On Canadian vs. American Empowerment and Hippies

[Dialectic]

Our new member Beast posted this under a Sleeper Cells thread, and I wanted to emphasize it here.

Do you think Asian empowerment is less of an issue in the GVRD than it is elsewhere? With our significant presence, you'd think we'd have a larger voice here but, it seems to me, that asian-canadians are much more complacent than our american counterparts. Is it because of we fare better here? Does that in turn make for lack of motivation and organization? Thoughts?

"Complacent" is probably not the right way to describe it. American-style political advocacy is, by nature, louder, more in-your-face, more adversarial, and thus, more visible than the Canadian form. Note that I don't say more effective, because effectiveness depends on the social/ political context.

Also, Americans have more to complain about in terms of race-relations. America's entire philosophy on race and culture is very different from the Canadian one. Americans, on the level of national character, believe in a melting pot: put all your ingredients into a big hot pot, swirl them together, let them mix and dissolve and melt, and when you spoon something out, you have an "American." It is highly doubtful that actually works. What happens is you get assimilation, segregation, marginalization, and the like. The Canadian philosophy is more of a mosaic or quilt: bring everything you can to the table: your culture, your beliefs, your religion, your foods, your attitudes, and as long as they don't mess with other peoples' fundamental rights to have their culture, beliefs, religion, foods, and attitudes, then be the way you are, and that's Canadian enough. That seems to work a bit better.

It's also of course a numbers game. Toronto and Vancouver have massive numbers of Chinese people. The more you have, the more attention you're paid, the more rights and privileges you receive. (It's interesting to note, however, that at least on this forum - and I suspect on other Asian forums - the craziest, angriest, most psychologically messed-up people are from big American cities with big Asian populations. From what we've seen, Canada has almost none of this, whereas California and New York are filled with crazies.)

Finally, I'll explain the difference between American and Canadian problem-solving approaches more simply, and keep in mind, this is a generalization of national character.

An American sees a problem. S/he goes in "guns blazing." This could be metaphorically or literally. Shoot first, ask questions later, if you do at all, show everyone what to do and tell everyone what's right because you damn well know best. This even applies to sensitive political activists: "You better be as damn sensitive as I say you should be, or I will get up in your motherfucking face and beat the living crap out of you (through words, usually, but weapons are possible) until you are, or you die (politically, usually, but bodily is possible)."

A Canadian sees a problem. "Hey guys, what's up? I just bought a two-four of Molson and --" [Sees problem. Asks him/herself, "Should I really involve myself in this situation? Holds internal debate for several minutes, hours, days, or years, depending on the scale of the situation. Eventually decides a Canadian presence may be of benefit to world peace, order, and good government.] "Woah woah woah!!! Easy, there, madames et monsieurs!! Let's all calm the fuck down, eh? I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for this shit!! [Long and tedious dialogue ensues, generally ending with a satisfactory outcome for most involved, but no one ever knows what it is because everyone has since tuned out.]

In a way, you could see it as a Kirk vs. Picard approach (though most Americans are not nearly as sensitive and wise as Kirk was supposed to be).

Chekov: Captain, there's a vessel approaching that might be Kling--
Kirk: Target their engines, their weapons, their transporter systems, bring me their hot green chicks, and fire at will, muthafucka!

vs.

Worf: Captain, an unknown vessel is approaching. Their weapons appear to be armed and locked on.
Picard: Hail them.
Worf: No response. They're firing.
Picard: Hail them again.
Worf: Direct hit! Still no response. Shields are down to 60%.
Picard: Perhaps they didn't hear us. Hail them again.
Worf: Still no response! Shields are down to 40%!
Picard: Okay, guys, here's what we do. There's probably been some sort of miscommunication. This is a delicate situation, and I don't want anyone to misinterpret our motives here. Fire a warning shot across their starboard bow. Let's see if we can get their attention.

Both methods have their pros and cons, though I'd say that in practice, the Canadian approach seems to be more balanced, compassionate, and indeed, pragmatic. No one is top dog forever, and it's best to have friends, partners, and co-creators when you can't rely on power.

A note on the attitude and style of this site: the tone we have here is pretty American-flavored. (I even spell in American, which is not habitual, believe me.) We did this because being a bit in-your-face is fun, and we did it to get a bit of attention. (As awesome as Canada is, for example, no one really knows it, not even a lot of Canadians, and no one really cares, except for the Canadians who do know it, and refugees.) But we are, in reality, an "American site" run by Canadians, who are fairly worldly and wise for their age, a few of whom, formally or informally, think along "American-Integral" lines. Neat, huh? (This is also why some people who participate in our forum get a bit confused when they first join.) The Founders are also a pretty laid back bunch, which might not come through on this site.

Oh and when I get out to the west coast, it'll be to live! I just have to figure out what to do about the hippies ....

[maogirl]

I just have to figure out what to do about the hippies ....

Worf: Captain, an unknown hippie is approaching. Their weapons appear to be patchouli and dreadlocks.
Picard: Hail them.
Worf: No response. They're starting to talk about Mother Nature.
Picard: Hail them again.
Worf: Direct hit! Still no response. Tolerance levels are down to 60%.
Picard: Perhaps they didn't hear us. Hail them again.
Worf: Still no response! Tolerance levels are down to 40%!
Picard: Okay, guys, here's what we do. There's probably been some sort of miscommunication. This is a delicate situation, and I don't want anyone to misinterpret our motives here. Fire a warning espresso shot from Starbucks across their starboard bow. Let's see if we can get their attention.

[B the student]

*3 Hippies teleport onto the USS Enterprise*
Hippie lovechildofthemoonofuranusVIIofsector4342xno. 32423: we come to bring peace and happiness throughout the bountiful galaxies. resistance is futile my friend. just go with the flow...you will be assimilated space man.
Worf: my god what's that smell?
Hippie lovechildofthemoonofuranusVIIofsector4342xno. 32424: you're smelling the sweet aroma of nature dude. Only bathing once a millenia in the year long festival of the water goddess neptunia + plus the sweet juices of mad love making in our spring fling ritual orgy sessions (+ plus the occasional self-loving when one can't wait hold out for those sacred rituals of mass love) - contamination from such unnatural things as soap and deodorant= the sweet aroma of nature friend. join us and liberate yourself from manufactured fragrances forever.
Worf: don't touch me.

[nskripchun]

Isn't William Shatner, I mean, Captain Kirk, a CANADIAN?

hahaha.

[Beast]

Kirk AND Scotty!

[ZhuBaJie]

you really have to look US's history of social activism and the civil rights movement to understand racial politics of today in the US. the civil rights movements basically changed people's thinking in terms of equal rights and equality as a whole. and the movements themselves remind us that, well shit, minorities have been discriminated against in the US as soon as they landed here. and that's 400+ years for black people and even more for Native Americans. if we don't make a real push for equality now, then when? how long are we going to keep sitting around.

but of course, along with a hard push for equality, you're going to get opposition in equal amount and level. this is why racial politics in the US may seem more extreme and fast-paced when compared to that of Canada.

i like how Canada puts in more effort to recognise diversity in the country, but at the same time, i still think the US is more progressive in how it handles race matters. simply put, you can put on as many Chinese/Aboriginal/Black/etc street festivals as you want, that's not going to get rid of racism. i especially don't like how Canadian universities do not collect race information in their applications, and how this is actually a point of pride for some Canadians. it's as if they think that ignoring race will make racism go away.

[ZhuBaJie]

Oh and when I get out to the west coast, it'll be to live! I just have to figure out what to do about the hippies ....

hippies smell and they don't shower.

[evil_FUX]

Oh and when I get out to the west coast, it'll be to live! I just have to figure out what to do about the hippies ....

Don't forget about the yuppies.

[ZhuBaJie]

Oh and when I get out to the west coast, it'll be to live! I just have to figure out what to do about the hippies ....

Don't forget about the yuppies.

or the yippies. they are even worse.

[rel]

Haha Dialectic summed it up best the differences of american and canadian views. :P If there is problem, americans will have to declare war on it; war on drugs, war on crime, war on racism, war on iraq :lol: Im thankful to live north of the border 8-)

Zhubajie: Hey at least our universities dont have racial % quotas. Whoops our university has too many asians, lets reject the leftover asians and accept more _insert_race_here to fill up the percentages even though they DONT meet the standard requirements.

[Dialectic]

i like how Canada puts in more effort to recognise diversity in the country, but at the same time, i still think the US is more progressive in how it handles race matters. simply put, you can put on as many Chinese/Aboriginal/Black/etc street festivals as you want, that's not going to get rid of racism. i especially don't like how Canadian universities do not collect race information in their applications, and how this is actually a point of pride for some Canadians. it's as if they think that ignoring race will make racism go away.

Gonna have to differ with you there. The U.S. is definitively not more progressive on race matters. With regard to your specific example, Canadian universities actually do collect data, but it's up to the specific university and faculty, and giving this data is generally voluntary; policies differ. Urban Canadians do not ignore racism or try to avoid acknowledging race (though it's of course harder for whites). We just handle things differently from Americans: remember the quilt vs. the melting pot. As cliche as these metaphors may be, they are a very apt description of how things work in the two countries. America has been more polarized and more divisive and more in-your-face about everything since its founding than Canada; with regard to race-relations, that led to bigger barriers and taboos and injustices (Canada had/ has a lot as well, but they pale in comparison to the U.S.), and as a result, America has had to take "harder" and more in-your-face stances against racism.

This is not being more progressive. This is operating in an American way in an American context.

Canada takes in around 200,000 new immigrants per year, with a population of about 33 million. The government renamed our Immigration Act to the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act (and changed the Act itself) to emphasize its commitment to multiculturalism and refugee protection. Multiculturalism and religious and cultural acceptance is mentioned in the country's citizenship ceremonies. Canada is the only country in the world to be recognized by the U.N. High Commission for Refugees for its commitment to helping the world's refugee populations. They normally only award individuals and organizations. When Canada takes in refugees, it doesn't keep them in offshore military bases (U.S.) or isolated camps (Australia). The "triviality" of the street festivals is in fact indicative of the level of both the acceptance there is here, along with the general Canadian notion that it's "no big deal" to have Gay Pride, Caribana, Chinese-whatever, Indian-whatever, and whoever else wants to have something. If you want to be a part of it, cool, if not, cool, let's just not get all up in each other's faces.

You're mistaking U.S.-style in-your-face "solutions" for being more progressive. Americans don't necessarily have the same needs as Canadians. Being louder and blunter isn't necessarily being better.

[ZhuBaJie]

i like how Canada puts in more effort to recognise diversity in the country, but at the same time, i still think the US is more progressive in how it handles race matters. simply put, you can put on as many Chinese/Aboriginal/Black/etc street festivals as you want, that's not going to get rid of racism. i especially don't like how Canadian universities do not collect race information in their applications, and how this is actually a point of pride for some Canadians. it's as if they think that ignoring race will make racism go away.

Gonna have to differ with you there. The U.S. is definitively not more progressive on race matters. With regard to your specific example, Canadian universities actually do collect data, but it's up to the specific university and faculty, and giving this data is generally voluntary; policies differ. Urban Canadians do not ignore racism or try to avoid acknowledging race (though it's of course harder for whites). We just handle things differently from Americans: remember the quilt vs. the melting pot. As cliche as these metaphors may be, they are a very apt description of how things work in the two countries. America has been more polarized and more divisive and more in-your-face about everything since its founding than Canada; with regard to race-relations, that led to bigger barriers and taboos and injustices (Canada had/ has a lot as well, but they pale in comparison to the U.S.), and as a result, America has had to take "harder" and more in-your-face stances against racism.

This is not being more progressive. This is operating in an American way in an American context.


hey i'll take your word for it. i've just heard from Canadians how their universities do not collect race information, and how they seem to be so proud of this fact as if it makes Canada so great at fighting racism.

and i guess it depends on how you define "progressive", too. generally it means politics and ideals that pushes for social change. the key being "progress". now, i have a difficult time believing that Canadian whites are somehow inherently less racist and just implement whatever political changes that would benefit minorities without any opposition, so there are those who would disagree that a "laid back" approach, by definition, is progressive at all, if the "laid back" approach is not really pushing for the social changes that are the goals of being a progressive.

Canada takes in around 200,000 new immigrants per year, with a population of about 33 million. The government renamed our Immigration Act to the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act (and changed the Act itself) to emphasize its commitment to multiculturalism and refugee protection.

this doesn't necessarily reflect a committment to diversity and fighting racism. Canada is underpopulated. its immigration policy shows a desire to grow its population. i don't know if the government is doing this anymore, but my aunt and uncle actually got paid for having kids because the Canadian government wants to grow its population.

[Infectious]

this doesn't necessarily reflect a committment to diversity and fighting racism. Canada is underpopulated. its immigration policy shows a desire to grow its population. i don't know if the government is doing this anymore, but my aunt and uncle actually got paid for having kids because the Canadian government wants to grow its population.

I believe it happens in Quebec still.

[Dialectic]

hey i'll take your word for it. i've just heard from Canadians how their universities do not collect race information, and how they seem to be so proud of this fact as if it makes Canada so great at fighting racism.

As I said, policy varies, and providing this data is voluntary. Incidentally, the federal government also collects this data voluntarily for civil servant positions. and they have been very, very active and encouraging minority employment.

and i guess it depends on how you define "progressive", too. generally it means politics and ideals that pushes for social change. the key being "progress". now, i have a difficult time believing that Canadian whites are somehow inherently less racist and just implement whatever political changes that would benefit minorities without any opposition, so there are those who would disagree that a "laid back" approach, by definition, is progressive at all, if the "laid back" approach is not really pushing for the social changes that are the goals of being a progressive.

There's always going to be some level of opposition, but that's not the point. Look at Chretien's last term in office. He pushed for gay marriage pretty much because it was right, not because the masses were demanding it, and when the opposition wanted a referendum, he flat-out denied it, saying that it's not up to the majority to dictate minority rights. This has been the Liberal mandate since then, and most Canadians are okay with that. Even the Conservatives aren't too keen to bring it back up now.

I never described the Canadian approach as "laid back." I described it (somewhat humorously) as subtler and less in-your-face and more cooperative. You want progressiveness and social change? Canada is WAY AHEAD of the US on abortion, gay marriage, and minority rights, and the country doesn't make a big fuss about it. You don't seem to be understanding my point about American-style advocacy; many Americans think that American-style is universal-style, and that you're not really doing advocacy unless it looks like the American form, and that's simply not true.

As for the reason for encouraging immigration, yes, the primary reason is to increase productivity and population; at the same time, cultural and ethnic diversity and richness is also considered a primary benefit. This is in the actual legislation of the IRPA (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act). And this doesn't explain the commitment to refugees: this is done not for any direct Canadian gain, but out of pretty much pure benevolence.

I suggest you look into at least the beginning of the Act and take a look through the Federal CIC website to see just how progressive the country actually is. The commitment it has made to refugee assistance and ethnic integration/ multiculturalism cannot be detailed in a few posts (appeals, assistance, guidance, all of which go above and beyond international treaties as well as the requirements of the legislation itself), and it is IMMENSE.

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2.5/245769.html
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/

[Infectious]

The "triviality" of the street festivals is in fact indicative of the level of both the acceptance there is here, along with the general Canadian notion that it's "no big deal" to have Gay Pride, Caribana, Chinese-whatever, Indian-whatever, and whoever else wants to have something. If you want to be a part of it, cool, if not, cool, let's just not get all up in each other's faces.

It's actually ironic that you mentioned Caribana because there's a current politicking going on right now that's making the organizers very mad (basically, the city councillor responsible for the funding refused to talk to anyone but the president, I believe, and that's not the way it worked before).

[Dialectic]

I know there's politicking happening around it, particularly since it's the rowdiest of the festivals and doesn't get a lot of corporate funding.

[Dialectic]

And coming back to the issue of progressiveness for a moment, I would just like to emphasize that there is no way in hell the US is anywhere near as progressive as Canada when it comes to racial issues. This is not even a debatable point. Personally, I lived in the US briefly and have visited the east coast, parts of the south, and parts of the mountain region, and where some parts are more or less accepting, the vibe is not nearly the same as the Canadian city vibe. Even a city like New York, supposedly cosmopolitan and worldly, has very pure ethnic neighbourhoods where it's understood that even if you have the money, you shouldn't move in; Toronto of course has neighbourhoods too, but it doesn't come close to that. Race polarization in the U.S. is much, much higher than in Canada.

Beyond my own experience, for god's sake, the U.S. regularly has race-riots. Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, it seems to be accepted that every once in a while, you'll have an ethnic riot. That's fucking insane.

And now look at what happened lately with those protests against the retarded immigration bill the Republicans are trying to pass through to criminalize all the illegal immigrants. Mass protests against government stupidity is not "progressive"; it's a reaction against an unbelievably regressive government which is still somehow supported by half the population. (Or at least, half the voting population.)

The Canadian government, however, is quietly moving the other way, and preparations have even been under way to grant amnesty to some 200,000 illegal immigrant workers in Toronto. Granted, it'll take a while, especially with the new government, but it's still very much on the table. America is not even close to Canada when it comes to progressiveness of race-relations, and has been sliding backwards for the duration of the Bush Administration.

[cattygurl]

^^ I agree that US is not even close to being progressive as Canada, overall.
In fact, there's a new study that says that US is least mobile now in terms of class mobility in first world nations.

Bushwacks are bringing out the worst of this country.

[ZhuBaJie]

And coming back to the issue of progressiveness for a moment, I would just like to emphasize that there is no way in hell the US is anywhere near as progressive as Canada when it comes to racial issues. This is not even a debatable point. Personally, I lived in the US briefly and have visited the east coast, parts of the south, and parts of the mountain region, and where some parts are more or less accepting, the vibe is not nearly the same as the Canadian city vibe. Even a city like New York, supposedly cosmopolitan and worldly, has very pure ethnic neighbourhoods where it's understood that even if you have the money, you shouldn't move in; Toronto of course has neighbourhoods too, but it doesn't come close to that. Race polarization in the U.S. is much, much higher than in Canada.

i'm not certain how "race polarisation" is a sign of progressiveness. doesn't it just mean that ethnic minorities in Canada are more willing to assimilate?

Beyond my own experience, for god's sake, the U.S. regularly has race-riots. Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, it seems to be accepted that every once in a while, you'll have an ethnic riot. That's fucking insane.

And now look at what happened lately with those protests against the retarded immigration bill the Republicans are trying to pass through to criminalize all the illegal immigrants. Mass protests against government stupidity is not "progressive"; it's a reaction against an unbelievably regressive government which is still somehow supported by half the population. (Or at least, half the voting population.)

The Canadian government, however, is quietly moving the other way, and preparations have even been under way to grant amnesty to some 200,000 illegal immigrant workers in Toronto. Granted, it'll take a while, especially with the new government, but it's still very much on the table. America is not even close to Canada when it comes to progressiveness of race-relations, and has been sliding backwards for the duration of the Bush Administration.

again, the Canadian stance on immigration is affected by the government's desire to grow the population. of course Canada is more welcoming of immigrants. the country is under-populated.

hey don't get me wrong. i'm not conservative by any sense of the word, and i'll be the first to criticise a lot of US government policies and laws. but this Canadian holier-than-thou attitude when it comes to diversity and racism smacks of a desire to want to ignore or brush aside Canada's own problems. how well represented are ethnic minorities in positions of power in the Canadian government and in Canadian companies?

[Dialectic]

*sigh*

ZBJ, it's like you're trying to argue there's no global warming. I'm making an obvious point. Canada is better for immigrants than the U.S. (except for making gobs of money, as the U.S. has more). That's the absolute truth. No doubt Canada has its problems, but they pale in comparison to the U.S.

i'm not certain how "race polarisation" is a sign of progressiveness. doesn't it just mean that ethnic minorities in Canada are more willing to assimilate?

No it doesn't. If you've really been to Toronto or Vancouver, you'd see there's very little assimilation going on at all. At the same time, there are no massive cultural and neighbourhood tensions, which exist all over the U.S.

again, the Canadian stance on immigration is affected by the government's desire to grow the population. of course Canada is more welcoming of immigrants. the country is under-populated.

Again, I never denied that this was a motivation. So what? It's resulted in a more accepting culture, once again showing that things are better here.

hey don't get me wrong. i'm not conservative by any sense of the word, and i'll be the first to criticise a lot of US government policies and laws. but this Canadian holier-than-thou attitude when it comes to diversity and racism smacks of a desire to want to ignore or brush aside Canada's own problems. how well represented are ethnic minorities in positions of power in the Canadian government and in Canadian companies?

There is no widespread holier-than-thou attitude. That's part of the point. Canadians don't do that. That's an American thing. We're know the limits of our size and influence. America does not. For a humorous take on this, watch Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.

I know you're not conservative. You're actually a wacked-out liberal. Canada knows it's got problems, and these are stated right out in the open: the last Prime Minister talks about what we have to improve, particularly when it comes to Natives, in a major DFAIT (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) document, as well as many other places. The Conservative government now has just reduced the cost of Permanent Residence by half to lessen the burden of immigration on poor families.

The Federal government has been instituting a massive push for increasing the numbers of visible minorities, and has been doing so for at least a few decades. There aren't a lot in high positions of power, but hey, the vis. min. MPs we do have don't receive wave after wave of death threats.

Your own comments smack of American pride and myopia. It's a very different culture up here, something that is often ignored and trivialized by Americans and the rest of the world, but it is a significant contrast.

[da Tao]

The Canadian government, however, is quietly moving the other way, and preparations have even been under way to grant amnesty to some 200,000 illegal immigrant workers in Toronto.

Slightly off topic, but am I to understand that the government is doing something about the issue? If so, can you let us in on what's the plan? Just that I am curious after we started deporting the portulgese et al.... and I always wants to know stuff before the public :)

[Dialectic]

There's no firm timeline set, but as far as I know, it's generally understood in CIC that the government is moving that way. Ultimately, most of these guys are productive, law-abiding citizens; the one's I'm specifically referring to are tradespeople working with various construction unions around Toronto. Everyone knows they're illegal, they still pay union dues (I'm not exactly sure how that works, but hey), so we know how to find them and contact them, and legalizing them benefits everyone.

[Infectious]

There's no firm timeline set, but as far as I know, it's generally understood in CIC that the government is moving that way. Ultimately, most of these guys are productive, law-abiding citizens; the one's I'm specifically referring to are tradespeople working with various construction unions around Toronto. Everyone knows they're illegal, they still pay union dues (I'm not exactly sure how that works, but hey), so we know how to find them and contact them, and legalizing them benefits everyone.

The thing is, those are the people Canada needs right now, since we have somewhat of a tradespeople shortage... most of the tradespeople are raising kids to go to University and not into their trades.

[seoulbrotherno1]

I can't speak about racial politics in Canada itself, but I've seen plenty Canadian Whites in Corea acting like obnoxious White Americans. Also, those same Canadians have no qualms about reaping the benefits of White privilege here in Corea, while maintaining that they have no responsibility for this system since it was the "racially backwards" Americans that established it (the same can be said for White Euros as well.)

sb1

[Dialectic]

I don't disagree with anyone's observations about obnoxious Canadians, white or otherwise. Specific instances are specific instances. (There are some fine, healthy, pleasant people in WM/AF IR, too.) I'm talking about national character, and Canadians are very much not like Americans.

[ZhuBaJie]

There is no widespread holier-than-thou attitude. That's part of the point. Canadians don't do that. That's an American thing. We're know the limits of our size and influence. America does not. For a humorous take on this, watch Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.

i'm really not too interested in doing this US vs. Canada thing. hey, i actually love Toronto.

but the reason i say this is that i hardly see any Canadians criticise Canada. on the other hand, nearly every American i know has something to criticise about the US. and i have a difficult time believing that Canada is so faultless.

[Rabid]

http://findory.com/read?id=5ec69467&ib=

The colour of Canadian poverty
Apr. 28, 2006. 01:00 AM
CAROL GOAR


The surprising thing about Grace-Edward Galabuzi, author of a new book entitled Canada's Economic Apartheid: The Social Exclusion of Racialized Groups in the New Century, is that he is a gentle, scholarly man.

He uses facts, not polemics, to make his case. He acknowledges that Canada has been good to him since he fled Uganda at gunpoint in 1982. There is nothing angry or strident about him.

But passion is not measured in decibels. And Galabuzi is nothing if not passionate about resisting the formation of a non-white underclass in his adopted home.

The Ryerson University professor admits he chose the title for his book partly to jolt Canadians out of their complacency. But he does see real and disturbing parallels between the racial stratification of South Africa from 1950 to 1994 and what is going on in urban Canada ó especially Toronto ó today.

He is not accusing individual Canadians of racism, Galabuzi emphasizes. He is asking them to look at the way their labour markets and power structures systematically relegate people of colour to the lower ranks. He is asking them to explain why poverty is disproportionately concentrated among blacks and south Asians. He is asking them to face the fact that Toronto is becoming an increasingly segregated city, with non-whites living in its least desirable neighbourhoods.

"These trends are becoming institutionalized. Not by fiat, not by the state, this is not South Africa and it never will be. But when you look at what's going on in Canada's urban centres, an underclass is starting to emerge and it's very clearly racially defined."

He cites a 2003 Statistics Canada study, which showed that poverty was much more prevalent in Toronto's racial enclaves than in the rest of the city. In areas where more than 30 per cent of the population was Chinese, the low-income rate was 28.4 per cent. Where South Asians predominated, it was 28.3 per cent. Where blacks were dominant, it was 48.5 per cent. (The citywide rate was 22.6 per cent).

The same pattern was evident in unemployment rates. In Chinese enclaves, the incidence of joblessness was 11.2 per cent. In South Asian enclaves, it was 13.1 per cent. In black enclaves, it was 18.3 per cent (the citywide rate was 8.6 per cent.)

All three racial groups were over-represented in low-wage, precarious jobs such as sewing-machine operator, electronics assembler and taxi driver and under-represented in management, the professions and supervisory roles.

This combination of factors ó low incomes, high unemployment, jobs that don't pay enough to pull families out of poverty and kids who see no prospect of a better life ó can easily give rise to anger and violence, Galabuzi says.

"You're starting to see a dramatic increase in incarceration rates in these communities," he warns. "We're looking at real trouble down the road."
He rejects the comforting explanations that Canadians frequently offer for racial polarization.

It can no longer be attributed to differences in education, he points out. Visible minorities ó thanks to Canada's highly selective immigration system ó have a higher rate of post-secondary training than the rest of the population.

Nor does the old time-lag argument hold up. It is not just recent immigrants who are struggling to get a foothold on the economic ladder. Non-white citizens who have been in Canada for decades are stuck on the bottom rung. What's worse, their children are dropping out of school in disproportionate numbers, locking in a destructive intergenerational cycle.

"There will always be individuals who buck the trend," Galabuzi says, anticipating objections. "But as a group, they're doing poorly."

He does see a few hopeful signals.

The city is targeting resources at 13 troubled neighbourhoods before they become racial ghettos.

The labour movement is organizing Toronto's hotel workers, who are overwhelmingly Filipino and Caribbean. They are hired for "back-of-the-house" jobs ó housekeeping, maintenance, food preparation, dishwashing ó that pay $10 to $12 an hour and are let go when their bodies wear out.

And the non-profit sector is highlighting the racial dimension of poverty. The United Way of Greater Toronto took the lead, with its groundbreaking 2004 report Poverty by Postal Code.

Promising as these developments are, Galabuzi says, they are not enough.

Ontario needs an employment equity law that is effective and enforced. The province did adopt an Employment Equity Act in 1993. But former premier Mike Harris repealed it two years later and the governing Liberals have made no attempt to replace it.

Galabuzi is aware that legislating equality of opportunity in the workplace is controversial. But he contends that employers who discriminate on the basis of race ó "blacks wouldn't fit in here, aboriginals are unreliable, ethnics aren't team players" ó should at least be held to account.

He also believes Canada's political parties and public institutions have to do a better job of turning multiculturalism from a feel-good catchphrase into a visible, measurable reality.

Canadians are fair-minded, tolerant people, Galabuzi says. But the society they've built does not reflect that.

[ZhuBaJie]

so what is the Canadian government doing about this?

[bakajyanai]

They are currently allievating problems, improving Canadian morale, by re-running past seasons of Degrassi. j/k. :D

[little mixed girl]

^ my little sister is in love with that show...and that angers me.


interesting article. it brings up good points about poverty.

though were i am, it seems that on one end you have ppl saying that the poor are not qualified to do xyz, but then when you have someone that has graduated from university that needs a job they can't get it because they want to fill the jobs with the "unqualified" people...then bitch about how unqualified they are.

damn long ass run on sentences... <_<

[Rabid]

so what is the Canadian government doing about this?

Well when it comes to new immigrants, the conservative government is providing an additional $300 million in settlement funding and additional funding for the assessment and recognition of foreign credentials.

Even with recognition of credentials, the problem is that employers require Canadian work experience and so these new immigrants will probably stay stuck in low-paying, low-skilled jobs.

As for visible minority Canadian-born people, there was a study by a grad student from Simon Fraser University who found that they face even WORSE discrimination than immigrants of colour. I posted about it here:

http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=6014

Short of legislating a quota for minority hiring, I don't see the situation improving.

[Dialectic]

This is a decent article (I read a bit of it a few days ago) which points out some real concerns. Not all of it, however, is factually true. I don't hold the author responsible for a lot of the comments in this piece, because journalists are notorious for twisting truths and contexts. Of course, so are professors. A few comments of my own:

The surprising thing about Grace-Edward Galabuzi, author of a new book entitled Canada's Economic Apartheid: The Social Exclusion of Racialized Groups in the New Century, is that he is a gentle, scholarly man.

He uses facts, not polemics, to make his case. He acknowledges that Canada has been good to him since he fled Uganda at gunpoint in 1982. There is nothing angry or strident about him.

Using the term "Apatheid" is polemical, especially since what we have going on in Canada is nowhere near Apartheid conditions, or even U.S., Australian, or Western European conditions (once again, say it with me, "we don't have race riots!"). I see why he'd use the word from a marketing standpoint, but it's disappointing nonetheless.

But passion is not measured in decibels. And Galabuzi is nothing if not passionate about resisting the formation of a non-white underclass in his adopted home.

The Ryerson University professor admits he chose the title for his book partly to jolt Canadians out of their complacency. But he does see real and disturbing parallels between the racial stratification of South Africa from 1950 to 1994 and what is going on in urban Canada ó especially Toronto ó today.

There's no surprise here. There's a non-white underclass in every white country, and there always has been. I'm betting, no, wait, I know, the ones in Canada are better off than the ones in Europe, Australia, and the U.S. Look for something that remotely resembles a U.S. or Parisian ghetto in Toronto and you won't find it!

He is not accusing individual Canadians of racism, Galabuzi emphasizes. He is asking them to look at the way their labour markets and power structures systematically relegate people of colour to the lower ranks. He is asking them to explain why poverty is disproportionately concentrated among blacks and south Asians. He is asking them to face the fact that Toronto is becoming an increasingly segregated city, with non-whites living in its least desirable neighbourhoods.

He should also be asking all world citizens why poverty is disproportionately concentrated among blacks and south Asians. This is not an isolated Canadian problem.

"These trends are becoming institutionalized. Not by fiat, not by the state, this is not South Africa and it never will be. But when you look at what's going on in Canada's urban centres, an underclass is starting to emerge and it's very clearly racially defined."

He seems to be admitting here that "Apartheid" is a completely inappropriate term. And again, what's happening in Canada's urban centres reflects what's been happening in the rest of the world: the poorest people are black, south Asian, and Middle-Eastern.

He cites a 2003 Statistics Canada study, which showed that poverty was much more prevalent in Toronto's racial enclaves than in the rest of the city. In areas where more than 30 per cent of the population was Chinese, the low-income rate was 28.4 per cent. Where South Asians predominated, it was 28.3 per cent. Where blacks were dominant, it was 48.5 per cent. (The citywide rate was 22.6 per cent).

The same pattern was evident in unemployment rates. In Chinese enclaves, the incidence of joblessness was 11.2 per cent. In South Asian enclaves, it was 13.1 per cent. In black enclaves, it was 18.3 per cent (the citywide rate was 8.6 per cent.)

All three racial groups were over-represented in low-wage, precarious jobs such as sewing-machine operator, electronics assembler and taxi driver and under-represented in management, the professions and supervisory roles.

This combination of factors ó low incomes, high unemployment, jobs that don't pay enough to pull families out of poverty and kids who see no prospect of a better life ó can easily give rise to anger and violence, Galabuzi says.

"You're starting to see a dramatic increase in incarceration rates in these communities," he warns. "We're looking at real trouble down the road."
He rejects the comforting explanations that Canadians frequently offer for racial polarization.

It can no longer be attributed to differences in education, he points out. Visible minorities ó thanks to Canada's highly selective immigration system ó have a higher rate of post-secondary training than the rest of the population.

All but the last paragraph are no doubt true. His opinion of the "highly selective" immigration progam, however, is false. An overwhelming number of immigrants coming from non East Asian countries are either refugees, not university-educated, and/or barely functional in either official language, yet they are still allowed in on largely compassionate grounds (either formally, under legislation for compassionate grounds, or informally at processing centers by understanding staff). I agree that the difference cannot be wholly attributed to differences in education, there's no doubt about that, but to say that the system is somehow putting down educated immigrants is false. (Granted, there is of course trouble with educational equivalencies in engineering and medicine.)

The people who are doing the worst are the people who have come from the worst places, and have the worst, poorest histories in the first place. That's not easy to fix.

Nor does the old time-lag argument hold up. It is not just recent immigrants who are struggling to get a foothold on the economic ladder. Non-white citizens who have been in Canada for decades are stuck on the bottom rung. What's worse, their children are dropping out of school in disproportionate numbers, locking in a destructive intergenerational cycle.

And we have to ask, "which children are dropping out of school?" I know it's not the East Asian ones, so that leaves the black and the south/ south-east Asian ones, who do more poorly economically and educationally everywhere else in the world too.

"There will always be individuals who buck the trend," Galabuzi says, anticipating objections. "But as a group, they're doing poorly."

He does see a few hopeful signals.

The city is targeting resources at 13 troubled neighbourhoods before they become racial ghettos.

The labour movement is organizing Toronto's hotel workers, who are overwhelmingly Filipino and Caribbean. They are hired for "back-of-the-house" jobs ó housekeeping, maintenance, food preparation, dishwashing ó that pay $10 to $12 an hour and are let go when their bodies wear out.

And the non-profit sector is highlighting the racial dimension of poverty. The United Way of Greater Toronto took the lead, with its groundbreaking 2004 report Poverty by Postal Code.

Promising as these developments are, Galabuzi says, they are not enough.

Ontario needs an employment equity law that is effective and enforced. The province did adopt an Employment Equity Act in 1993. But former premier Mike Harris repealed it two years later and the governing Liberals have made no attempt to replace it.

Galabuzi is aware that legislating equality of opportunity in the workplace is controversial. But he contends that employers who discriminate on the basis of race ó "blacks wouldn't fit in here, aboriginals are unreliable, ethnics aren't team players" ó should at least be held to account.

He also believes Canada's political parties and public institutions have to do a better job of turning multiculturalism from a feel-good catchphrase into a visible, measurable reality.

Canadians are fair-minded, tolerant people, Galabuzi says. But the society they've built does not reflect that.

Everything in this last quoted section sounds about right, but to imply that they are solely responsible for having built a society which doesn't reflect their own values is a bit ridiculous.

I won't say anything about the professor's book, but this article, at least, has no new or surprising content. I could very easily have written this article, and I hope it's not the case with the book.

We have to ask ourselves not "why are they not doing well in Canada?" but rather, "why are they not doing well anywhere in the world?" Then we come to subjects like colonialism, chronic poverty, social/ cultural conditioning, continued exploitation, etc.

The fact is, this scenario was entirely predictible. If you want to track how well immigrant groups do, it generally goes East Asians, South/ South-east Asians, Hispanics, Eastern Europeans, Middle-Easterners, Caribbean Blacks, and then African Blacks. I believe this is generally reflected in academics as well as economics (you might switch one here and there).

You can't expect Canada to magically buck this trend. You can, however, try to make it better for them here than it would be elsewhere, and in this manner, I think Canada has done far better than most other Western countries. A refugee or permanent resident has access to healthcare, employment insurance, welfare, and a whole slew of other social and employment programs, and education here is still cheaper than in the U.S.

What's Canada doing? Well there were the programs mentioned in the article above, along with offering a very comprehensive social welfare net; there are quite a few educational/ employment programs offered by various levels of government and academic institutions, and spending on immigration, citizenship, and integration programs is increasing. The Federal government has formally increased the number of employed visible minorities, and companies are actively encouraged to hire more women and non-whites. I don't know that there's that much more the country can do, other than institute nation-wide quotas, which would present lots of problems, and otherwise simply expand the size of these programs and continue educating the public and the next generation about the nature and prevalence of racism (which it's already doing quite a bit). And if you haven't guessed by now, I know a thing or two about the system.

For overviews of some of the social and immigration programs Canada offers, you can check out these links:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/brochure/service.html
http://servicecanada.gc.ca/en/home.html

I don't think U.S. programs are quite as universal or comprehensive.

And let's not forget, the color of Canadian poverty is the same color as everyone else's poverty, and the Canadian poor are less poor and less disenfranchised (remember, the fear is that we'll become like the U.S., not that we'll lead the pack).

Here's my question to the professor and all of you: we know the country is partially responsible for how a particular minority group fares. Who else is responsible?

[ZhuBaJie]

come on now, D, the fact that many countries around the world have the same problems that Canada has - this is a point that one can bring up when the problems of any country is discussed. but the point, when applied to any country, is basically irrelevant. that in happens in many other countries does not alleviate the fact that it happens to the country being discussed. and i've said this many times especially when people point out problems in US or problems in China.

[Dialectic]

come on now, D, the fact that many countries around the world have the same problems that Canada has - this is a point that one can bring up when the problems of any country is discussed. but the point, when applied to any country, is basically irrelevant. that in happens in many other countries does not alleviate the fact that it happens to the country being discussed. and i've said this many times especially when people point out problems in US or problems in China.

I've not said anything about the alleviation of problems having to do with their universality. I've said that these problems are worldwide, and that Canada still deals with them better than most, and that it's partial and limiting to deal with them in a solely Canadian context, when they are not solely Canadian problems. The fear for Canadians is that we may become like other countries if we do not manage the social and economic landscape properly, which is already very telling, because it implies that we are not like those other countries now.

Please read my posts more closely and don't infer anything I don't imply.

[Dialectic]

(I've merged the two Canadian race threads because it's convenient and they're highly related.)

but the reason i say this is that i hardly see any Canadians criticise Canada. on the other hand, nearly every American i know has something to criticise about the US. and i have a difficult time believing that Canada is so faultless.

I know what you're saying, but TONS of Canadians criticize Canada, without really appreciating what they have or knowing actually goes on in government (and foreign governments). It's part of the reason I spend time talking about what actually happens in Canada and what Canada offers, because so many Canadians have semi-ignorant views (while still being quite pleasant, for the most part).

I've probably mentioned this before, but I had one white Canadian female professor tell me straight-faced that Canada was one of the most racist countries in the world, after attending a Ph.D. thesis filled with Blacks and Asians while living in Toronto, home of the "Chinese growth economy" as they've recently called it. It was such a blatantly ridiculous, but good-hearted, statement I couldn't even respond. Had she seen how social structures and politics worked in the U.S., or France, or Germany, or Taiwan, or Japan, or Australia?! That was also the day I got my first in-person clue as to how crazy and out-of-touch some otherwise kind-hearted academics/ social scientists are.

Also, I'm not too interested in the U.S. vs. Canada thing either, because I'm actually a big fan of the U.S. (though not the current administration), and it's in a very different position, given the sheer size and wealth it has. Ultimately, the U.S. will do what the U.S. will do, and everyone else will adapt to it.

[ZhuBaJie]

i don't know why the two threads were merged. one is about American empowerment vs. Canadian empowerment, the other is about Canadian poverty along racial lines. the latter has nothing to do with the US. are all threads about social problems in Canada going to be merged into this thread now? that's ridiculous. but whatever, i'm not an admin or mod here.

anyway, here're some statistics on poverty in Canada:
http://www.napo-onap.ca/en/issues/face%20%20of%20poverty.pdf

[ZhuBaJie]

come on now, D, the fact that many countries around the world have the same problems that Canada has - this is a point that one can bring up when the problems of any country is discussed. but the point, when applied to any country, is basically irrelevant. that in happens in many other countries does not alleviate the fact that it happens to the country being discussed. and i've said this many times especially when people point out problems in US or problems in China.

I've not said anything about the alleviation of problems having to do with their universality.

... i didn't say that you said this...

i said the point is irrelevant, and that it does not alleviate the problems in Canada itself. i never said you were saying that it does.

Please read my posts more closely and don't infer anything I don't imply.

[Dialectic]

i don't know why the two threads were merged. one is about American empowerment vs. Canadian empowerment, the other is about Canadian poverty along racial lines. the latter has nothing to do with the US. are all threads about social problems in Canada going to be merged into this thread now? that's ridiculous. but whatever, i'm not an admin or mod here.

Uh, well, as I said above, they're highly related and it's convenient for me.

Empowerment and racial poverty are not separate issues. As the former increases, the latter decreases.

Also, to say that Canadin racial issues have "nothing to do with the U.S." is being disingenuous, as they're interlinked and have strong similarities as well as differences. he trends and fears discussed in this article, in partcular have already occurred in the U.S. in a very pronounced manner, and it's useful to look at the current states of both countries when discussing the state of one (especially since this article makes it sound like these problems are unique to Canada, when none of the problems discussed therein are unique to Canada at all).

And finally, anything that annoys zbj makes me happy.

[ZhuBaJie]

i don't know why the two threads were merged. one is about American empowerment vs. Canadian empowerment, the other is about Canadian poverty along racial lines. the latter has nothing to do with the US. are all threads about social problems in Canada going to be merged into this thread now? that's ridiculous. but whatever, i'm not an admin or mod here.

Uh, well, as I said above, they're highly related and it's convenient for me.

Empowerment and racial poverty are not separate issues. As the former increases, the latter decreases.

Also, to say that Canadin racial issues have "nothing to do with the U.S." is being disingenuous, as they're interlinked and have strong similarities as well as differences. he trends and fears discussed in this article, in partcular have already occurred in the U.S. in a very pronounced manner, and it's useful to look at the current states of both countries when discussing the state of one (especially since this article makes it sound like these problems are unique to Canada, when none of the problems discussed therein are unique to Canada at all).

And finally, anything that annoys zbj makes me happy.

so does that mean that any and all threads about any social ills in Canada, especially racially related ones, will be merged into this thread?

and you know, i just listened to Bush talk about illegal immigration, and he annoys the hell out of me. but i'm glad Bush makes you happy.

[Rabid]

There's no firm timeline set, but as far as I know, it's generally understood in CIC that the government is moving that way. Ultimately, most of these guys are productive, law-abiding citizens; the one's I'm specifically referring to are tradespeople working with various construction unions around Toronto. Everyone knows they're illegal, they still pay union dues (I'm not exactly sure how that works, but hey), so we know how to find them and contact them, and legalizing them benefits everyone.

The government had been talking about doing that, but the new conservative government last month made mass deportations of illegal workers from Portugal:

Many had been in Canada for years.

Also, the new Minister of Immigration stated in that same article:

Solberg has said he is sympathetic to deportees but maintains that immigration laws must be upheld and any plan to "regularize" people in the country illegally is a low priority.

Low priority - read: it will probably never happen. Higher priorities are things such as credential recognition and dealing with the massive processing backlog. Past governments have simply not dealt with the issue because it was controversial. They didn't want to reward people who didn't come in legally, but they didn't do anything about it because industries such as construction need them so badly.

Canada may be good about bringing in high numbers of immigrants, but does a lousy job of integrating them. Either the government needs to spend more money on programs to alleviate these problems or they need to admit fewer immigrants so that greater resources are available for fewer of them. The current government is actually showing some sense in not sticking with the former government's goal of bringing in 1% of the total population.

They also need to adjust their priorities of the types of immigrants they want to bring in. You alluded to it in another post - immigrants who lack skills are being brought in. Well family reunification has been one of the top objectives of immigration, not skilled workers. People who want to sponsor their parents or their children do not have to show that the person being sponsored is fluent in English or French as in other types of immigration such as skilled worker or other economic class immigrants. This priority is reflected in the processing times for the different categories. Family sponsorship of spouses takes far less time than if someone were applying as a skilled worker to the same visa post. Take Beijing for example:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/times-int/05-fc-spouses.html

It takes 4 months to finalize 80% of cases there under spousal sponsorship.

However when you look at skilled worker processing times (and we Canucks know how badly we need skilled workers because it's talked about repeatedly in the press so much, year after year):

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/times-int/02a-skilled-fed.html

It takes 59 months (ie. 5 years!!) to finalize 80% of cases!

Actually, you don't need to limited yourself to Beijing.. look at all the other numbers from the other visa posts and compare them to the number of months it takes to sponsor a spouse or partner from the same visa post.

As for skilled workers, well they need to readjust their system to reflect the need for tradesmen and not people with Master's degrees, as it is now.

[Rabid]

All but the last paragraph are no doubt true. His opinion of the "highly selective" immigration progam, however, is false. An overwhelming number of immigrants coming from non East Asian countries are either refugees, not university-educated, and/or barely functional in either official language, yet they are still allowed in on largely compassionate grounds (either formally, under legislation for compassionate grounds, or informally at processing centers by understanding staff). I agree that the difference cannot be wholly attributed to differences in education, there's no doubt about that, but to say that the system is somehow putting down educated immigrants is false. (Granted, there is of course trouble with educational equivalencies in engineering and medicine.)

The people who are doing the worst are the people who have come from the worst places, and have the worst, poorest histories in the first place. That's not easy to fix.

If you claim that the system isn't putting down educated immigrants, then something else is happening and causing this increasing wage gap between immigrants and Canadian-born workers:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/031008/d031008a.htm

Earnings of immigrant workers and Canadian-born workers
1980-2000

Despite a massive increase in their educational attainment, recent immigrant men employed on a full-year, full-time basis saw their real earnings fall 7% on average from 1980 to 2000, according to a new study based on census data. During the same period, however, real earnings of Canadian-born men went up 7%. Earnings of recent immigrant women rose over the period, but not as quickly as among Canadian-born women.

The study found that in 1980, immigrant male workers who had arrived in Canada from 1975 to 1979 and who were working full-time for at least 40 weeks earned $40,600.

Twenty years later, their counterparts, that is, male immigrants who arrived from 1995 to 1999, earned only $37,900.

This substantial decline cannot be attributed to changes in the educational attainment of recent immigrant men, as it occurred during a time when their level of education rose substantially. In 1980, of all recent immigrant male workers employed on a full-year, full-time basis, 22% had a university degree. By 2000, this proportion had doubled to 44%.

While earnings of recent male immigrants have fallen over the last two decades, those of Canadian-born workers have risen. As a result, the gap between the pay rates of recent immigrant men and those of their Canadian-born counterparts has widened substantially.

This growing gap suggests that unless they experience a marked improvement in their earnings in the near future, male immigrants who arrived during the late 1990s will need more time than their predecessors to achieve earnings parity with Canadian-born workers.

Men who immigrated during the late 1990s were not the only group to experience significant decreases in earnings over the last two decades. Canadian-born men aged 25 to 29 also saw their earnings fall markedly. In 1980, they received $39,800. Two decades later, however, their counterparts earned only $35,700, a 10% decline.

The study also found that earnings of recent immigrant women increased during the 20-year period. However, Canadian-born women saw their earnings increase considerably more. As a result, a growing earnings gap also emerged between recent immigrant women and their Canadian-born counterparts over the last two decades.

For both sexes, the poorer performance of recent immigrants was observed mainly among workers in prime age groups. In general, young Canadian-born workers had no stronger earnings growth than their recent immigrant counterparts.

[Dialectic]

The government had been talking about doing that, but the new conservative government last month made mass deportations of illegal workers from Portugal:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/
Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1145657412510&call_pageid=
968350130169&col=969483202845

Many had been in Canada for years.

Yes, I'm aware of the deportations, as well as that one nasty article on the people who were hiding from immigration and were forced to come out of hiding because CIC officers took their kids into custody. Stuff like this happens, and Canada deports people all the time. I haven't gotten into all the dirty stuff that Immigration has to deal with, but they see a lot of bad things; this is what comes with accepting large numbers of immigrants, and I think Canada, and Toronto in particular, has actually done admirably, considering the challenges involved.

Deportation and refusal to grant citizenship happens all the time, but it's only done after a lengthy appeals process, a final "notwithstanding" appeal on compassionategrounds, and if someone's refused citizenship, or indeed, sent away, there's generally a pretty damn good reason. Having a compassionate stance doesn't necessarily mean giving amnesty to whoever wants it, because then we ask the opposite question: how is it fair to allow illegal immigrants to stay when so many immigrants who come through proper channels have to wait and be assessed with due diligence?

Low priority - read: it will probably never happen. Higher priorities are things such as credential recognition and dealing with the massive processing backlog. Past governments have simply not dealt with the issue because it was controversial. They didn't want to reward people who didn't come in legally, but they didn't do anything about it because industries such as construction need them so badly.

Gotta disagree with you here. Certainly, the Conservative governent doesn't have this as high on the agenda, because we're pretty much being governed by an Alberta government, but that won't last forever (and even they have acknowledged the importance of immigration, when they couldn't really give a fuck being from the sticks). Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver have significant influence with the Federal Government, and it won't be too long before it's felt again, either through elections or other means.

Canada may be good about bringing in high numbers of immigrants, but does a lousy job of integrating them. Either the government needs to spend more money on programs to alleviate these problems or they need to admit fewer immigrants so that greater resources are available for fewer of them. The current government is actually showing some sense in not sticking with the former government's goal of bringing in 1% of the total population.

Have to disagree again here; Canada does a pretty damn good job of integrating immigrants, and the country's programs are not trivial or hard to access. The country facilitates language training, hosting, works with local community groups, and encourages the retention of religion and culture. CIC has also just had a massive hiring spree to address the backlog; the government is certainly slow to respond to things, I won't argue there, but in this case, its intentions were (and still pretty much are) in the right place.

They also need to adjust their priorities of the types of immigrants they want to bring in. You alluded to it in another post - immigrants who lack skills are being brought in. Well family reunification has been one of the top objectives of immigration, not skilled workers. People who want to sponsor their parents or their children do not have to show that the person being sponsored is fluent in English or French as in other types of immigration such as skilled worker or other economic class immigrants. This priority is reflected in the processing times for the different categories. Family sponsorship of spouses takes far less time than if someone were applying as a skilled worker to the same visa post. Take Beijing for example:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/times-int/05-fc-spouses.html

It takes 4 months to finalize 80% of cases there under spousal sponsorship.

However when you look at skilled worker processing times (and we Canucks know how badly we need skilled workers because it's talked about repeatedly in the press so much, year after year):

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/times-int/02a-skilled-fed.html

It takes 59 months (ie. 5 years!!) to finalize 80% of cases!

Actually, you don't need to limited yourself to Beijing.. look at all the other numbers from the other visa posts and compare them to the number of months it takes to sponsor a spouse or partner from the same visa post.

As for skilled workers, well they need to readjust their system to reflect the need for tradesmen and not people with Master's degrees, as it is now.

I agree that Canada has to take in more tradespeople, there's no question there. As for the spouse/family vs. skilled worker processing times, it's not a case of a priority problem: it's administrative ease. It is MUCH easier to process, for example, the application of a father or spouse or child than it is a skilled worker, because there is less to look for and there are less constraints and checks to consider: you just have to make sure they're truly related and who they say they are, as opposed to checking for skill, income, and other factors of desirability. I doubt the speed of sw processing could be sped up much relative to family. Finally, I take it as a good thing that Canada cares enough to facilitate the semi-efficient processing of family, as the country and legislation recognizes the importance of having a close support system in the immigrant life.

[Rabid]

All but the last paragraph are no doubt true. His opinion of the "highly selective" immigration progam, however, is false. An overwhelming number of immigrants coming from non East Asian countries are either refugees, not university-educated, and/or barely functional in either official language, yet they are still allowed in on largely compassionate grounds (either formally, under legislation for compassionate grounds, or informally at processing centers by understanding staff).

The people who are doing the worst are the people who have come from the worst places, and have the worst, poorest histories in the first place. That's not easy to fix.

Here are some figures that break down the type of immigrants that land by category:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/monitor/issue10/02-immigrants.html

Of the 228,730 immigrants and refugees that became permanent residents in Canada:

32,685 were refugees
62,246 were family class

So that is 41.5% coming in under non-economic class category. I don't think these numbers tell the whole story, as there are those coming in under the skilled worker category who may have trouble finding work (e.g. people with graduate degrees doing menial work because their education isn't recognized and they don't have Canadian work experience) and there are people who are sponsored and come as refugees (while not required to have education and skills may still possess them). So like you said the problem can't be attributed to educational differences, there is something else going on. You can also see where the government's priorities are with these statistics.

I do agree with you that alot more is done for immigrants in Canada than in the U.S. Many refugees come to Canada from the U.S. and would rather claim refugee status here because of our generous social programs, but the Safe Third Country Agreement has really cut those numbers down.

[Rabid]

I agree that Canada has to take in more tradespeople, there's no question there. As for the spouse/family vs. skilled worker processing times, it's not a case of a priority problem: it's administrative ease. It is MUCH easier to process, for example, the application of a father or spouse or child than it is a skilled worker, because there is less to look for and there are less constraints and checks to consider: you just have to make sure they're truly related and who they say they are, as opposed to checking for skill, income, and other factors of desirability. I doubt the speed of sw processing could be sped up much relative to family. Finally, I take it as a good thing that Canada cares enough to facilitate the semi-efficient processing of family, as the country and legislation recognizes the importance of having a close support system in the immigrant life.

Just curious... how long have you been working for CIC for?

[Rabid]

Deportation and refusal to grant citizenship happens all the time, but it's only done after a lengthy appeals process, a final "notwithstanding" appeal on compassionategrounds, and if someone's refused citizenship, or indeed, sent away, there's generally a pretty damn good reason. Having a compassionate stance doesn't necessarily mean giving amnesty to whoever wants it, because then we ask the opposite question: how is it fair to allow illegal immigrants to stay when so many immigrants who come through proper channels have to wait and be assessed with due diligence?

I don't disagree with you there. I think another problem is lack of resources, immigration just doesn't have the money or manpower for enforcement, to follow up on all those people who enter on a temporary visa but overstay.

I do sympathize with immigration officers working at posts, I would not want to be in their position of having to meet targets but having huge numbers of applications that far exceeds them.

[Dialectic]

so does that mean that any and all threads about any social ills in Canada, especially racially related ones, will be merged into this thread?

Once again, you put words into my mouth and use rhetoric to infer a point I did not imply. I thought the threads were suitably related, I had some responses I thought were approriate to both, so I merged them. That's that.

and you know, i just listened to Bush talk about illegal immigration, and he annoys the hell out of me. but i'm glad Bush makes you happy.

As my friends and I say, Bush won the election because he'd be a damn fun guy to have at a barbecue, and if he annoys you, you only have your country to blame. It's the good ol' U.S. of A that votes based on religious belief and how friendly the leader comes across on TV. We voted for a stroke victim for twelve years and just brought in a robot.

If you claim that the system isn't putting down educated immigrants, then something else is happening and causing this increasing wage gap between immigrants and Canadian-born workers:

Okay, I see that I'm going to have to be even more careful with my statements. Yes, racism is systemic. I know this. That is, after all why my friends and I started the site. Yes, there are income disparities between visible minority workers and white workers. This has been a long-known reality, at least among racially-aware circles.

If you read my passage again, you'll see that I made a couple points: 1) the difference cannot wholly be attributed to educational diferences, i.e. there is merit in saying there is a genuine disparity between equally-educated white and non-white people, and 2) we do have problems with educational equivalency, meaning a bunch of engineers and doctors are working as cab drivers and lab technicians. I know this.

I admit that I wasn't thinking about every possible implication of the phrase when I said the system isn't putting down immigrants; of course it is, though not in the blatant ways we may think. I apologize if that statement sounded like I said there's no systemic racism. That would be a ludicrous assertion. I just meant, in the context of my response, that it's not nearly as bad as the professor and the article are making it out to be, considering that they were mentioning incarceration, poverty, "precarious jobs" and so on, and combining it with discussion on the lack of an educational gap. The discussion of what's happening to educated and non-educated immigrants are two very different topics, and I didn't feel it was right that they bring it all together in such a relatively care-free (-less?) manner. It's also interesting to note that in the info you provided, young Canadian male incomes are going down, and new immigrant female incomes are going up (albeit not as quickly as their Canadian counterparts), so trends are also not "across the board" and some complex things are going on.

[ZhuBaJie]

so does that mean that any and all threads about any social ills in Canada, especially racially related ones, will be merged into this thread?

Once again, you put words into my mouth and use rhetoric to infer a point I did not imply. I thought the threads were suitably related, I had some responses I thought were approriate to both, so I merged them. That's that.

again, when have i said you implied anything?

i asked you a question, that's all. and i'll ask again, for the third time, does this mean that any and all threads about any social ills in Canada, especially racially related ones, will be merged into this thread?

[Dialectic]

Just curious... how long have you been working for CIC for?

I've had a great many jobs in my day, too many, really, for any sort of healthy continuity. Suffice it to say, work in private if you want to make money, work in the guvs if you want time and energy, and work in academia if you want to sound like zbj or xian.

[zhaogao]

Suffice it to say, work in private if you want to make money, work in the guvs if you want time and energy, and work in academia if you want to sound like zbj or xian.

Or don't work at all and live off social assistance like the lazy, visible minority that I am.

[Dialectic]

Get off the reservation!

(And it's not just me implying natives have a problem handling money, but native leaders, in response to the massive amounts of money the Canadian government is about to give for all those years of school abuse.)

[zhaogao]

Atleast they're getting some.

[Dialectic]

Oh and in the last few weeks, CIC has announced a few new initiatives. They've brought the Right of Permanent Residence fee down by 50% to $490, allocated $307 million in new settlement funding, and $18†million toward the recognition of credentials, new legislation regarding foreign adoptions, extending off-campus work permits to foreign students, and are implementing new measures against human trafficking.

And that's with an Albertan Conservative government!

More here: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html

Again, of course there are problems, but it's clear the direction they're going.

[Rabid]

Oh and in the last few weeks, CIC has announced a few new initiatives. They've brought the Right of Permanent Residence fee down by 50% to $490, allocated $307 million in new settlement funding, and $18†million toward the recognition of credentials, new legislation regarding foreign adoptions, extending off-campus work permits to foreign students, and are implementing new measures against human trafficking.

And that's with an Albertan Conservative government!

More here: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html

Again, of course there are problems, but it's clear the direction they're going.

Credentials recognition helps, but there is still the bottleneck with the professional associations who regulate the licensing of professions (such as doctors, engineers) and employers who *insist* on Canadian work experience. I don't think overqualified south asian cab drivers or east asian clerks working at Home Depot will be going away any time soon.
There should be more bridging programs, internships and mentoring opportunities to help them get this Canadian experience. I hope the government will provide funds for that.

Off-campus work permits only apply to public post-secondary institutions, not private.

Yes, they appear to be following through on their promises. I had a feeling they would and that is why I voted for them. I voted Liberal for many years and before that I was with the PC's. Harper's conservatives are looking more and more like the PC's of the past.

[Tyger Durden]

...The Canadian philosophy is more of a mosaic or quilt: bring everything you can to the table: your culture, your beliefs, your religion, your foods, your attitudes, and as long as they don't mess with other peoples' fundamental rights to have their culture, beliefs, religion, foods, and attitudes, then be the way you are, and that's Canadian enough. That seems to work a bit better.

It's also of course a numbers game. Toronto and Vancouver have massive numbers of Chinese people. The more you have, the more attention you're paid, the more rights and privileges you receive. (It's interesting to note, however, that at least on this forum - and I suspect on other Asian forums - the craziest, angriest, most psychologically messed-up people are from big American cities with big Asian populations. From what we've seen, Canada has almost none of this, whereas California and New York are filled with crazies.)...

even though i hail from California and amongst the "crazies", i've always felt that Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver might be cool destinations in which to expatriate to.

Of the three cities mentioned i've heard good things about Toronto and Montreal, whereas Vancouver might be influenced by our (the USA) notions of the "Great White North" nearby from our northeast corner.

I've seen tourist pix of Toronto and Montreal and both seem very diverse.

They are definitely on the list of places to escape if/when America becomes the Roman Empire.

[Dialectic]

Montreal used to be the financial center of Canada, and my family and I used to visit often, until Toronto got more to offer. Montreal has a sort of Old World feel, what with cobblestones and a French-European aesthetic. Also, all the young folk there dress up like they're going to a club, even if they're going to class. I haven't been to Mtl in recent years, but my sis and several of my friends have.

Toronto has the most big-city feel, and is very, very culturally diverse. Everyone should come here if they plan on visiting Canada.

Ottawa is a nice place; smaller, more relaxed, cleaner, and while some big city people find it boring, others actually really appreciate the more laid-back attitude, as well as the easy access to parks and greenery.

Haven't yet spent much time in Vancouver, but I will. I hear it's good times.

Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, by the way, are the top three destinations for new immigrants. Calgary will probably continue to attract more and more people as things develop around the oil there.

[Sothy]

the federal government (of Canada) spending money on foreign (immigrant) credentialing is not of immediate benefit in many ways though...you see, almost all Regulated professions (or all?) are PROVINCIALLY regulated in this great country of ours...

thus, you can study law at Toronto and move to New York and work (same bar test as American grads)...but if you study law at Harvard, you can't move to Vancouver and work...you gotta "upgrade" your degree (cause obviously you aren't ready...).

I question how the feds can change that given that it is a provincial responsiblity to run their law societies, colleges of physicians, etc.

thus, speak english with a Scottish accent? No problem. Speak english with an Indian accent...potentially, depending on the particular provincial body concerned, we have a problem...thus, I know an Indian vetenarian who was licensed in Ontario, but having trouble in BC...

So it would probably be more accurate to say that Canada has better low-education immigration intergration, but that America has better intergration (into the workforce) of professionally educated immigrants. This is a huge problem IMO that has been caused by focussing on the left for too long...now that the pendulum has swung the other way, hopefully we'll start to look at these issues (and get the new pathologies of catering to the elite and then swing back to the left in due time).

BC, Ontario, and Quebec have a lot of influence in the current conservative government. In truth, the party is more of a reverse takeover ala Canada Trust on TD Bank (wherein the current CEO, etc. are all former Canada Trust guys). A lot of Mulroney era backroom folk are in charge in Ottawa these days...and hey, Apartheid (in South Africa) was ended, thanks, in part, to the efforts of Clark and Mulroney's conservative foreign policy (see Wiki)...

By the way, the current trend of attempting 1 percent of population increase through immigration (but always coming up short...), was started in the Trudeau days because they were informed that immigrants vote Liberal...Fortunately, in order to win in Canada, a Conservative party must adopt a lot of Liberal attitudes, so we've become immigrant friendly. Along a similar note, look at the number of cabinet ministers from Ontario and Quebec relative to the West...which makes sense as most people do live there...

end of the day though, NO race riots in Canada...race riots in America...who do you think is doing a better job (but, yes, as I posted, Canada does need to work on how it treats professionals with foreign degrees...)?