Time Immortal

The Globe and Mail is reporting that by 2030, any growth in Canada’s population will come solely from immigration. That is to say that while Canadians themselves will (maybe) produce just enough offspring to replace the elderly that pass on, thus maintaining an effectively static population in the country. Any population growth beyond that level will be the result of people from other nations moving to Canada and making it a home.

Immigration is fuelling two-thirds of Canada’s population growth and will likely become the only source of gains by 2030, according to a national census snapshot released yesterday.

Statistics Canada also found the country’s population increase was the highest of the G8 industrialized nations between 2001 and 2006. At 31.6 million, the number of Canadians grew by 1.6 million, or 5.4 per cent.

The expansion, however, is largely concentrated in a handful of urban areas that attract most of the country’s newcomers.

“Immigration is the real driver for the population growth in Canada,” said Rosemary Bender, Statscan’s director-general responsible for census content. “This is an increasing trend.”

On the surface of it, that doesn’t sound too bad, does it?

But then, that’s just the surface, the veneer that coats the larger truth. To be fair, it’s an appealing surface…insert your favourite buzzword (or buzzterm) here: rich mosaic, cultural diversity, great selection of ethnic restaurants, whatever. And all of that is, in its own way, nice to see. To be equally fair, many immigrants have made very positive contributions to Canadian economic development and/or the communities in which they have chosen to settle. Many, but not all.

If Statscan’s projections prove accurate, having a higher proportion of immigrants would spark increasing urbanization, especially in Greater Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, which could lead to more traffic congestion, higher pollution levels and overburdened public-transit systems.

And the face of the country would change, with visible minorities, who now comprise most newcomers, becoming the majority in big cities. More immigrants would also translate into increased political clout for ethnic communities.

But social tensions could also rise, with strains on schools and workplaces as newcomers struggle to adjust to a country that most believe does a poor job of helping them.

“Just bringing in immigrants and dropping them down in Canada is not sufficient,” said David Foot, a University of Toronto economics professor and demographics expert.

Notice that it is so matter-of-factly stated that the “face of the country would change”. It’s certainly a common-sense statement, but doesn’t it deserve a bit of fleshing out? What exact form could we expect a change in the face of the country to take?

If all it means is that the Chinatowns, Little Italys, and Little Beiruts in Canadian cities grow a bit larger, that a few more exceedingly tasty donair and pizza restaurants open, and that a few more Asian-run computer stores spring into existence…okay, that’s not such a bad thing in and of itself. But the question becomes, especially in Canada (where multiculturalism and cultural relativism are trendy, and assimilation and melting pots are seen as “bad” and/or “American”), is it possible for a nation to take in a large number of immigrants from widely varying cultural backgrounds and retain its own institutions, traditions, and/or style of government?

For example — if a city becomes majority Muslim by immigration, how will that affect the availability of pork and bacon in that city? It sounds like an odd example, but consider that in the news yesterday was this little item about how a Muslim girl working at a Target in Minneapolis refused to scan and bag packages of bacon and pepperoni pizzas whilst working at the till; she would either make the customer scan it or would call another employee over to do it for her.

“I can’t even touch it”, she explained when asked, “it” being any product which is or may contain the meat of a pig.

Normally, that might beg the question of why one would choose to work at a store if one’s religious convictions prevented one from completely discharging one’s duties there. Your author also wonders what the issue is; the package is sealed and sanitary, so it’s not as though there’s even a risk of “touching” the pork. Indeed, that’s rather the reasoning behind the packaging on most food items; to prevent cross-contamination, either from contact with other products or through being handled by workers who have not observed proper hygienic practises.

Moreover, although your author has never worked at a grocery store, he would accept a job as a cashier if that was all he could find…even if it meant that occasionally he’d have to ring through a package or two of condoms for someone (even though he has a religious objection to artificial methods of birth control). He might draw the line at selling someone their birth-control prescription, because of the attendant issues of embryo implantation prevention…and I’d have no problem with a Muslim cashier taking the same action in that regard. But then, eating bacon is a long way, morally speaking, from artificially preventing embryo implantation. The former might violate some religious dietary laws, but the latter — if and when it happens — is murder.

As a cashier, one is not complicit in the sins of one’s customers; if they wish to be an infidel and buy pork, so be it. There’s essentially no risk that there will be “essence of pork” on the outside of the package of bacon.

If the cashier was really concerned, she could even wear a pair of gloves. The point, O Reader, is that there are several levels of knowledge and prevention open to this young woman that allow her to discharge her complete duties as a cashier without fear of ever having to actually touch pork. If she can’t tell the difference between plastic packaging and actual pork, that’s a different problem altogether, and it might do well for her boss to pull her off of the active roster until such time as she has demonstrated the ability to tell the difference.

That the cashier instead simply refuses to discharge that aspect of her duties speaks instead to what is really behind the observation that the “face of the nation” will change: Canada will become less “Canadian” and more [insert country of immigrant origin here], depending on which culture becomes dominant in each area of the country.

And, as Kathy points out:

The real question is: who contributes to our society and who does not? Indian and Asian immigrants work hard and don’t clutter up the social safety net; they don’t even take up space in retirement homes because old folks live with their kids.

What about immigrants who are a net drain on society? Who contribute little more than resentment, victimhood, illiterate sound bites and bad cab rides? We have plenty of aboriginals in Canada but what do they give back for all the money we fork over?

So racial/cultural background matters less than how visible these groups are on the radar screen and whether they give as much or more than they get.

It wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing if Canada began to morph into a culture like that espoused by some Asian immigrant families; a more family-oriented culture, in which the elderly are cared for by children and grandchildren, is a good thing. If that can be coupled with what remains of Canada’s Christian heritage, it will be an even better thing, and would be a positive turn for the country. Likewise a turn toward a renewed understanding of the value of hard work, especially the hard work of Indian immigrants — who often bring with them the drive for excellence that has been inculcated in them by an education in the old British system — would be a great thing for Canada.

But what about the crime rate that seems to infect Jamaican communities in Ontario? What about the misogynistic cultural norms — i.e. polygamy and honour killing, both of which are suspected to be happening in Canada to some as-yet unquantified extent — that some immigrants from Muslim nations bring with them? What about arranged marriages, which are still a common practise in several nations around the world? What about disdain for art and music, which some cultures seem to have taken on? What about the increasing tendency we see observed in Europe, wherein Muslim males will accost any woman — Muslim or not — who is not wearing a veil? In such nations, many women have taken to wearing a veil not out of any particular religious conviction, but out of fear for their own safety; those same men who would accost them otherwise are evidently quite respectful to women who “cover up” properly.

If these are the values that become more commonplace in this changed face of the nation, is that a good thing? Methinks no.

Kathy notes:

Being a Torontonian, where close to half the population is foreign born, I’ve been asking this for years. But of course, I’m a racist…

Does anyone really think Toronto will still have Veteran’s Day celebrations and an opera house and a Hockey Hall of Fame, etc in 20 years time, those things being very WASPy institutions?

Do you think your nurse will speak English fluently and if not, how will this affect your care? Will the guy behind the store counter understand what you’re asking for? Will the mechanic understand when you explain what’s wrong with your car? How will the Asian disdain for manual labour effect the number of tradesmen or even bus drivers? How much will the Jamaican disdain for higher education cost me in welfare checks and prison guards?

Oh but I forgot: “just think of all the great restaurants!” Yeah, but what if I can’t go out without a veil?

There is an issue here, which the Globe manages just barely to touch on in its article:

Canada will need to better integrate immigrants, many of whom have trouble finding jobs suitable to their skills, have lower incomes than native-born Canadians and are more alienated, experts said.

“That problem is going to become more pressing, in a way, as the immigrant population becomes a larger and larger proportion of our work force,” said Jeffrey Reitz, a University of Toronto sociology professor who specializes in immigration issues.

The issue, of course, is integration, or assimilation, of immigrants into Canadian society and culture. There has to be a sense of balance that is struck: the opportunity for those immigrants to retain aspects of their culture of origin must be there, but it must be made equally clear that when one becomes a Canadian, one takes on a certain base set of values that are non-negotiable. We should, as Canadians, be free to debate the morality of abortion and whether or not we should fund it publicly or make it criminal again. We should not, as Canadians, expect that we can impose a certain dress code on women (i.e. veils, hijabs, what have you).

And if, as the Globe asserts, we are bringing in immigrants to foster growth in the nation, it only stands to reason that we should bring in immigrants that will contribute to that growth rather than leech from it. Immigrants to this nation should be accepted, then, on the basis of the contribution they can make to the nation and its economy, and if it comes to pass that certain persons or groups of people are denied entry to Canada on that basis then so be it.

Statscan predicts that net international migration will be the country’s only source of population growth by 2030 because deaths will likely outnumber births in the next two decades or so. Indeed, Canada’s fertility rate now hovers around 1.5 children per woman, less than the replacement rate of 2.1 children. And the baby boomers, who are now between the ages of 40 and 60 and form the largest segment of the population, are entering the back end of their lifespans.

Canada lacks a sense of definition. In our multicultural haze, we seem to have forgotten how to identify those things about Canada which define us as a nation and set us apart from other nations in the world. We daren’t articulate that we have a certain value set that is non-negotiable against the standards and values of other nations in the world. You can see this lack of definition in our birthrate, actually — not enough Canadians care sufficiently about “what is Canada” to be bothered to have that additional child and help the nation grow from within, as it ought to. And with each passing generation, that sense of definition is lost to a larger extent, as Canada becomes somewhat more transient. We’re unable to produce the population we need to grow, so we have to import it. And we’re not willing to draw a line in the sand and say “this is what it means to be Canadian” (except in lame beer commercials, and even then the definition of Canadian seems to be “not American”), and so communities within Canada take on a slightly less Canadian character with each generation as well.

This was a nation founded, primarily and essentially, on British traditions, British Common Law, and British religion. Later on, other European religions also found a home here, but the legal tradition remained essentially British in its character until Trudeau raped that concept with his introduction of the Charter. But instead of replacing that British heritage and character with a unique, indigenous heritage and character, we replaced it with…not much, really. And so what’s left of our founding heritage is primarily seen in little parks and historical sites, and there are days when the only language that isn’t being spoken on the buses I take to get to work is English. Or, for that matter, either official language of Canada.

The Globe is right to state that the face of the country will change as we begin to rely, more and more, on immigration to grow our population. But because that is true, we as Canadians need to take a more active role in managing just what those changes will be, or we need to take an active role in mitigating them. Because in not doing so, Canada will be less and less herself with each passing generation.

And I would suggest, O Reader, that if hold off addressing those changes until such time as when women cannot safely walk the streets without wearing a veil, we will have waited far too long.