It could certainly work on helping newcomers to understand citizenship and democracy. Sometimes there is an open wound within communities of the diaspora in general, and especially, in the case at issue, in Muslim communities. Because of their origins or their conception of politics, they find it hard to believe that they have the status of equal and free citizens. On this point, there is still what might be called an apologetic attitude. These people are always on the defensive and do not easily tolerate self-criticism.
On this, we can say that the Canadian values of liberalism in general, as well as those of democracy as an outgrowth of modernity, mean that Canadian priorities do not always align with those of traditional cultures, especially those where religion is dominant. I would like to make the following points about that, which are important. The primacy of individual liberty is not necessarily accepted. Indeed, it may be considered a community freedom, but it can also happen, depending on the political culture involved, that liberation is considered superior to liberty.
Moreover, the Canadian state is in fact secular, noncommittal concerning religious matters. Even if its Constitution includes a quote on the existence of a divinity, the other parts of it mean that in Canada one has the right to believe or not believe, and to promote one's belief or lack of one.
This allows for criticizing the sacred, and religious texts and institutions. In terms of priorities, there is an important difference when it comes to criticizing that which is sacred. Sometimes we do not know on which aspects of the sacred practitioners in general and believers, especially Muslims, will not tolerate criticism, and which can according to them be criticized or subject to debate.