bibliogramma (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bibliogramma) wrote2007-12-23 09:15 pm
bibliogramma) wrote2007-12-23 09:15 pm
The Modest Triumph of the Cultural Mosaic
Unlikely Utopia: The Surprising Triumph of Canadian Pluralism, Michael Adams
In the interests of full disclosure, I must begin my comments with the observation that this book was written by my boss. It's his fifth book, and like his previous ones, it is based on research that the company he founded, Environics Research Group, has conducted into social values going back decades in Canada and the U.S. Each year in Canada, and every four years in the U.S, we poll a representative sample of peple to determine their values about all sorts of social issues. We have reseach partners in other countries who do the same kind of reseach in other countries around the world, and we all share this informaition, building up a database of global trends in social values and attitudes.
I'm not going to talk about the research in detail, because it is proprietary, but we track how much people agree or disagree with statements like "The father should be the master in the home" - one of the questions that Adams likes to use in his public speaking engagements and see how the percentages who agree or disagree change over time.
This particular book analyses some of that research, and some other research we have done over the years tracking issues associated with immigration, multi-culturalism, and a major study done earlier this year with two samples - one of Canadians in general and one of Canadian Muslims.
I think I'll leave the summary of this research up to the author himself. Here's an excerpt from the book that was printed earlier this fall in The Toronto Star, and the short version is that the research shows that, despite all the headlines about immigrant backlash and accommodation crises, we're not doing all that badly at this learning to live with each other despire our differences thing, and the odds are that we'll continue to manage to muddle along in our modest Canadian way. And that we will find every way possible to politely brag about it.
no subject
What is interesting is that Canada's migration program runs independently of of its economic situation. Which helps explain the high levels of unemployment among migrants in Canada (more than twice that of Australia). I also discover that Canada has no population policy.
Is Canada's policy that newcomers should "become Canadian"? Or is it multiculturalism, in which the values of their country of origin are retained? The report clearly shows that Canadians are uncertain on this score. Perhaps the surveys have figures on how many Canadians actually understand the country's immigration policy.
It seems that to "muddle along in our modest Canadian way" is the only available course of action . Hey, it worked so well when it came to implementing the Kyoto treaty. But I wouldn't expect to able able to brag about it.
Part One of My Response
To summarise data from the Migration Policy Institute’s website (http://www.migrationpolicy.org):
Over the past decade, the Unites States has admitted (roughly) between 700,000 and 1,300,000 immigrants per year. Out of a population of 301 million, this amounts to around .3% of the national population annually.
Over the past decade, Canada has admitted (roughly) between 200,000 and 250,000 immigrants per year. Out of a population of 33 million, this amounts to around .7% of the national population annually.
For comparison, over the past decade, Australia has admitted (roughly) between 70,000 and 130,000 immigrants per year. Out of a population of 20 million, this amounts to around .5% of the national population annually.
Canada’s population is about 19% foreign-born, the U.S.’s population is about 12.5% foreign-born and Australia’s is about 20% foreign-born. However, 30% of US immigrants are from one country – Mexico – only 54% of immigrants come from countries other than the top five origin countries. 25% of Australia’s immigrants are from one country – Great Britain – and only 50% come from countries other than the top five countries of origin. 10% of Canada’s immigrants come from Great Britain (the country of origin with the largest number of emigrants to Canada) and 67% of Canada’s immigrants come from countries other than the top five origin countries.
For what it’s worth, even Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration) Canada has the highest per capita rate of immigration in the world.
Re: Part One of My Response
Re: Part One of My Response
Canada doesn't have an open door policy, but our "quota" is set very high in terms of its proportion to our population. This is our population policy, in fact. With the exception of some provinces (Quebec and Newfoundland, I believe) there are no measures to encourage a increase in the birth rate. We depend on immigration for population growth, since our birth rate is below replacement rates.
We don't have regional quotas which might cap the number of immigrants per year from certain countries or regions of the world, as some countries such as the U.S. have. Instead we have a system whereby we allow so many skilled workers, so many entrpreneurs, so many family members, so many refugees, etc.
On a per capita basis, Canada accepts more refugees than many other developed countries. This also tends to add to the diversity of our immigrant population.
We also have a fairly broad policy on reunification of families, which also tends to add to the diversity - an initial very small wave of immigration from a country can swell as families are reunited.
So I think it's mostly something that just happened. Factors that have little to do with our own policies may be include the possibility that immigrants who would prefer to relocate to the U.S. but don't succeed may pick Canada as a second-best option, possibly with the idea that they might later be able to enter the U.S. from Canada.
Re: Part One of My Response
Family reunion is the major component of the immigration program but the effect seems to be the opposite of that in Canada. Here it reflects the mix of people that are already here and therefore works against diversity.
We have quotas for various parts of the world as well as for categories. Again, it is not promoting diversity. The refugee program has become perverted so the preference is to refugees who have skills, or money, or family here.
Part Two of My Response
I won’t deny we have problems in this area – but it is considered a major problem and there are task forces looking at the issues from all perspectives trying to change the situation. One of the biggest problems is actually certification of skills. Canada’s immigration policy is based on a point system (with the exception of immigrants under the family reunification program and refugees) which gives preference to highly skilled people .. but then once they arrive, their professional credentials and experience outside Canada are not always recognised by professional organisations or employers. We know it’s a huge problem and we are actually working on it.
Is Canada's policy that newcomers should "become Canadian"? Or is it multiculturalism, in which the values of their country of origin are retained?
It’s multiculturalism. Has been officially so since the late 60s, and at times we’ve even had government-funded programs designed to encourage new Canadians to celebrate their culture of origin as the at the same time become part of Canadian society.
The report clearly shows that Canadians are uncertain on this score. Perhaps the surveys have figures on how many Canadians actually understand the country's immigration policy.
Actually, I think there is a strong basic understanding of multiculturalism and the need for immigration. A 2004 survey conducted by Carleton University (in Canada) in 13 developed countries found that among Canadians, only 32% want immigration to decrease and 29% want it to increase. Australian has similar opinions – 39% wanted a decrease and 23% wanted an increase. In all other countries surveyed (including US, several European countries and NZ, more than half wanted to see a decrease and 11% or fewer wanted an increase (with the exception of NZ, at 15%). (You can find this and other data on Canadian attitudes toward immigration, positive and negative in a ppt presentation that can be downloaded here. (canada.metropolis.net/events/Vancouver_2006/Presentation/WS-032406-1530-Jedwab.ppt)
Both our own polling and studies released by other firms consistently show that Canadians think immigration is good for the economy (although a significant minority do worry about immigrants taking jobs away from native-born Canadians), that that multiculturalism is considered to be a positive aspect of Canadian society, that it is good for Canada to have people from a variety of religions and cultures, that it is not better if all Canadians share the same customs and traditions, etc. At the same time, Canadians do also want to see immigrants integrated into Canadian society – but I’m not sure that that means we want, as a nation, to see massive assimilation.
What is going on now, in my opinion, is that Canadians are engaged in a dabate over how to find the right balance between multi-culturalism and integration. We want to find a way for Canadians to be able to express and celebrate their heritage and history within an overall framework of modern social values and human rights, and tolerance on all sides. As an example, Canadians are saying that multi-culturalism and religious freedom cannot trump women’s rights – and this is an explosive issue just now, as there have been several highly publicised cases in recent years of what appear to be “honor killings” of women who have chosen to reject the religious or cultural values of their families with regard to behaviour and dress.
Part Three of My Response
What can I say? Many Canadians are ashamed of our government right now. Our leaders have been falling into line behind the U.S. on this, to say nothing of trying to accommodate the very powerful oil and gas sector in our own country. There’s a groundswell of public opinion growing, however, and it could be that the current government will lose the next election based largely on its environmental policies. And the new leader of the Liberal Party, who would probably become PM if Harper falls, is passionately devoted green policies.
Australia had to wait until Howard went before ratifying Kyoto, we’re waiting for Harper to go before we will have a government that takes global warming seriously. We have to have an election, first. But the rapid growth of the Green Party here in the past few years indicates that something is happening, and I’m hopeful that some coalition will emerge that will get rid of the neo-con Bush-lickers and give us a government with the guts to create and implement a policy that takes real action.
Re: Part One of My Response
Re: Part One of My Response
And many of us cheered when Rudd did that, too. We hope that international embarassment will make the damned neo-cons we foolishly elected do something on the environment file.
I anticipate an election here sometime in the next six months. Harper has a minority governemnt, which will very shortly pass the two-year mark. Canadians tend to feel that once a minority government hits that mark, it's fair game, and we are less likely to be cranky with a party that brings it down in the House.
The Liberals lost the last election due to a major government scandal, but the Conservatives have had more than a few scandals of their own surface since then, and so neither party can now clothe itself in righteous indignation on that count. The new Liberal leader is not particularly charismatic, but he's very strong on the environment. Canada is doing well on the economic front, but it was also doing well when the Liberals were in power, so that's unlikely to be a factor for or against anyone.
It is my fervent hope that we will toss Harper out in the next election, and if we do, it will almost certainly be because of his stance on the environment.
Canadians don't like thinking that the world doesn't like us. And Harper and his minions made us a laughingstock in Bali. That is going to come back and bite the Conservatives in the ass.
Addendum
We as a country/people spend far too much time trying not too look as though we're bragging about not being quite as bad as the Americans are at some things, rather than picking up our bootstraps and trying to do as well as the Europeans or other countries are. And just because I think in this case we are managing to do some things with respect to multi-culturalism and immigration better than some other countries, I certainly don't think we're doing anywhere near as well as we could and should.