Voies vers la prospérité: Atlantique

This roundtable event provided an opportunity to discuss the implications of the Québec Charter of Values debate for immigration in Canada. The issues were introduced by short comments from 5 researchers and practitioners from Québec and New Brunswick:

• Magninin Koné, Rencontre Interculturelle des Familles de l’Estrie and Lorraine O’Donnell, Quebec English-Speaking Communities Research Network, Concordia University;
• Richard Bourhis, UQAM
• Chedly Belkhodja (Université de Moncton); and
• Celine Cooper (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto and Montreal Gazette).

They were invited to address questions such as the following: Is this a phenomenon unique to Québec, or does it reflect perspectives and policy options in other parts of the country? What are its likely effects on prospective and current immigrants – both inside and outside Québec, in cosmopolitan cities and in regional and rural areas, in French communities out of Québec and for English communities in Québec? What are the key research insights and questions that are relevant to this discussion?

Koné and O’Donnell presented some of the research results from their analysis of the principle newspaper media in the province. They identified a number of themes that emerged in the analysis, including the equality of women, Québec heritage, identity, electoral strategies, and racism. Their presentation was largely descriptive of the issues emerging with some comparisons regarding the differences among the French, English, urban, and regional media.

Belkhodia interpreted the emergence of the Charter as a continuation of the national identity issue in Québec – one that is characterized with a vision where increased power (and more secure identity) is created by consensus, not by the inclusion of a greater range of differences. He suggested this is similar to several international initiatives that take an exclusionary approach to national identity. He also argued that if this becomes a Québec reality it will have repercussions in other provinces since tendencies to exclusion and restrictive identities are features of those regions as well. He stressed the need for dialogue on these issues both in Québec and the rest of Canada.

Cooper suggested that the social anxiety regarding identity in Québec is a reflection of a global challenge to nationalism of all types. The assumption that nations are independent and cohesive is no longer sustainable in a world of migration, international commerce, and multiple identities. She suggested that multiple identities are a challenge to the vision of many Québecers and that their vision of nationalism requires that one identify with one nation.

Bourhis began his presentation with data regarding the demographic distribution of religious groups in Québec – noting that the small percentage of Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs means that they do not represent a serious danger to the dominant culture. He suggested that the increase in Muslim Francophones may have been an unintended surprise to the search for Francophone immigrants by the government. Bourhis also discussed an interesting series of experimental studies (conducted in several nations) which suggest that exposure to people wearing religious symbols in positions of authority decreases prejudice and negative stereotypes rather than increases them.

The discussion that ensued was varied and extensive. Since the focus was on the implications for immigration, there were several people who spoke to the perception of the issues from outside Québec and how they might (or are) affect behaviour. Several of the participants suggested that the major perceptions were those of confusion and anxiety.

There was also considerable discussion regarding the relationship between Bill 60 and its confluence of religion and gender issues. Several people felt that this rested on a false assumption (that women don’t have the choice to wear a veil) and a confusion of two different types of feminism: one rooted in individual choice and the other in collective decisions.

Some of the participants pointed to the special impacts on children and teens that the Bill might produce. By excluding these symbols from those in positions of competence and authority, the impression is given that these are beliefs that are less legitimate. It also means that children will have a reduced opportunity to engage with people who hold beliefs that are different from theirs.

There was also an interesting discussion that emerged regarding the possible regionalization of immigration in Canada. Should the Bill become law, or the issue remain a point of anxiety, some felt that immigrants would choose other places in the country as destinations – thereby creating an uneven distribution of immigrants or types of immigrants.

The discussion generated a long list of research questions that need to be examined, including some of the following:

• Under what circumstances do religious symbols create problems (for citizens, users of public services, immigrants, children, teens, etc.)? What types of problems are created?
• What is the nature and distribution of incidents relating to the wearing of religious symbols in Québec? How do they vary within Québec and in other jurisdictions?
• What are the institutional conditions that contribute to dialogue among different religious and ethnic groups? What are the conditions that contribute to stigmatization?
• What are the conditions under which identity politics produce social cohesion and under what conditions do they produce social conflict?