Is Canada doing too much to accommodate visible minorities? According to a poll commissioned by the Globe and Mail and CTV News, 61% of Canadians as a whole, and 72% of Quebeckers, answer in the affirmative. This figure is higher among rural as opposed to urban dwellers, people over fifty, and those who earn less than $50,000 a year. Yet 88% of respondents believe their community is welcoming of visible minorities. Moreover, only 9% claim to be bothered by the fact that non-Whites now make up a sixth of the country’s population, while 48% see this situation as positive and the remaining 42% are unsure.
The findings seem contradictory at first glance. It appears the majority of Canadians are not disturbed by non-European immigrants per se but feel the government is bending over too far backwards to please them. Furthermore, 45% of those who took part in the survey say newcomers are holding onto traditions from their homelands for too long; most of the rest think immigrants are integrating at an acceptable pace.
Peter Donolo of the Strategic Council, the polling firm that actually carried out the survey, says recent controversies like the establishment of Islamic sharia law and funding of faith-based schools have contributed to Canadians’ ambivalence about immigration. The Globe and Mail provided a forum along with the article for readers to discuss the poll’s results. As often happens, the forum turned into a White versus non-White altercation, with some participants on one hand loudly decrying immigrants’ attempt to impose their customs on mainstream Canadian society and others condemning Canada’s hostility towards visible minorities. One reader in the former camp cites the acceptance of the Sikh turban in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the creation of Black-focused schools and the attempt to bring sharia law to Ontario as examples of non-White immigrants’ incessant demands. He attributes this situation to the failure of Canada ’s multicultural policy.
Nonetheless, the framing of the issues mentioned by this reader, and by Donolo, as a White vs. minority debate is somewhat simplistic. Take the subject of Black-focused schools. By no means did all Blacks support these schools; in fact, many people who adamantly opposed their establishment or expressed scepticism towards them (like our editor Cynapse) were African-Canadian themselves. The same thing occurred with the controversy over sharia, in which Muslim Canadian Congress founder Tarek Fatah was among those who spoke most vociferously against its introduction to Ontario . In addition, it is doubtful whether non-Whites played much role at all in some of the other examples of minorities supposedly foisting themselves upon Canadian society. Multiculturalism, for instance, was established by the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1971, when non-Whites constituted a miniscule portion of the country’s population. It is likely Trudeau was trying to appease not the few visible minorities in Canada at the time but the so-called “White ethnics” such as Italians and Greeks. Similarly the faith-based schools debate in Ontario in the fall of 2007 was hardly a case of people of colour demanding special privileges for themselves at the expense of White Canadians. Yes, some advocates of these schools belonged to racial minorities, but the majority, like most proponents of Jewish and evangelical Christian institutions, were of European descent.
Now for the hard question: do I myself feel Canada is going too far in accommodating visible minorities? In general I would say no. I also believe some of the issues surrounding the accommodation of minorities are more complicated than extremists on both sides make them out to be. One such issue is the debate over whether to allow Sikhs to wear turbans in the RCMP. I lack strong views on the subject either way. I suppose at the end of the day if a Mountie is doing his job of protecting the public what he wears on his head does not really matter to me. However, I understand that many people feel passionately about maintaining the traditional Stetson cap, and these concerns should not be automatically dismissed as racist. Ultimately this is a question the RCMP must resolve on its own.
Other times I think the government has indeed overreached itself in its effort to equal the playing field for non-Whites. This occurred in the 1990s under the Bob Rae administration in Ontario with the employment equity legislation, which would have required companies to hire a certain percentage of visible minorities. Now I am not completely opposed to employment equity or affirmative action in all instances. While I tend to lean towards meritocracy in hiring, I believe the idea of providing some sort of compensation to American Blacks, whose ancestors were brought forcibly from Africa to endure slavery and discrimination like the Jim Crow laws, or to Native Canadians, who suffered through residential schools and deprivation of their land, is at least worth discussing. On the other hand, is somebody whose family immigrated to Canada in the last three decades and who just happens to be non-White entitled to the handout that employment equity would give him or her? Again, I would say “no.” So, according to many political analysts, did the voters of Ontario , and Bob Rae lost the 1995 elections.
Immigration has always been a controversial issue. Canada in particular seems to be attempting to strike a balance between welcoming newcomers of all backgrounds on one hand and ensuring they integrate peacefully into mainstream society on the other. In the end time will tell which approach works best in achieving these goals.
Sphere: Related Content
Hey,
Its been a while.
I don’t think polls on these issues are worth anything really because people always seem to get issues twisted as you pointed out. They try to lump religious (ethnic) issues in with racial related issues. These things need to be handled separately….especially considering ethnic issues don’t just involve immigrants or visible minorities.
If people want this society to work….we have to use ALL resources. If companies don’t want to hire certain people of certain races…then there is going to be wasted talent out there. When being of a certain race means your skills are valued at less than other members of society, something must be done.
People act like employment equity and affirmative action are one in the same…..but not even close. In the US race based stats are collected on everything. Here we do not ask for such things on resumes and applications. They can literally get at a company for not complying….what we have here is a suggestion. Only those companies (over 100 employees who the rules apply to) who have a worker population wildly out of step with the surrounding city ever get called out. Even then nothing happens unless they really screw up.
People in Canada complain for nothing on this issue in the end. There is no situations where white people are losing jobs to minorities with less qualifications. No company would risk that in an environment where the only rules are not even enforceable since real data is not even collected. All anyone wants is a chance to get jobs as easily as anyone else looking for a job in the same field having a similar resume to take to the interview.
Part of the problem we have here is that we always look south. Canadians like to maintain a moral high ground on the US and claim we are not like “them”. So to have what they feel are all these concessions made for minorities, it offends some people. They want to believe the playing field is all level. Meritocracy doesn’t work if the people are not being judged solely on their merits and are instead in some cases put at a disadvantage for having the wrong name, skin colour, religion or place of birth. I personally like the idea of a true meritocracy though.
I think a study equivalent to what was done in Montreal 8 years ago needs to be done. Though it should be looking at all groups. The one in Montreal happened to focus on blacks and found a ridiculous situation relating to level of education and ability to get a job. A more complete study for all groups may shut up some people who assume its all good here.
I am not surprised about small town folks hating minorities more. Ignorance breeds fear and hate. Lack of contact breeds ignorance (that goes for anyone really). Also there are people who locate to such areas to avoid being around people different from themselves. Of course if you ask people like that they will blame all sorts of religious, racial, and ethnic issues on immigrants. To them we are all immigrants. I spent the first 19 years of my life having to tell people over and over I am a Canadian born and raised here. How can this be an equal society if the automatic idea is that this is a white country with some “visitors” or “imports” of other types? 45% of my community (Black) was born here and some have family here going back to before this was called Canada and blacks were enslaved in Quebec and parts of Ontario. The Chinese and Japanese have some roots here going back to the 1800s as well.
As for people keeping their traditions when moving here…anytime “too many” minorities or immigrants move into an area, people who would consider them self the “real Canadians” tend to relocate….that leaves a concentration of people who are surrounded by people from the homeland. Why integrate to Canadian ways when the Canadians move away from you to their own areas?
Anyways…I could go on….but this is too long already.
Good conversation starting article Emilia!!
B
Dear B,
Thank you for your response.
I always emphasize (especially to Americans, both Black and White, who insist Canada is so much more racially integrated) that Canada is not morally superior to the United States when it comes to race-related matters. Sure, we didn’t have Jim Crow laws, etcetera, but that is because we never had a large Black population. Of course some might say that Canada never had slavery on the scale the States did. However, the reason for that is not because Canadians are so much more enlightened than the poor misguided Yanks but because Canada doesn’t have the climate for growing sugar cane, cotton, etc. that were grown on former slave plantations. The fact that our Asian population was treated no better than that in the US should dispel the notion that Canada is “better” than our neighbour to the South.
With regard to employment equity in Ontario, again, I would advocate it, if at all, only for Native Canadians. One argument that employment equity advocates never address is that if we should ensure every race is proportionately represented in the workplace, at universities, etc. then in cases where Whites are underrepresented, should there be quotas for them. For example, Whites are underrepresented at Canadian medical schools because Chinese and East Indians are there in numbers greater than their share in the general population. However, I would say no because Whites are probably underrepresented in medical schools because they’re either less than interested in studying medicine or because they aren’t willing to do the work necessary to get or stay in medical school.
So I’ll hold to my guns and say that I don’t support employment equity other than – and this is a big PERHAPS – for Native Canadians.
“Multiculturalism, for instance, was established by the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1971, when non-Whites constituted a miniscule portion of the country’s population. It is likely Trudeau was trying to appease not the few visible minorities in Canada at the time but the so-called “White ethnics” such as Italians and Greeks.”
Hmmm, I don’t quite agree with your interpretation of multiculturalism here. Allow me to make a few points:
1. I doubt the ““White ethnics” such as Italians and Greeks” were actually making many demands, except the possibility of working and making a living for themselves and their families. At that time, there were not that many organizations that advanced immigrants’ causes, nor was there the kind of help such as welcoming classes, health care (after 3 or 6 months’ residence ?), as well as other mechanisms to fight real or perceived discrimination.
Also, to most immigrants, Canada was part of that amorphous promised land called “America” – the land of limitless opportunity.
2. Perhaps Trudeau wanted to differentiate Canada from the US, where the “melting pot” philosophy was prevalent at the time, in contrast to the “Canadian mosaic.”
3. Lastly, and perhaps the most important aspect, perhaps the policy of multiculturalism was also Trudeau’s way of attenuating the demands of French Canadians, reducing their status to that of one among many other “communities” constituting Canada, i.e. going from the “two nations” view of Canada to a more cosmopolitan view, where every ethnic group had equal standing, regardless of how long they had been here.
http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/multi/canada2017/policy_forum/8_e.cfm
“… Multiculturalism was original [sic] conceived in the Trudeau era as part of a four-pronged approach, the other components being bilingualism from coast to coast, a just society, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ….
As part of a nation-building strategy to create a common Canadian identity that embraced everyone—including Québécois—Weinstock said multiculturalism was really a political tool to diffuse political expression from all cultures. Multiculturalism said Québécois were different, but so is everyone else, and by giving up distinctness all cultures in fact gained a much larger stage and greater resources on which to affirm their own identities.”
While it may have had noble intentions, the policy of multiculturalism has instead contributed to diluting the idea of “Canadianness”, IMHO. Instead of helping immigrants (like myself) identify with the national identity – Canadian – the policy has instead encouraged immigrants to hold on to their own national origins, and some have even imported their own national battles, instead of leaving that baggage where it belongs – in their country of origin.
Dear Gabby,
Perhaps I should not have said “appease” if it implied that the “White ethnics” were demanding multiculturalism. I suppose I meant that Trudeau may have been trying to obtain votes from them and he felt that instituting a multicultural policy was a way to do this.
If you click on Jack’s Newswatch, I made a comment on multiculturalism. I don’t think it’s the invention of Satan as some people do, but I strongly feel that while immigrants should be free to speak their native languages, publish newspapers in them, hold ethnic festivals, etc., they should do so on their own dime unless government funding for these activities really benefits the general population (ex. Spanish classes in schools which are not meant to help Hispanic students preserve their heritage but teach students of all origins a language is becoming increasingly useful in North America).
I do believe Canada has benefitted from immigration, but when you come to a new country, if you want to preserve your traditions you should do that on your own time and money, and if there are some that are not compatible with Canadian society, either leave them behind or go back to where you came from. I would say most immigrants understand this, but others (and some Canadian-born advocates) have yet to understand this.
Hey Emilia,
I agree with you the most shafted group in society is the Natives. They do especially need some targeting.
One thing about your post, you mention about medical school….but in Canada, there is no initiative to tell any kind of school or college who they have to let in and what the quotas are. We don’t put race on any forms to get into university. I know it exists down south but up here you get in or you don’t. The only discriminator is cash flow and if you can swing it between your own cash, your parents cash, and student loans. So I don’t feel that statement about whites getting into medical school applies….not up here. I do see what you are saying though, if a situation occurred at a job where whites appear to be underrepresented based on the community than to be fair something might have to be said to the company but with our set up here, nothing can really be done to the company.
I never addressed the religious side of this post. About that, I feel that people can practice what they want, but have no right to enforce it on others. That goes for people that come here and want to change rules that affect others, and for people born here that want to impose on others. Also, in a country that is not based on a religion, no religious ideas should ever become part of the legal system. That just goes against the whole set up of the society (secular).
I believe in your statement about people “going back where they came from” when it comes to a tradition they don’t want to let go of that is illegal here, or if everything about this country disgusts them. There is no point to stay in a place you hate, but that is not the majority of immigrants out there contrary to opinions I have heard through out my life from people. Its good there are people like you who can oppose the idea while having some sense about the issues, cause there are more extreme and ignorant folks out there than we as a country like to admit.
B
Dear B.,
Thank you again for posting.
I believe most immigrants are willing to adapt to Canadian society, and if they do want to change something (ex. Sikhs wanting to wear turbans in the RCMP), they have mainly gone about trying to make the change through the legal process.
I’m not saying I’m entirely 100% in support of employment equity for Natives; I just feel that maybe they might have some moral claim to at least have the matter discussed, a claim I don’t think other minorities have in Canada. I do think the Canadian government has made a mess of Native-based policies, from residential schools in previous generations and now with prohibiting White families from adopting Native children. But this is an entirely different matter from employment equity.
I think most people would agree religious laws have no place in the secular legal system. But sometimes it’s hard to distinguish the two. Obviously injunctions like “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal” would go beyond religious boundaries; most atheists or non-Christians/-Jews would fully accept these as part of our secular legal system.
But take the issue of abortion. Some people believe the drive to outlaw abortion is a matter of Catholics and fundamentalist Christians trying to impose their religious beliefs on others. The matter is somewhat more complicated, though (I’m pro-choice, for the record). Yes, perhaps on average more religious Canadians are more likely to support the anti-abortion position, but the division is not so clearcut. For instance, perhaps the most draconian anti-abortion law in recent years was not in any Catholic country but in the militantly atheistic Communist regime of Romania, which was never Catholic to begin with and which forbade women even to use birth control.
So sometimes it’s hard to separate religious versus secular law.
Thank you for your reply, Emilia.
I agree with the points you made in your reply, although I would add a slight nuance to this part: “but I strongly feel that while immigrants should be free to speak their native languages, publish newspapers in them, hold ethnic festivals, etc.”
I agree with you that “heritage” languages and customs should not be discouraged, but on the other hand, this encouragement should not take place at the expense of the two official languages of the country.
I’m sure there are still some immigrants who can carry on their daily lives in Canada without learning English and/or French.
As in most other aspects of life, striking a balance is the way to go.
As for this part of your reply:
“I do believe Canada has benefitted from immigration, but when you come to a new country, if you want to preserve your traditions you should do that on your own time and money, and if there are some that are not compatible with Canadian society, either leave them behind or go back to where you came from. I would say most immigrants understand this, but others (and some Canadian-born advocates) have yet to understand this.”
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Dear Gabby,
Thank you so much for your comments.
I think the accommodation goes both ways, however. For example, I remember some years ago an American servicewoman was upset because she was stationed in Saudi Arabia and resented wearing a veil and long dress in public. However, I think that she joined the military and presumably agreed to be posted in Saudi Arabia, so it is not up to the Saudi authorities to make exceptions for her. If I go to Saudi Arabia, I too would have to accept wearing certain clothing in public (not really a big issue for me, because I have a number of long skirts and dresses), and it’s a little arrogant of me to insist that I do what I do in my own country when I’m over there.
Emilia
It is strange how this topic affects me personally.
I am a Chilean and former immigrant in Canada. I lived there during 5 years and my second son is Canadian. In that period was working and studying in Canada with the intention to become an academic in computer science. However, after I finished my masters degree, no matter I have the chance to continue for the PhD, my family and I decided to leave Canada to return to our country for good.
What happened? It is funny to say, but the true is that we didn’t like it multiculturalism.
When we migrated to Canada we have the intention to assimilate to that society and addopt its values. However, all that Canada kept saying was that we should preserve our indentity and be alliens forever in a country that wasn’t ours.
It is my oppinion that Canada lost its identity in a flood of immigration, which is very bad not only for locals but for immigrants as well.
Romans used to say “In Rome do as Romans”. Well, in Canada nobody has any idea how Canadians do! I remember I asked once a Canadian what was the typical Canadian food of the region and she answered me “Chinese food”… Lol! If I knew it before, I would have migrated to China instead of Canada.
Immigrants have to addapt to locals and not the other way around. That’s what we do, at least, in my country, Chile. And perhaps that was the reason I left Canada: a beautiful country with lot of opportunities and good people, but where nobody has idea who is it.
Dear Omar,
Thank you for joining the debate.
Regarding Canadian versus Chinese food, I must say that homegrown Canadian food – in the English-speaking areas of the country, that is; Quebec food isn’t Parisian haute cuisine, but it’s not too bad either – isn’t great. Maybe that’s why ethnic restaurants have proliferated so much here!
With regard to multiculturalism, I have some problems with it, but I’m not sure the policy per se is responsible for Canada’s lack of a strong identity. I think most Anglophone nations, other than the United States, which perhaps made a special effort to forge its own identity after separating forcefully from Britain, have never attempted to “proselytize” their culture. For instance, in Britain itself and in Australia, there was always the notion that newcomers could to an extent keep their own traditions (now of course there’s been some debate following things like the bombing of the London transit system in 2005). Even in colonial times Britain never tried to change the natives of the places they conquered the way, say, the French or Portuguese did.
Now the province of Quebec has always been more forceful about insisting that newcomers adapt to local life. For instance, they insist that immigrants learn French, whereas the Anglophone parts of Canada have always been more lax in making newcomers learn English. Recently the town of Herouxville in Quebec was the centre of a controversy after they wrote a memorandum saying that immigrants must accept Quebec’s customs (the underlying notion was that it was aimed at Muslim immigrants).
As a Canadian myself, I don’t think we’ll ever be flag-waving patriots the way the Americans are. But I still maintain that immigrants have to adapt to the Canadian way of life.