For years, Canadians have successfully proselytized overseas the benefits of multiculturalism in our country," The Globe's Marina Jiménez wrote in Saturday's Globe Essay When multiculturalism morphs into pluralism
"Scholars trooped to European capitals to give Power Point presentations on how to successfully integrate immigrants. Canada was the multi-culti go-to nation."
But at a major conference on social cohesion last month in Britain, Canadian academics "suddenly found themselves on the defensive, as multiculturalism was declared a failed model for Britain.
"Canada, it seems, no longer has any lessons for Europe. Multiculturalism is seen as yesterday's 'ism'," she wrote.
" . . . As the U.K., France, the Netherlands and other European countries change course, Canada too has begun to re-examine its approach in managing diversity.
"With this week's news that one in every five Canadians was born outside the country, new challenges are emerging."
What's your view on multiculturalism? Is it a failed policy of the past? Or an indispensable part of our future?
Ms. Jiménez was online and took questions on her essay and on related issues.
Your questions and Ms. Jiménez's answers appear at the bottom of this page when the discussion begins.
Ms. Jiménez won a National Newspaper Award in 2003 for beat reporting (immigration) and was one of three finalists in 2004 for the same award.
Earlier this year, she wrote in The Globe : "The number of ethnic enclaves . . . has exploded in Canada."
"In 1981, there were only six in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. By 2001, there were 254, according to a study by Statistics Canada, which defines ethnic enclaves as communities with 30 per cent of the population from one visible minority group."
"What are the long-term consequences of this explosion in ethnic enclaves? Does self-isolation impede integration? Will the children of these immigrants eventually blend into Canadian society like previous generations, or will their status as visible minorities block their progress no matter where they live?
"Mostly, it's too early to tell. But one thing is already clear: Multiculturalism isn't working that well for visible-minority newcomers."
Sasha Nagy, globeandmail.com: Marina: Thanks for taking reader questions today. There are many, and it is probably best to get right to them.
Cynthia C from Toronto writes: Two questions: First, do you think that part of the problem of multiculturalism is that it causes people to hold on to the old culture for a longer period of time, causing insiders and outsiders alike to believe that all XYZs are supposed to behave a certain way (and anything different isn't normal)? For example, unlike Chinese or Koreans in Canada, South Asians tend not to give their children westernized names at birth. If parents of South Asian descent do decide to name their child, say, Katherine or Jack, it's quite possible that they're criticized by family members. Second, why do the media often report that minorities are 'disadvantaged?' Most Chinese Canadians I know grew up in the suburbs, went to summer camp, played street hockey and took piano lessons. I don't see how that's disadvantaged at all.
Marina Jiménez writes: I will answer the second question first. It is true that minorities and newcomers are not uniformly disadvantaged? One of the problems with federal employment equity laws (which apply to women, minorities, the disabled and aboriginals) is that it leaves out other groups who are disadvantaged (eg. Portuguese immigrants who historically have not had high levels of educational attainment, but you are also not visible minorities) and includes other groups who may not be. But it is still a useful tool to help newcomers get ahead and ensure they have opportunities in the labour market.
I think holding on to one's cultural practises can be helpful to newcomer groups and hopefully not stand in the way of their ability to integrate -- as long as they actually have a chance to meet Canadians of all backgrounds and persuasions.
