WI: Canada adopts biculturalism instead of multiculturalism?

Due to increasing tensions between Anglophone and Francophone Canadians in the 1960s, the government of Liberal Prime Minister Lester Pearson created the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The commission concluded that Canada was a country of its 'two founding peoples,' the English and French, and called on a bilingual and bicultural approach resolving tensions in Canada. Pearson approved of the findings but stepped down as Prime Minister before the final report was released in 1969. His successor, Pierre Trudeau, approved of bilingualism and made English and French the equal and official languages of the country. However, Trudeau rejected biculturalism, and instead adopted a multicultural policy in 1971 which provided equal recognition to all ethnicities rather than prioritizing English and French rights.

For biculturalism to be adopted, you would need Pearson to stay in office and get re-elected in 1968, or you would need Trudeau to change his mind for some reason, or perhaps have the Progressive Conservatives elected in 1968. I'm not sure what the PC Leader Robert Stanfield's position was on biculturalism, but he did approve of biculturalism. Overall, how would this affect Canada's "brand" around the world? It seems to me that it wouldn't change much besides international reputation and maybe immigration rates, but what other butterflies do you think could come from it? Would this substantially change the trajectory of the Quebec sovereignty movement?
 
Would this substantially change the trajectory of the Quebec sovereignty movement?
Probably not. Quebec sovereigntists generally dislike multiculturalism, but I don't think it's ever been a major motivator for their movement. Even when they complain about non-old stock immigration to Quebec, it's usually been because they worry that Poles and Italians will educate their kids in English, or that immigrants will be more likely to support federalism(see Parizeau's infamous concession speech). Not because they see a threat from Ottawa's multiculturalism policy as applied across Canada.

Granted, Quebec does seem to be the last place in Canada where opposing turbans and headscarves is still considered a respectable political platform, but that's not likely to lead to an uptick in support for sovereignty. (This is current politics, I know, but it's hard not to mention current atitudes, since the issue is ongoing.)
 
Due to increasing tensions between Anglophone and Francophone Canadians in the 1960s, the government of Liberal Prime Minister Lester Pearson created the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The commission concluded that Canada was a country of its 'two founding peoples,' the English and French, and called on a bilingual and bicultural approach resolving tensions in Canada. Pearson approved of the findings but stepped down as Prime Minister before the final report was released in 1969. His successor, Pierre Trudeau, approved of bilingualism and made English and French the equal and official languages of the country. However, Trudeau rejected biculturalism, and instead adopted a multicultural policy in 1971 which provided equal recognition to all ethnicities rather than prioritizing English and French rights.

For biculturalism to be adopted, you would need Pearson to stay in office and get re-elected in 1968, or you would need Trudeau to change his mind for some reason, or perhaps have the Progressive Conservatives elected in 1968. I'm not sure what the PC Leader Robert Stanfield's position was on biculturalism, but he did approve of biculturalism. Overall, how would this affect Canada's "brand" around the world? It seems to me that it wouldn't change much besides international reputation and maybe immigration rates, but what other butterflies do you think could come from it? Would this substantially change the trajectory of the Quebec sovereignty movement?
Now what about triculturalism, I think the First Nations would have quite a lot to say about just prioritizing the Anglos and the French Canadians.
 
Now what about triculturalism, I think the First Nations would have quite a lot to say about just prioritizing the Anglos and the French Canadians.
Unfortunately, in the 1960s and '70s, attitudes were still racist enough to consider First Nations people as having to be paternalisticly 'looked after' rather than considered an equal founding group of Canada.
 
Canada could fill the role TTL of Australia OTL, and south africa with a few minor tweaks in the 70s/80s: the racist, frontier anglophone country that "populist" types could move to.
 
Unfortunately, in the 1960s and '70s, attitudes were still racist enough to consider First Nations people as having to be paternalisticly 'looked after' rather than considered an equal founding group of Canada.
At a time when the First Nations would be emboldened by the civil rights movement and the AIM movement.
 
At a time when the First Nations would be emboldened by the civil rights movement and the AIM movement.
Whatever lack of militancy exists among Canada's First Nations today, I don't think is attributable to the government having a multicultural policy rather than a bicultural one.
 
Top