When the “Visible Minority” Label No Longer Fits

By Neil Gonsalves | Rethinking Equity amidst Canada’s Changing Demographics

Written by Neil Gonsalves for Seeking Veritas | Sankarsingh-Gonsalves Productions

When Canadian activist Kay Livingstone first coined the phrase “visible minority” in 1975, she was naming a reality that most Canadians preferred not to see.

A phrase from another era

At that time, more than 96 per cent of Canada’s population identified as white, and many Canadians who would come to be categorized as visible minorities were systematically excluded from many professions, institutions, and communities.

The phrase “visible minority” was codified into law through the Employment Equity Act and adopted by Statistics Canada in 1986. It was meant as a corrective to ensure that groups who were visibly underrepresented in the workforce received a fair chance.

But the demographics that once justified the label have changed dramatically. Today, the term risks obscuring more than it clarifies.

A demographic reversal underway

According to Statistics Canada’s 2021 Census, nearly 26.5 per cent of Canadians identified as belonging to a visible minority group, up from 4.7 per cent in 1981. By 2041, that share is projected to reach 38 to 43 per cent nationally. In reality, Toronto has already crossed the symbolic threshold with 63 per cent of current residents identifying as belonging to one or more minority groups. In Vancouver, it’s 59 per cent and in Calgary it’s already 40 per cent.

The trend line is clear, Canada is becoming a majority-minority nation. Within the next two decades, white Canadians will be a numerical minority in most large cities and, eventually, across the country as a whole.

That’s not a problem, it’s simply a fact. But it does raise an uncomfortable question for policymakers; If the minority becomes the majority, what happens to policies designed for a different era?

Equity for whom, and for how long?

Equity policies were built around a moral and statistical premise that visible minorities were underrepresented in power and opportunity relative to the white majority. That was true for most of Canada’s postwar history but as demographics shift, representation gaps are becoming more complex and uneven.

Canada’s income landscape shows notable variation across visible minority groups. Japanese, Chinese, South Asian, and Korean Canadians often match or exceed the earnings of white Canadians, especially among those born in Canada. Filipinos, Southeast Asians, Arab and West Asian Canadians generally fall into a middle range, with stronger results among those with higher education. Latin American and black Canadians tend to earn less than white Canadians on average, regardless of education or experience, highlighting a clear and persistent income gap within the country’s labour market.

A key explanation for the strong economic performance of many Japanese, Chinese, South Asian, and Korean Canadians lies in a combination of educational and professional patterns that position these communities for success. They have disproportionately high rates of university and postgraduate attainment, particularly in STEM and professional fields that command strong wages. This is reflected in their over-representation in high earning sectors such as technology, engineering, finance, medicine, and entrepreneurship, contributing tens of billions to Canada’s GDP annually across multiple sectors.

Layered on top is a long-standing cultural emphasis on academic achievement and intergenerational mobility, an ethic that encourages investment in education and skills development across generations. Together, these factors help drive consistently higher earnings and strong economic outcomes, even in the face of minority-population status.

Visible minorities are also increasingly represented among Canadian legislators. The first visible minority elected to Parliament was Chinese-Canadian Douglas Jung elected as a Conservative MP to the House of Commons in 1957. By the time Kay Livingstone coined the term visible minority the 30th Canadian Parliament had four federal MPs who fit the designation. In 2025, the 45th Parliament includes 61 elected Members of Parliament who identify as a member of a visible minority group.

The statistical patterns that once motivated the equity categorizations no longer fits a binary. Equity, if it is to remain credible, must respond to current disparities, not freeze in place old assumptions about who holds power.

When categories outlive their purpose

The language of the 1970s is struggling to capture the social reality of 2025. The continued use of the phrase visible minority in federal policy feels antiquated or at least pretty close to reaching its best before date.

The term assumes that “whiteness” is the cultural default and everything else is deviation. But in the Canada that’s emerging, there is no default. Among second-generation Canadians intermarriage, whether racial, religious, or cultural has been normalized. Multiethnic identities are reshaping what it means to be visible.

By 2041, one in four Canadians will belong to more than one racial group, a level of fluidity that makes the notion of visibility increasingly incoherent. Who, exactly, counts as visible when diversity itself is the norm?

“Equity should evolve with evidence, not ideology.”

Will the policy pendulum swing?

I can’t help but wonder, even if it seems provocative to ponder, if current demographic trends continue, will equity policies one day need to support white Canadians? It’s an intentionally uncomfortable question but it’s not rhetorical.

If we take the principle of equity seriously (that it should support those who face disadvantage), then we cannot assume that disadvantage will always follow historical lines. A child in a low-income, rural white community in Nova Scotia may one day face more structural barriers to opportunity than a middle-class child in suburban Mississauga whose parents immigrated from India or China. The point is not to compare suffering, it’s to future-proof fairness.

If public policy continues to be anchored to outdated identity categories, it risks replacing one imbalance with another. Equity should evolve with evidence, not with ideology.

Diversity without dogma

None of this means Canada should abandon the principles of inclusion or representation that underpin its social model. But it does mean modernizing how we measure and apply them.

A future-focused equity framework could replace the term visible minority with data categories based on social outcomes, such as income, access to opportunity, and civic participation rather than static racial identity. It could recognize that power and privilege are contextual, vary by region, generation, and sector; allowing for a focus on opportunity gaps not demographic quotas. Such a framework could build policy tools flexible enough to adapt as Canada’s population continues to evolve. In other words, less ideology, more empiricism.

The politics of inevitability

Canada’s path toward a majority-minority society is not a crisis; it’s a demographic inevitability. But the way we respond to that inevitability will determine whether multiculturalism remains a living framework or a dated slogan.

To build sustainable diversity policies, we must confront the paradox at the heart of our current model. If equity is always defined in opposition to “the majority,” then equity itself becomes unstable once the majority changes.

The challenge is to build systems that don’t depend on fixed hierarchies of race, but instead aim for fairness wherever imbalance emerges. That’s not a rejection of diversity, it’s merely a natural evolution.

A future beyond categories

Kay Livingstone’s original intent was to make the invisible visible. She gave language to the silenced, and that language helped reshape the country. But every generation must decide when its moral vocabulary needs renewal. As Canada becomes more plural, more mixed, and more interdependent, the term visible minority may soon no longer describes who we are, it may describe who we used to be.

The next phase of Canada’s inclusion story won’t be about making minorities visible. It will be about ensuring everyone regardless of what they look like remains seen, heard, and treated fairly in a nation where difference is the common thread.

About the Author: Neil Gonsalves is the author of, ‘I’m Not Your Token: Unapologetic Clarity in Divided Times’, a TEDx speaker, and a post-secondary educator. He received the Inclusive Leader Award from Immigrant Champions of Canada, and is a Durham Community Champion Medallion recipient granted by the Canadian House of Commons.

Sankarsingh-Gonsalves Productions.2025 ©️