cultural and economic life of Canada.
 Is this person: Mark "X" more than once or specify, if
 applicable: White, Chinese, South Asian (e.g. East Indian,
 Pakistani, Sri Lankan, etc.), Black, Filipino, Latin
 American, Southeast Asian (e.g. Cambodian, Indonesian,
 Laotian, Vietnamese, etc.), Arab, West Asian (e.g. Afghan,
 Iranian, etc.), Japanese, Korean, Other-Specify (one blank
 space).

For many concerned citizens, the visible minority question in the 1996 and 2001 censuses empowered visible minorities with the baseline data needed to document patterns of inequality and discrimination in Canadian society (Fleras and Elliot 1999). While the ethnic origin question (Q17) documented the ethnic ancestry of Canadians, the visible minority question (Q19) provided respondents with the opportunity to categorise themselves and others within their dwelling as having a background which did not necessarily coincide with the details of their ethnic origin. Though the Canadian parliament insisted on keeping both questions in the 2001 census, some scientific civil servants in Statistics Canada preferred to drop the ethnic origin question (Q17) altogether. In contrast, scientific civil servants in the Department of Canadian Heritage preferred the ethnic origin question (Q17) because it referred to ethnic ancestry rather than to the less acceptable, pre-coded "racial" categories contained in the visible minority question (Q 19). Furthermore, Canadian Heritage did not feel that Q 19 adequately replaced Q17 because the visible minority question made it impossible to track third generation Whites of various ethnic ancestries (e.g. Italian, Greek, German, Jewish, Polish, Ukrainian, Lebanese, Chilean).

Thus both the ethnic origin and visible minority questions became crucial not only to describe the multicultural complexity of the Canadian population but also to set the baseline data needed to establish "employment equity programs" and anti-discrimination measures in housing, education, the police, and the judiciary (Fleras and Elliott 1999). Visible minorities, NGOs, and public policy makers could use this combined census data as evidence justifying measures to redress inequities based on ethnic and national origin. Census data was used to establish targets for "employment equity programs" in both the government administration and in the private sectors of the economy (CHRC 1997; CDPDJ 1998). Census data on ethnic origin and visible minority background was also used to fine tune integration policies while providing up-to-date portraits of ethnic diversity in Canada. Given the availability of extensive census data on ethnic diversity, racist ideologues were hard put to falsify or misrepresent basic demographic information concerning the ethnic, racial, linguistic, or religious composition of the Canadian population.

THE DEBATE TO EXCLUDE "ETHNIC ORIGIN" AND "VISIBLE MINORITY" QUESTIONS FROM THE CENSUS

The use of ethnic origin and visible minority questions in the national census can be criticised on a number of methodological and political grounds. The first type of argument, more common in Europe for historical reasons, is that any census questions providing ethnic, "racial," religious, or linguistic background empower the state with information about its citizens which can then be used by government or private institutions to discriminate or exclude certain categories of individuals from civil society. The painful memories of facism in Europe are a reminder that such information can be used to organise the segregation, exclusion, ethnic cleansing, or extermination of entire categories of people (e.g., Goldhagen 1997).

More fundamentally, there remains the fact that racial categories make no sense because, from as early as the 1940s, genetic research confirmed that there was no biological foundation for the concept of "race" (UNESCO 1951). For instance, research conducted by the Harvard University geneticist Richard Lewontin clearly showed there were no genes unique to a race. Since most of the diversity between human beings already exist WITHIN the so-called races, categories such as "White" and "Black" are nonsense as a basis for generalisations regarding the attributes and behaviours of individuals (Gould 1996). Social scientists agree that race is a "social representation" of social groups which has often been used as a pillar of racist ideologies legitimising the exploitation of dominant groups over subordinated minorities (Brown 1995; Taguieff 1987; Wieviorka 1991,1998).

Taking heed of the biological evidence against the concept of race, the ethnic origin question in the Canadian census stopped using the term "racial origin" from the 1951 census on. The term "origin" was used to monitor the ancestry of individuals in the 1951 census. From the 1961 census on, the ethnic origin question used the terms "To what ethnic or cultural group did you or your ancestors belong ...". As such, the ethnic origin question (Q17) is less likely to be seen as a racial question than the visible minority question introduced in the 1996 and 2001 censuses. Consequently, the inclusion of categories such as Black or White as pre-coded options in the visible minority question (Q19) of the census was criticised as legitimising the use of biologically false representations of humanity. Indeed, Professor Webster, author of The Racialization of America, opposed the inclusion of race options such as Black and White in the proposed visible minority question of the 1996 Canadian Census. He characterised the inclusion of such a question as "an act of promiscuous stupidity." He further commented as follows:

 Politicians are simply putting into law the racial concepts
 developed by 18th and 19th century racial theorists. The Canadian
 government clearly does not realize that when they put race in
 policy, they are helping' to create the race consciousness that is
 the bane of American society. They are putting the stamp of
 officialdom on race consciousness. Canada will pay a heavy price
 down the road.

 The Globe and Mail, October 21, 1995, p. D8

In France, the argument against including questions about ethnic origin in the census or even as a variable in sociological studies was vehemently criticised for similar reasons. The enduring Republican founding myth maintains that all individuals of the state share an equal citizenship along with their knowledge of the French language and culture as taught in the educational system (Jennings 2000). Therefore it is deemed superfluous to ask questions about other languages, other cultures, or ethnic background in the French census. Once a French citizen, individuals are equal before the law and are equally entitled to social benefits granted by the state regardless of ethnic origin, cultural background, or religious affiliation. Special provisions on the basis of ethnic, cultural, or religious background contradict this fundamental Republican ideal. Thus the inclusion of ethnic origin questions in the French census borders on the seditious and remains a highly controversial issue.

The debate on the use of ethnic origin data to conduct sociological studies of immigration and integration reached prominence in the French press, including in Le Monde. One can appreciate the vehemence of the French debate in the following extracts of a Le Monde article which appeared on November 6, 1998. Here is a translation of parts of that article:

 The demographer Herve Le Bras of the Institut national d' etudes
 demographique (INED) accuses l'INED of playing into the hands of
 the right wing "Front National" by mentioning the ethnic background
 of respondents in their recent studies. More specifically, the
 demographer accused a prominent expert on immigration in France,
 Michele Tribalat, of using ethnic background data in her research on
 immigrant integration. Michele Tribalat, also of l'INED, used mother
 tongue and the country of birth of parents to categorise her
 respondents by ethnic background. p.8

One must now quote the Le Monde article in French to do justice to the virulence of the debate in Paris:

 Pour Herve Le Bras, ... Michele Tribalat aurait ce faisant remis
 en question le module republicain qui considere la nationalite comme
 l'unique critere acceptable. Cette dtmarche irait selon lui au
 devant des prejuges raciaux et porterait en germe le risque d'une
 derive xenophobe. Elle aboutirait la denaturalisation- au moins
 theoriquede francais dont les origines ne devraient pas, pour lui,
 faire l'objet d'etudes an niveau national. p. 8

For Le Bras, sociological studies, let alone the census, must not use items on ethnic origin because such labelling contradicts a fundamental premise of the French Republic stating that all individuals belong to a single national category, namely "French citizens." Categorising individuals by their ethnic background is fundamentally divisive for society and may foster racial prejudice and xenophobia.

Michele Tribalat replies that only data of the type she collected on ethnic background can begin to refute racist ideas about the integration process of disparaged groups such as French citizens of North African ancestry. In the same Le Monde article her position is summarised as follows:

 Michele Tribalat lui retorque que le seul critere de la nationalite
 ne permet pas d'analyser les phenomenes de discrimination et de
 racisme puisque de nombreux Francais, comme les beta's, restent
 malgre leur carte d'identite, consideres comme des etrangers par
 tree large partie de l'opinion. Darts un ouvrage cosigne avec
 Pierre-Andre Taguieff, elle defend ainsi l' utilite de cette
 categorie et assure qu'il s' agit d'une question de vocabulaire,
 et non d'ideologie. "C'est un probleme de denomination. La seule
 question est de savoir si cette categorie est utile. Jedisoui, s'
 ils' agit de montrer que la France est riche de l'apport des
 immigres. p. 8

One can appreciate the complexity of the issues raised in France by consulting recent publications written by various protagonists on different sides of the debate (Le Bras 1997; Tribalat 1995; Taguieff and Tribalat 1998). The implications of the debate remain quite pertinent given the April 2002 presidential election results (first round) in which Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the xenophobic, extreme-fight-wing "Front National," obtained second place in the election with 16.9% of the national vote. Jean-Marie Le Pen was thus the official presidential contender facing the rightwing candidate, Jacques Chirac, in the second round of the elections in May, 2002.

The census in France (bulletin individuel) has never included questions on ethnic origin thus respecting the traditional Republican policy of excluding such questions from the census. Can the absence of questions on ethnic origin in the census spare France from racism and discrimination in employment, housing, policing, and the educational system? As in other European countries (Pettigrew 1998), both institational and individual discrimination against ethnic minorities exists in France (Bataille 1997; Blier and De Royer 2001, CNDH 2000, Wieviorka 1992). The absence of any question on ethnic background in the French census probably has little impact on the expression of racism in France. It is difficult to believe that the absence of census questions on ethnic origin can play an important role in reducing or eliminating the expression of racist attitudes or discriminatory behaviours in a given society, let alone limit the growth of a racist party such as the Front National in France. Conversely, the sustained presence of census questions on ethnic origin in Canada for over one hundred years is probably not strongly related to the enduring expressions of racists attitudes and discriminatory behaviours in that society (Fleras and Elliot 1999).

Historical, economic, political, mass media, educational, parental, and peer influence all play a role in accentuating or attenuating expressions of prejudice and discrimination by individuals, groups, and institutions in a given society (Bourhis and Leyens 1999; Brown and Gaertner 2001 ; Wieviorka 1998). State immigration and integration policies also play a role in fostering tolerant or intolerant host majority attitudes toward "valued" and "devalued" immigrants, as was recently shown in the social psychological literature (Berry and Kalin 1995; Bourhis et al. 1997; Montreuil and Bourhis 2001, Personnaz et al. 2002). Census questions constitute only one instance of state intervention in the public arena that, combined with the other factors mentioned above, contribute to the intergroup climate of tolerance or intolerance toward immigrants and ethnocultural minorities in a given multicultural society (Berry 1997, 2001; Kimlicka 1995).

Thus, it is difficult to expect that the inclusion of questions about ethnic origin or visible minority in a census can be clearly associated with important costs to society in terms of increases in the expression of racism, discrimination, and exclusion. What one does with the results of ethnic origin questions seems more important than the actual presence or absence of such questions in a census. For instance, the inclusion of census questions on ethnic origin can benefit the victims of racism and discrimination, especially if such information is used to establish "base rate" information to combat discriminatory practices and establish employment equity programs for stigmatised and powerless minorities in a particular society. In this regard it is worth citing the point made by Professor Lewontin, the geneticist and evolutionary biologist at Harvard, as he commented on the Canadian debate concerning the inclusion of the visible minority question in the 1996 census. He stated the following:

 Race is a real social phenomenon. If the state has a duty to
 intervene to protect powerless peoples, then it has to intervene at
 the level of racial classification. I don't oppose a race question
 on the census because the state can't fulfill its obligation to
 help if it doesn't have data. Will that further entrench racial
 thinking? Yes, that is a disadvantage of government intervention.
 But what are the disadvantages of not intervening? Much greater
 damage is done to powerless people by ignoring racial categories.

 The Globe and Mail, October 21, 1995, p. D8

Focusing more specifically on the case of including visible minority questions in the Canadian census, we can cite the anthropologist, Parin Dossa, at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. She concludes as follows: "Being included in the census provides minorities an opportunity to engage in the struggle for equality. I don't think we can move away from categorisation given that race is a deeply entrenched phenomenon" (The Globe and Mail 1995:D8).

From a social psychological perspective, it is clear that human beings use social categorisation to label both their physical and social environment (Corneille and Leyens 1999). Humans do so because the categorisation process is heuristic and economical for individual and group interaction (Tajfel 1981). The categorisation process is not only applied to inanimate objects, concepts, and the animal kingdom; it is also applied to human groups based on social categories such as sex, age, occupational status, physical attractiveness, ethnicity, linguistic background, political affiliation, etc. However, the pertinence and salience of each of these labels for ordering the social environment varies from one situation to another and from one national context to the other (Oakes, Haslam and Turner 1994). The categorisation process is indeed a necessary condition for prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination, but it is not a sufficient condition for triggering such phenomena (Capozza and Brown 2000; Oakes 2001). Other psychological processes such as realistic conflict of interest, social identification, and social comparison processes are each involved along with sociological, economic, and historical conditions which, when combined, best account for prejudice and discrimination (Bourhis and Leyens 1999; Brown and Gaertner 2001; Horowitz 1985).

The point remains that the use of ethnic origin questions in a census does not create new social categories and at most enshrines existing ones already deemed important within a given social or national context. So many institutions, political parties, and individuals use such social categories that the use of ethnic origin questions in a census is unlikely to create a new ethnic or religious category upon which to base prejudice and discrimination. As mentioned, what remains important is how social categories are used by individuals, political parties, and states to stigmatise or glorify particular individuals and groups on the basis of their membership category. In France, it is clear that the Socialist Party and the Front National would use information on ethnic origin gathered in the census in very different ways. Each would use the information to construct and legitimise very different types of policies to deal with social inequality, immigration, and integration issues. However, it is clear that the xenophobic Front National did not need accurate data on ethnic origin from the French census to increase its vote in the presidential elections from 14% in 1988 to 20% in 2002 (Front National and Movement National Republicain; Le Monde 23 April, 2002, p. 4).

TRACKING FEATURES OF ETHNIC DIVERSITY BASED ON THE CANADIAN CENSUS

Changes in the Ethnic Composition of Canada

Census data gathered from the nineteenth century to the present provides an interesting portrait of changes which occurred in the ethnic composition of the Canadian population. Though not without its problems, Figure 1 summarizes ethnic origin data obtained in the Canadian census from 1871 to 2001 expressed in percentage scores. Note that the proportion of Canadians who declared British as one of their ethnic ancestries declined from 61% in 1871, to 29% in 1991, and then to 20% in the 2001 census. The percentage of the population who reported they had French ancestry dropped from 31% in 1871, to 23% in 1991, and then to 16% in 2001. The drop in the proportion of respondents who declared either British or French ancestry between 1991 and 2001 was mainly due to the fact that close to eleven million respondents (38%) reported Canadian or Canadien as one of their ethnic ancestries in the 2001 census. The percentage of citizens who declared at least one ethnic origin other than British or French rose from only 8% in 1871 to as many as 48% in the 2001 census (combining single and multiple origin responses). Finally it is noteworthy that the proportion of citizens who declared Aboriginal as a single or multiple origin rose from 2% of the population in 1981 to as many as 4.5% of the population in the 2001 census.

The increase in ethnic diversity obtained from the 1971 census on reflects changes in immigration policy that until the late 1960s had favoured mainly white immigrants from Northern Europe (Knowles 1997). As can be seen in Figure 1, Canada as a whole became a country with no ethnically defined "majority" by the 1991 and 2001 census. The multiethnic composition of the Canadian population was most evident in the 2001 census with over fourteen million people (48%) reporting dual or multiple ethnic origins as their ancestral background.

Though Canada prides itself as a country of immigrants, it was also clear that the Canadian label was becoming more popular as an ethnic origin response by the 1991 census. As we saw earlier, a number of public policy, social, and political factors help account for the rise in its popularity as a response to the ethnic origin question of the census (Boyd 1996, 1999). While 4% of the population spontaneously reported Canadian as a single or multiple ancestry response in the 1991 census when this label was not included as an example in the ethnic origin question, as many as 38% of the population reported it in the 2001 census when Canadian was included as the first example in the ethnic origin question. For the purpose of the following discussion, the term Canadian combines respondents who reported Canadian in the English version of the census with those who reported Canadien in the French version of the census. In their recent analysis of the 1996 census, Boyd and Norris (2001) showed that, of those who reported Canadian as a single or multiple response to the ethnic origin question in the 1996 census, 38% were from Quebec, 31% from Ontario, and 9% were from British Columbia, while the frequency of this response in the other provinces ranged from only 4% to less than 1%. Most significantly, it was old-stock Canadians whose ancestry was British or French who were most likely to adopt Canadian as one of their ethnic origin responses in the 1996 census. In contrast, only 1% of first generation immigrants and 2% of visible minority respondents reported Canadian as one of their ethnic origins. Of the respondents who chose Canadian as one of their ethnic ancestries in 1996, 48% reported English as a mother tongue, thus providing evidence that the label Canadian still carries an old-stock Anglo-British identity as one of its value connotations (Boyd and Norris 2001). The Canadien label provided in the French version of the census also carries an old-stock French-Canadian connotation, as is evident from the fact that as many as 52% of respondents who used this label as one of their ancestral backgrounds also reported French as their mother tongue (Boyd 1999). Thus, British and French origin respondents who could trace their ancestry in Canada for many generations may be those who felt most comfortable in reporting Canadian or Canadien as their ethnic background (Boyd 1999; Boyd and Norris 2001). From a pan-Canadian, nation building perspective, some politicians and policy makers are hopeful that a growing proportion of both old-stock and new generation Canadian citizens will adopt Canadian or Canadien as one of their ethnic origin labels in the next census.

ETHNIC ORIGIN RESPONSES IN QUEBEC BASED ON THE 2001 CENSUS

The national identity issues raised by the Boyd and Norris (2001) analysis of the Canadian response in the 1996 census are worth exploring further from a "Quebecois" national identity perspective using features of the 2001 census. We will focus on five ethnic origin labels which evoke different aspects of ethnic ancestry in the Province of Quebec where the sovereignty movement remains pertinent as a political force. Recall that Canadian citizens have the right to complete the census in the official language of their choice, namely the English or the French version of the census. The French version of the census is more likely to be chosen by francophone citizens who are concentrated in the "bilingual belt" of Canada, the sociolinguistic boundaries of which range from Eastern Ontario, through Quebec, to northern and eastern New Brunswick.

Based on question 17 of the 2001 census, Table 1 offers a preliminary analysis of five ethnic origins reported in the Province of Quebec. The most frequently reported ethnic ancestry obtained in the Province of Quebec was the Canadien item, reported by over four million respondents representing 57% of the provincial population. Recall that in the French version of the census, the first example of ethnic ancestry listed in Q17 was Canadien. Of those who reported Canadian, 80% used this label as a single response (3,259,240 respondents). Of the 20% of respondents who used Canadien as a multiple response, 70% reported French as an ethnic label, 14% reported English, and 16% reported combinations of other origins. As noted in analyses of previous census results, Table 1 shows that very few first and second generation citizens reported Canadien as an ethnic ancestry label in the 2001 census.

As seen in Table 1, the second most frequently reported ethnic label was Francais, chosen by over 1.5 million respondents representing 22% of the Quebec population (1,581,930). Note that in the French version of the census, the second example listed in Q17 was the label Francais. Of those who chose this label, 43% used it as a single response to characterise their cultural ancestry (672,070 respondents). Of the 57% of respondents who used this label as one of their multiple origins (909,860), 23% reported they also had English background, 19% reported other ethnic origins, and as many as 79% reported Canadien as another ancestry (multiple origin can be double counted yielding a total greater than 100%). As in the case of Canadien, very few first and second generation citizens reported the Francais label as one of their ethnic background responses. These patterns suggest that the label, Francais, remains closely linked to the traditional French-Canadian category making up Canada's "two founding peoples."

The third most frequently endorsed ethnic origin obtained in Quebec was Canadien Francais, reported by 533,540 respondents representing 7.5% of the Quebec population. Note that this compound name was not provided as an example of an ethnic ancestry label in Q17. However, respondents chose to write Canadien Francais as a single label on one of the four blank spaces provided for the ethnic origin question of the census. Interestingly, 95 % of the respondents who reported it used this label as a single response. As expected, very few first and second generation citizens used it as a single or multiple response of their cultural ancestry.

Though the more current and nationalistic label, Quebecois, was not included as an example in the ethnic origin question, 94,933 citizens volunteered this label as their ancestry, representing 1.3% of the Quebec population. Of those who used the label, 68% reported this label as a single response. Of the 32% of respondents who reported Quebecois as a multiple response, 62% also used Francais as an ethnic label, 12% used anglais, and 27% reported other ethnic labels. Could a campaign for using Quebecois as an ethnic origin response emerge in Quebec, as was the case in English Canada for the Canadian label at the time of the 1991 census? Such a campaign may be more likely to emerge if the census is conducted by a department of the Quebec government rather than by a department of the federal government. It remains that inclusion of Quebecois as an example of ethnic ancestry would likely increase the use of this label as an ethnic origin response in a future census. However, with only 1.3% of the Quebec population spontaneously reporting Quebecois as an ethnic origin response in the 2001 census, it is not clear that this label could be included in the list of examples provided for the ethnic origin question in the next census.

Though the ethnic origin question should be answered as an ethnic/cultural ancestry item, peoples' recollection and construction of their cultural background remain somewhat subjective and can be related to self-categorisation and social identification processes (Capozza and Brown 2000; Corneille and Leyens 1999; Nagel 1994; Tajfel and Turner 1986). Considering these social psychological processes, we can propose that Canadien, Francais, Canadien Francais, and Quebecois represent an historical and ideological continuum of collective self definitions, especially for French mother tongue speakers of Quebec. Together, these ethnic labels of collective ancestry remain important elements of a core French national identity which remains somewhat homogeneous ethnically within Quebec, while also being distinct from the Canadian mainstream in the "rest of Canada."

The Canadian label provided in the English version of the census was reported by 308,620 respondents representing 4.3% of the Quebec population. Of those who reported this label, only 50% used it as a single ancestry item. Of the 50% who used it as a multiple response, 31% reported French as one of their ethnic ancestries, 40% declared English as their origin, and 29% reported a combination of other ethnic labels. These results suggest that respondents completing the English version of the census who reported Canadian as one of their cultural origins tended to have relatively mixed ethnocultural ancestries.

Figure 2 provides ethnic origin results symbolising four nation building ancestries reported as single responses within Quebec compared to similar responses obtained in the rest of Canada (outside Quebec). The four labels of interest are Canadian Francais, Canadien, Francais, and Canadian. As seen earlier in Table 1, as many as 95 % of respondents in Quebec who volunteered Canadian Francais as their ancestry did so as a single origin response. However, outside of Quebec, only 53% of respondents who declared Canadien Francais as their ancestry did so as a single response. Figure 2 also shows that 80% of the Quebec respondents who declared Canadien as their ancestry did so as a single origin response. In the rest of Canada, only 63% of the respondents who chose Canadien on the French version of the census did so as a single origin response. Figure 2 also shows that 43% of the respondents who reported Francais as their ethnic origin did so as a single response. However, outside Quebec, only 16% of respondents who reported Francais as their ethnic origin did so as a single response. These patterns suggest that respondents living outside of Quebec who report Canadien Francais, Canadien, or Francais as part of their ancestry have a more varied cultural ancestry than equivalent respondents who still live in Quebec. These results suggest that current and past exogamic unions are more sustained for French-Canadians living outside of Quebec than for those still living within the province. Exogamic unions are more probable for French-Canadians living outside Quebec given their dispersion as a linguistic minority across the nine Anglophone majority provinces of Canada.

As seen in Figure 2, respondents who chose Canadien as their ancestry on the English version of the census were as likely to do so as a single origin item whether they resided in Quebec (50%) or in the rest of Canada (50%). Conversely, 50% of English speakers who chose Canadian as their cultural origin were also likely to report multiple ethnic memberships as part of their ancestry, and this whether they resided in Quebec or in the rest of Canada. Thus even respondents who declare Canadien as a single origin are likely to have a more diverse ethnic ancestry through current or past exogamic unions, thus reflecting more permeable ethnocultural boundaries than is the case for mainly French-speaking respondents whose declared ancestry was Canadien Francais, Canadien, or Francais.

CONCLUDING NOTE

Though not without their methodological and ethical problems (White et al. 1993), census questions on ethnic origin, visible minority, language, and religious background have a continuing role to play in describing the changing landscape of ethnocultural and linguistic diversity in Canada. As we have seen in the case of the Canadian, Canadien, French Canadian, and Quebecois labels, ethnic origin responses can also reflect shifting representations of national identity and as such can be used as markers of nation building efforts. Though not systematically addressed in this paper, aboriginal, ethnic origin, and visible minority questions also play a crucial role in documenting the systemic patterns of economic and social inequality which still plagues members of "less valued" communities in Canada. As such, the current version of the Canadian census remains a key tool necessary for the achievement of social justice for all citizens regardless of their membership category.

Figure 1 Ethnic Origin as a Percentage (%) of the Canadian
Population: Census Data from 1871-2001

 1871 1901 1921 1941 1961
Aboriginals (1)
British (2) 61 57 55 50 44
French (3) 31 31 28 30 30
Other ethnic origin (4) 8 12 17 20 26
Canadian (5)

 1971 1981 1991 2001

Aboriginals (1) 2 4 4.5
British (2) 45 40 29 20
French (3) 29 27 23 16
Other ethnic origin (4) 26 33 48 48
Canadian (5) 0.5 4 38

* Given that many respondents reported multiple ethnic ancestries, the
total percentage is greater than 100%. Labels used to define 'ethnic
origin' have varied during the last century. The ethnic origin
definitions reflect more recent
developments in the census including multiple ethnic ancestry.

(1) reported Aboriginal origins; (2)British only response and mixed
British and French, and other ancestry. (3)
French only and mixed French and British origin/ancestry; (4) All
other ethnic ancestry including mixed with British and French
ancestry; (5) Canadian only response and Canadian mixed with
British, French, and other ancestry.


Figure 2

Percentage of Single vs Total * Origin for Respondents who Declared
'French Canadian,' 'Canadien,' 'Francais,' and 'Canadian' Ancestral
Origins in Quebec Compared to Outside Quebec

95% "Canadien Francais" single origin in Quebec N = 505,935
53% "Canadien Francais" single origin outside Quebec N = 63,335
80% "Canadien" single origin in Quebec N = 3,259,240
63% "Canadien" single origin outside Quebec N = 141,765
43% "Francais" single origin in Quebec N = 672,070
16% "Francais" single origin outside Quebec N = 388,685
50% "Canadian" single origin in Quebec N = 154,230
50% "Canadian" single origin outside Quebec N = 3,231,915

Note: table made from bar graph.


Table 1
Selected Ancestral Single Origins and Multiple Ethnic Origins in
Quebec: Canadian Census, 2001

Q17. To which ethnic or 1st 2nd
cultural group(s) did this generation (a) generation (b)
person's ancestors belong? respondents respondents

57% "Canadien" (1) + multiple 10,505 7060
response "Canadien" single 4,670 4270
response

22% "Francais" (1) + multiple 62,260 11,715
response "Francais" single 42,700 5,380
response

7.5% "Canadien francais" (1) 1,240 630
multiple responses "Canadien 880 480
francais" single response

1.3% "Quebecois" (2) multiple 390 195
response "Quebecois" single 145 105
response

4.3% "Canadian" (3) multiple 7,725 7715
response "Canadian" single 1,855 3135
response

Q17. To which ethnic or 2.5 3rd
cultural group(s) did this generation generation (d)
person's ancestors belong? respondents respondents

57% "Canadien" (1) + multiple 69,325 3,198,045
response "Canadien" single 32,810 2,613,530
response

22% "Francais" (1) + multiple 44,875 1,191,855
response "Francais" single 11,745 532,005
response

7.5% "Canadien francais" (1) 9,630 448,925
multiple responses "Canadien 6460 433,265
francais" single response

1.3% "Quebecois" (2) multiple 2,335 79,965
response "Quebecois" single 720 51,595
response

4.3% "Canadian" (3) multiple 24,745 193,025
response "Canadian" single 5,955 106,315
response

Q17. To which ethnic or All Multiple Response
cultural group(s) did this generations Made up of--in %
person's ancestors belong? respondents French

57% "Canadien" (1) + multiple 4,061,675 70%
response "Canadien" single 3,259,240
response (80%)

22% "Francais" (1) + multiple 1,581,930 79%
response "Francais" single 672,070
response (43%)

7.5% "Canadien francais" (1) 533,540 14%
multiple responses "Canadien 505,935
francais" single response (95%)

1.3% "Quebecois" (2) multiple 94,935 62%
response "Quebecois" single 64,225
response (68%)

4.3% "Canadian" (3) multiple 308,620 31%
response "Canadian" single 154,230
response

Q17. To which ethnic or Multiple Response Multiple Response
cultural group(s) did this Made up of--in % Made up of--in %
person's ancestors belong? English Other

57% "Canadien" (1) + multiple 14% 16%
response "Canadien" single
response

22% "Francais" (1) + multiple 23% 19%
response "Francais" single
response

7.5% "Canadien francais" (1) 40% 46%
multiple responses "Canadien
francais" single response

1.3% "Quebecois" (2) multiple 12% 27%
response "Quebecois" single
response

4.3% "Canadian" (3) multiple 40% 29%
response "Canadian" single
response

(1.) Canadien and Francais were included as the first two pre-coded
labels of the French version of the 2001 census.
However, Canadien Francais was volunteered by respondents as a
compound-word, self-categorisation label of ancestry.

(2.) Quebecois was not included as a pre-coded label, however it was
volunteered by respondents.

(3.) Canadian was provided as the first pre-coded example of
ethnic/cultural ancestry in the English version of the 2001 census.

a. Respondents who were not born in Canada.

b. Respondents who were born in Canada and whose parents were born
outside Canada.

c. Respondents born in Canada with one parent born outside Canada.

d. Respondents born in Canada whose parents were also born in Canada.

REFERENCES

Bataille, P. (1997). Le racisme au travail. Paris: La Decouverte.

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5-34.

Berry, J. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615-631.

Berry, J. W. and Laponce, J. A. (eds.). (1994). Ethnicity and culture in Canada: The research landscape. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Berry, J. W. and Kalin, R. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: Overview of the 1991 survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 27, 301-320.

Bibby, R. W. (1990). Mosaic madness. The potential and poverty of Canadian life. Toronto: Stoddart.

Blier, J. M. and de Royer, S. (2001). Discriminations raciales, pour en finir. Paris: Editions Jacob-Duvernet.

Bouchard, P. and Bourhis, R. Y. (eds.). (2002). L'amenagement linguistique au Quebec: 25 ans d'application de la Charte de la langue francaise. Revue d'amenagement linguistique. Quebec: Les Publications du Quebec.

Bourhis, R. Y. (1984). Conflict and language planning in Quebec. Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Bourhis, R. Y. (1994a). Introduction and overview of language events in Canada. In R. Y. Bourhis (ed.) Thematic issue of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 105-106, 5-36.

Bourhis, R. Y. (1994b). Ethnic and language attitudes in Quebec. In J. W. Berry and J. Laponce (eds.) Ethnicity and culture in Canada: The research landscape. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 322-360.

Bourhis, R. Y. (2001 a). Reversing language shift in Quebec. In J. A. Fishman (ed.) Reversing language shift: Can threatened languages be saved? Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 101-141.

Bourhis, R. Y. (2001b). Acculturation, language maintenance, and language shift. In J. Klatter-Folmer and P. van Avermaet (eds.) Theories on maintenance and loss of minority languages: Towards a more integrated explanatory framework. New York: Waxmann Verlag, pp. 4-37.

Bourhis, R. Y. and Gagnon, A. (1994). Prejuges, discrimination et relations intergroupes. In R. J. Vallerand (ed.) Lesfondements de la psychologic sociale. Boucherville, QC: Gaetan Morin, pp. 707-773.

Bourhis, R. Y. and Leyens, J. P. (eds.). (1999). Stereotypes, discrimination et relations intergroupes. Spirmont, Belgique: Mardaga.

Bourhis, R. Y. and Marshall, D. (1999). The United States and Canada. In J. A. Fishman (ed.) Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 244-264.

Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, C. L., Perreault, S. and Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369-386.

Boyd, M. (1996). Constructing ethnic responses: Socioeconomic and media effects. Working Paper Series 96-133. Tallahassee, FL: Center for the Study of Population, Florida State University.

Boyd, M. (1999). Canadian, eh? Ethnic origin shifts in the Canadian census. Canadian Ethnic Studies/Etudes ethniques au Canada, 31, 3, 1-19.

Boyd, M. and Norris, D. (2001). Who are the "Canadians"?: Changing census responses, 1986-1996. Canadian Ethnic Studies/Etudes ethniques au Canada, 33, 1, 1-24.

Breton, R. (1984). The production and allocation of symbolic resources: An analysis of the linguistic and ethnocultural fields in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 21, 123-140.

Breton, R. (1988). From ethnic to civic nationalism: English Canada and Quebec. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 11, 85-102.

Brewer, M. and Gaertner, S. (2001). Toward reduction of prejudice: Intergroup contact and social categorization. In R. Brown and S. Gaertner (eds.) Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 451-472.

Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Brown, R. and Gaertner, S. (2001). Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Capozza, D. and Brown, R. (2000). Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

CDPDJ (1998). Les programmes d'acces al egalite au Quebec : Maintenir les acquis, elargir le champ d'action. Montreal, QC: Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse. www.cdpdj.qc.ca

CHRC (1997). Visible minorities and the public service of Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Human Rights Commission.

CNCH (2000). La lutte contre le racisme et la xenophobie: Discrimination et droit de l'homme. Paris: Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l'Homme.

Corneille, O. and Leyens, J. P. (1999). Categories, categorisation sociale et essentialisme psychologique. In R. Y. Bourhis and J. P. Leyens (eds.) Stereotypes, discrimination et relations intergroupes. Spirmont, Belgique: Mardaga, pp. 41-68.

Driedger, L. (1996). Multi-ethnic Canada: Identities and inequalities. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Fleras, A. and Elliott, J. L. (1992). Multiculturalism in Canada: The challenge of diversity. Scarborough, ON: Nelson Canada.

Fleras, A. and Elliott, J. L. (1999). Unequal relations: An introduction to race, ethnic and Aboriginal dynamics in Canada. Scarborough, ON: Nelson Canada.

Fortier, I. (1994). Official language policies in Canada: A quiet revolution. In R. Y. Bourhis (ed.) Thematic issue of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 105-106, 69-97.

Frideres, J. and Gadacz, R. (2001). Aboriginal peoples in Canada: Contemporary conflicts, Sixth Edition. Toronto: Prentice-Hall.

Goldhagen, D. J. (1997). Hitler's willing executioners: Ordinary Germans and the holocaust. New York: Vintage.

Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.

Harwood, J., Giles, H. and Bourhis, R. Y. (1994). The genesis of vitality theory: Historical patterns and discoursal dimensions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 108, 167-206.

Horowitz, D. (1985). Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Jedwab, J. (2001). L "immigration et l'epanouissement des communautes de langue officielle au Canada: politique, demographie et identite. Ottawa: Commissariat aux langues officielles.

Jennings. (2000). Citizenship, republicanism and multiculturalism in contemporary France. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 575-598.

Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford: Clarendon.

Knowles, V. (1997). Strangers at our gates: Canadian immigration and immigration policy. Toronto: Dundurn.

Krotki, K. and Reid, C. (1994). Demography of the Canadian population by ethnic groups. In J. Berry and J. Laponce (eds.) Ethnicity and culture in Canada: The research landscape. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Le Bras, H. (1998). Le demon des origines. Paris: Edition de l'Aube.

Montreuil, A. and Bourhis, R. Y. (2001). Majority acculturation orientations toward "valued" and "devalued" immigrants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 698-719.

Nagel, J. (1994). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. Social Problems, 41, 152-176.

Oakes, P. (2001). The roots of all evil in intergroup relations? Unearthing the categorization process. In R. Brown and S. Gaertner (eds.) Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes. Oxford, UK; B lackwell, pp. 3-21.

Oakes, P., Haslam, A. and Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Personnaz, M., Bourhis, R.Y. Barrette, G. and Personnaz, B. (2002). Etudes sur les orientations d'acculturation de Maghrebins et de Francais d'origine en region parisienne. In C. Sabatier, H. Mewska and F. Tanon (eds.) Identite, acculturation et alterite. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Pettigrew, T. (1998). Reactions towards the new minorities of Western Europe. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 77-103.

Ricento, T. and Burnaby, B. (eds.). (1998). Language and politics in the United States and Canada. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rocher, G. (1973). Le Quebec en mutation. Montreal: Hurtubise, HMH.

Taguieff, P. A. (1987). La force du prejuge: Essai sur le racisme et ses doubles. Paris: La Decouverte.

Taguieff, P. A. and Tribalat, M. (1998). Face au front national: Arguments pour une contre-offensive. Paris: La Decouverte.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (eds.) Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, pp. 7-24.

Tribalat, M. (1995). Faire France. line enquete sur les immigres et leurs enfants. Paris: La Decouverte.

UNESCO (1951). Race and science. New York: Columbia University Press.

DeVries, J. (1994). Canada's official language communities: An overview of the current demolinguistic situation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 105-106, 37-68.

White, P., Badets, J. and Renaud, V. (1993). Measuring ethnicity in Canadian censuses. In G. Goldman and N. McKenny (eds.) Challenges of measuring an ethnic world: Science, politics and reality. Ottawa and Washington: Statistics Canada and the United States Bureau of the Census, pp. 223-269.

Wieviorka, M. (1991). L'espace du racisme. Pads: Edition du Seuil.

Wieviorka, M. (1992). La France raciste. Paris: Edition du Seuil.

Wieviorka, M. (1998). Le racisme, une introduction. Paris: La Decouverte/Poche.

Zanna, M. and Olson, J. (1994). The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium, Vol. 7. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Richard Y. Bourhis was educated in the French and English school system in Montreal. He is now a full professor at the Universite du Quebec h Montreal (UQAM). He has published extensively in English and French on topics such as language planning, bilingual communication, discrimination and intergroup relations, immigration, and acculturation. He has served as a consultant on language policy issues for various governments including; Canada, Quebec, and the Basque Autonomous Community and Catalonia in Spain. Dr. Bourhis was elected Fellow of the Canadian Psychological Association in 1988 and member of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology (SESP) in 1991. In 1996 he was elected Director of the Concordia-UQAM Chair in Ethnic Studies at UQAM and is also a member of the Immigration et Metropole research group at the University of Montreal.