Appendices: 23 − 33 | Ontario Human Rights Commission

23. 2010 Angus Reid Poll on multiculturalism – good or bad for Canada?

Multiculturalism Thinking now about the policy of multiculturalism, do you personally think multiculturalism has been good or bad for Canada?
	Region
	Total	BC	AB	MB/SK	ON	PQ	ATL
Very Good / Good	55%	65%	51%	54%	57%	49%	50%
Bad / Very Bad	30%	23%	39%	27%	28%	31%	31%
Not Sure	16%	12%	10%	19%	14%	20%	18%

Source: 2010 Angus Reid Poll

24. 2010 Angus Reid Poll – Melting pot or mosaic?

Multiculturalism Which of these statements comes closest to your own point of view?
	Region
	Total	BC	AB	MB/SK	ON	PQ	ATL
Canada should be a melting pot – immigrants should assimilate and blend into Canadian society	54%	50%	60%	52%	50%	64%	41%
Canada should be a mosaic – cultural differences within society are valuable and should be preserved	33%	42%	32%	21%	38%	22%	40%
Not Sure	13%	8%	9%	27%	12%	14%	19%

Source: 2010 Angus Reid Poll

Other related opinion polls [moved fr fn 68 at RB rec]

A recent poll conducted by the Association for Canadian Studies found that 50% of Canadians think newcomers should give up traditions and become “more like the rest of us,” up from 36% in 2007 (Patriquin & Gillis, 2010, cited in Sharify-Funk, 2011). Another (2007) poll revealed that only 69% of Canadians thought that multiculturalism helped foster Canadians’ sense of identity and citizenship, down from 80% in 2001 (Sharify-Funk, 2011). Another 2010 Angus Reid Public Opinion Poll of 1006 randomly selected Canadian adults found this number to be growing from 2008, with some 54% of survey respondents wanting Canada to be a melting pot where immigrants assimilate and blend into Canadian society (as compared to 33% who prefer the mosaic concept, where cultural differences are deemed valuable and are preserved). The numbers for Ontario were only marginally different.

Backlash related to Canada’s growing and increasingly publicly visible religious diversity may well be a factor in this general trend. Those who were most likely to oppose Canada’s multiculturalism policy in a 2008 poll of 1,522 Canadians conducted by Léger Marketing on behalf of the Association for Canadian Studies and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation were also most likely to blame minorities for any discrimination that they experienced (with Muslims being blamed the most, followed by Jews, homosexuals and Black people).

25. (2005-2008) World Values Survey – Importance of immigrants adopting the values of my country

Importance of immigrants adopting the values of my country (%)	Very Important	Rather Important	Not Important
Canada	58	32	10
Sweden	24	44	32
Brazil	26	61	13
South Korea	27	58	15
Andorra	30	53	17
Serbia	34	47	20
Argentina	34	47	20
Italy	35	40	26
Poland	35	48	17
Romania	36	39	25
Norway	37	42	21
Moldova	39	48	13
Ukraine	40	45	15
Taiwan	40	46	14
Switzerland	42	47	11
Trinidad and Tobago	43	33	24
Cyprus	43	35	22
Uruguay	43	39	17
China	44	41	15
Finland	47	46	7
Rwanda	47	48	5
Spain	47	42	11
Slovenia	48	39	13
Chile	50	34	16
Bulgaria	53	33	14
Germany	53	38	9
Ethiopia	54	37	9
Zambia	57	29	15
Mexico	58	30	12
India	58	27	14
United States	59	32	9
South Africa	59	28	13
Burkina Faso	59	27	14
Malaysia	60	37	2
Indonesia	62	28	10
Jordan	62	23	15
Vietnam	63	31	5
Turkey	64	27	10
Thailand	65	32	3
Ghana	67	24	10
Australia	68	26	6
Morocco	68	25	7
Egypt	69	22	9
Mali	73	20	7
Georgia	84	14	2

(2005-2008 World Values Survey)

Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2010). A literature review of Public Opinion Research on Canadian attitudes towards multiculturalism and immigration, 2006-2009. Retrieved April 6, 2013 at www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/research-stats/2012-por-multi-imm-eng.pdf

26. Ethnic Diversity Survey, 2003: Religion as source of discrimination from respondents who perceived discrimination

	Percentage who identified religion as the source of perceived discrimination	Total non-Aboriginal population aged 15 and older (Limit of EDS)	Total non-Aboriginal population aged 15 and older times percentage
Total non-Aboriginal population aged 15 and older	13%	22,445,490	402,470
Male	11%	10,947,760	188,190
Female	16%	11,497,730	214,270
Visible minority population	10%	2,999,850	99,450
Male	10%	1,443,120	50,910
Female	9%	1,556,730	48,550

Source: Ethnic Diversity Survey, Statistics Canada (2003b), as cited in Seljak et al., (2007). Percentages are calculated using total valid responses

27. Percent in each Canadian ethnic group by race and religion (2002)

Table 1:Percent in each ethnic origin group, by race and religion

	No religion	Catholic	Prot-estant	Other Christian	Muslim	Jewish	Buddhist	Hindu	Sikh	Other religion
Whites
Canadian	6.1	4.2	6.3	4.0	-	5.1	-	-	-	-
French	8.8	38.5	3.1	11.4	-	-	-	-	-	-
Anglo	35.1	15.2	55.1	20.9	-	4..6	-	-	-	33.9
Northern and Western European	13.8	5.8	17.6	13.2	-	-	-	-	-	-
Russian and Eastern European	7.7	7.3	5.2	17.4	-	33.9	-	-	-	-
Southern European	0.4	0.6	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Jewish and Israeli	-	-	-	-	-	34.6	-	-	-	-
Arab / West Asian / North African	0.4	0.4	-	2.2	9.4	-	-	-	-	-
Latin, Central and South American	-	0.2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Greek	-	-	-	6.9	-	-	-	-	-	-
Italian	1.9	7.8	0.6	1.3	-	-	-	-	-	-
Portuguese	-	2.4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Other European	1.1	0.5	0.4	-	-	6.7	-	-	-	-
Total Non-Visible Minority	82.2	92.4	93.4	84.2	14.6	97.8	-	-	-	62.8

Visible Minorities
Chinese	12.0	1.1	1.4	4.7	-	-	45.2	-	-	-
South Asian	0.8	0.6	0.4	1.3	37.6	-	2.9	88.6	100	-
Black	1.5	1.2	3.1	3.4	7.8	-	-	-	-	-
Filipino	-	2.2	0.3	0.6	-	-	-	-	-	-
Latin American	0.5	1.3	0.3	0.9	-	-	-	-	-	-
Southeast Asian	0.8	0.3	-	0.2	-	-	28.0	-	-	-
Arab and West Asian	0.5	0.3	-	1.9	35.6	-	-	-	-	-
Korean	-	0.2	0.3	1.5	-	-	-	-	-	-
Japanese	0.7	-	0.2	0.4	-	-	4.1	-	-	-
Visible Minority, n.i.e.	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.6	2.5	-	-	11.4	-	-
Multiple Visible Minority	0.3	0.2	-	0.2	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total Visible Minority	17.8	7.6	6.6	15.8	85.4	2.2	83.8	100	100	37.2

Total N	7850	14630	11700	3410	840	680	570	530	650	130

Note: All percentage are weighted using population weights created by Statistics Canada. However, column N's are unweighted and have been rounded. Some cells have been omitted because of cell sizes less than 30.

Source: Reitz, Banerjee, Phan and Thompson 2008.

28. Objective and reported inequality by race and religion in Canada (2002)

	IE HH Income Relative to CMA (mean)	Reported discrimination (%)	Reported vulnerability (%)	N
Whites
No Religion	$3,036	11.7	13.8	5800
Catholic	$214	9.2	17.1	12670
Protestant	$1,977	9.4	14.7	10440
Other Christian	-$206	14.4	18.0	2580
Muslim	-$17,690	10.6	28.1	130
Jewish	$14,004	22.9	35.0	670
Total	$1,237	10.2	16.2	32290

Visible minorities
No Religion	-$6,669	35.9	34.7	2040
Catholic	-$5,099	36.7	39.1	1960
Protestant	-$8,757	38.6	39.9	1250
Other Christian	-$10,061	40.6	33.6	830
Muslim	-$15,320	34.1	38.0	700
Buddhist	-$8,273	32.4	35.1	510
Hindu	-$4,886	36.0	47.0	530
Sikh	-$6,646	27.3	32.9	650
Total	-$7,684	35.9	37.3	8470

Note: All percentages are weighted using population weights created by Statistics Canada. Row N's are unweighted and have been rounded. Within racial groups, only religious groups with sufficient cell sizes are included in the table. Statistical tests of significance of between-group differences are available from the authors.

Source: Reitz, Banerjee, Phan and Thompson, 2008.

29. 2006-2007 Focus Canada Survey of Muslim Canadian experiences of discrimination

In the last two years, have you personally had a bad experience due to your race, ethnicity, or religion, or hasn’t this happened to you? (Muslims only) [% answering “yes”]

2006-2007 Survey of Muslim Canadian experiences of discrimination (% answering “yes” in the past 2 years)
Canada	31%
Britain	28%
France	37%
Spain	25%
Germany	19%

Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2010). A literature review of Public Opinion Research on Canadian attitudes towards multiculturalism and immigration, 2006-2009. www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/research/por-multi-imm/sec02-4.asp. Original Source:Environics Research Group, Focus Canada 2006-4; International data from 2005 Pew Global Attitudes Survey).

30. November 2010 Angus Reid Poll on Canadian tolerance levels by social grouping

Multiculturalism Overall, would you say Canada is a tolerant or intolerant society towards each of these groups?
	Tolerant	Intolerant	Not sure
Muslims	52%	33%	15%
Aboriginal Canadians	62%	30%	9%
Immigrants from South Asia (such as India and Pakistan)	64%	24%	12%
Gays and lesbians	72%	16%	12%
People with disabilities	75%	15%	10%
Immigrants from Asia (such as China and Hong Kong)	81%	10%	9%
Immigrants from Latin America	79%	7%	14%
Immigrants from Europe	89%	4%	7%

31. Open versus closed secular models

OPEN SECULAR	CLOSED SECULAR
secularism-as-pluralism (Berger 2002)	secularism as a-religiousness (Berger 2002)
archetypal model historically arose in response to religious pluralism and diversity	archetypal model historically arose in response to the excessive domination of the Church in a fairly religiously homogenous society
no ”wall of separation” between church and state: in societies with this model, secularism is a flexible institutional arrangement aimed at protecting rights and freedoms, not an explicit and autonomous legal or constitutional principle (i.e. not “an overhanging principle”)	“wall of separation” between church and state: in societies with this model, secularism is an explicit and autonomous constitutional principle (“an overhanging principle”)
flexible, religiously tolerant, “mosaic” model inspired by liberal pluralist political theories affirming diversity and multiculturalism	more rigid and strict republican, “melting pot” model inspired by the revolutionary French model that looks to secularism as (“enlightenment”) ideology for its primary justification
pluralistic liberalism or ”modus vivendi” – state does not use its political and legal mechanisms to inculcate any single substantive vision of the good, the true and/or the beautiful. Rather searches for terms of peace among different ways of life, welcoming diversity as a sign that there are different ways of living a good life (Chiodo 2012a drawing on Gray 2000 and Benson 2004)	convergence liberalism – state uses political and legal mechanisms to advance universal liberal principles and rational consensus on the best way of life; diverse ways of life are tolerated in the faith that they will eventually disappear, as citizens are moved towards an ”enlightened” vision of the true, the good and the beautiful (Chiodo 2012a drawing on Gray 2000 and Benson 2004)
“neither strives to further secularization or erosion of religious belief, nor does it serve to neutralize or erase religion as an identity marker” (Woehrling 2011)	strives to further secularize, erode religious belief, and neutralize or erase religion as an identity marker
“State neutrality towards religion and separation of church and state are not seen as ends in themselves, but as means to achieve the fundamental twofold objective: respect for religious and moral equality, and freedom of conscience and religion” (Woehrling 2011:91)	state neutrality towards religion and separation of church and state are seen as ends in themselves
neither favours nor disfavours religion	atheism is privileged state/public stance, either de facto (as is the case in France) or de jure (as was the case in the former Soviet Union)
positive contributions of religion recognized	religion is actively tamed, marginalized and denigrated as irrational, unenlightened, tribal, anti-egalitarian, and/or potentially violent restricts religious practice to the private sphere (the sphere of the voluntary association, the family or the individual) respecting only ”the right to privacy”
supports religious accommodation in public sphere	religious accommodation in public sphere is prohibited in name of neutrality and church/state separation. “[C]itizens must refrain from entering the public sphere with any religious convictions, principles, or practices in tow” (Berger 2002)
seeks to balance individual and collective rights, in part by enabling and respecting significant religious associational rights, free from state intervention	individual rights privileged over collective rights, and religious associational rights significantly qualified and subject to state intervention
prioritizes protection of freedom of religion and conscience, and equality between religions and beliefs, even if it requires relativizing the principle of neutrality and church/state separation (e.g. allowing government employees to wear religious signs) if there is conflict between religious accommodations and religious neutrality of the state, neutrality must yield to the accommodations	prioritizes principle of neutrality over both freedom of conscience and religion, and religious equality if there is a conflict between religious accommodation and religious neutrality of the state, accommodation must yield to neutrality ideal
secular ideals govern state institutions and government action, but not individuals who use public services or work in these institutions	secular ideals (state neutrality, separation of church and state) directed not only at state institutional action, but also at the practices of state employees and public service users
religious reasons allowed in public, in effort to nurture ”inclusive citizenship,” as long as state institutions or actors do not privilege these over other countervailing views	religious discourse is prohibited in public sphere. Religious arguments seen to be inherently divisive, contentious and to undermine political and civic harmony, since they rest on a priori first principles or dogma, which are not subjectable to rational political debate
Country examples: India Canada (in most instances, minus Quebec)	Country examples: France former USSR
Practical examples: religious practices accommodated in schools religious prayers and symbols allowed in parliament, as long as diversity represented parents can articulate religious reasons for curriculum preferences but school must not privilege this view to detriment of opposing views (see Chamberlain decision)	Practical examples: wearing of religious signs by all government employees is prohibited wearing the headscarf in school, or in accessing public services, is prohibited prayers and religious symbols of any kind are banned from public space
Some critiques: overly permissive of religion creates weak civic bonds and national identity fosters ethnic/religious silos, identity politics and divides the nation from within compromises state security and stability administratively costly and less efficient	Some critiques: treats individuals as abstract entities stripped of all pre-existing cultural and religious values and commitments; thereby fails to respect integrity and dignity of human person and identity authoritarian, paternalistic and assimilationistic unequal playing field for religious citizens. Though people can harbour any view in private, these views must “remain irrelevant, or at least silent, to many things that matter most – for example, to public discussion and policy on the environment, energy, war, and social services.” (Novak) religion never has been and cannot be entirely private (ex. civil rights movement, anti-slavery movement etc.)

Adapted primarily from Woehrling’s (2011) summary and adaptation of Bouchard-Taylor Commission Report (2008).

32. Canadian Law Dictionary definitions of secular

The Dictionary of Canadian Law (4th edition, Carswell), at 1168

Secular, adj.

(1) The dual requirements that education be “secular” and “non-sectarian” refer to keeping the schools free from inculcation or indoctrination in the precepts of any religion and do not prevent persons with religiously based moral positions on matters of public policy from participating in deliberations concerning moral education in public schools. Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, [2002] 4 SCR 710.

(2) “Strictly secular” in the School Act can only mean pluralist in the sense that moral positions are to be accorded standing in the public sphere irrespective of whether the position flows out of a conscience that is religiously informed or not. The meaning of strictly secular is thus pluralist or inclusive in its widest sense. Chamberlain v. Surrey No. 36, 2000 Carswell BC 2009 (and see other sources: BCLR, WWR, DLR, BCAC, WAC, Admin LR, E, M, P JJA.)

(3) Relating to the material world in contrast to spiritual.

Secularism, n.

What secularism does rule out, however, is any attempt to use the religious views of one part of the community to exclude from consideration the values of other members of the community. A requirement of secularism implies that, although the Board is indeed free to address the religious concerns of parents, it must be sure to do so in a manner that gives equal recognition and respect to other members of the community. Religious views that deny equal recognition and respect to the members of a minority group cannot be used to exclude the concerns of the minority group. Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, [2002] 4 SCR 710.

Words and Phrases, Westlaw (2008), W&P 25036

Secular

Supreme Court of Canada

The [insistence of the School Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 412] on strict secularism does not mean that religious concerns have no place in the deliberations and decisions of the Board. Board members are entitled, and indeed required, to bring the views of the parents and communities they represent to the deliberation process. Because religion plays an important role in the life of many communities, these views will often be motivated by religious concerns. Religion is an integral aspect of people's lives and cannot be left at the boardroom door. What secularism does rule out ... is any attempt to use the religious views of one part of the community to exclude from consideration the values of other members of the community. A requirement of secularism implies that, although the Board is indeed free to address the religious concerns of parents, it must be sure to do so in a manner that gives equal recognition and respect to other members of the community. Religious views that deny equal recognition and respect to the members of a minority group cannot be used to exclude the concerns of the minority group.

Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 710, [2002] at para. 19 McLachlin C.J.C. (Arbour, Binnie, Iacobucci, L'Heureux-Dubé and Major JJ. concurring)