Debating validity of multiculturalism

Minister of Immigration Judy Sgro and Heritage Minister Liza Frulla look at Canada's future

Canada, land of opportunities for all, but also land of contradictions that, if left unchecked, could bring about serious consequences in this country's social fabric. What is Canada? Who are the Canadians?
These questions become pressing now that cultural diversity, once a mere definition used for electoral purposes, becomes an element of embarrassing debate, touching the neuralgic centres of political and economic power.
Other challenges come from the outside.
New technologies force us to confront new international cultural realities that the obsolete CRTC cannot clumsily contain any longer.
The situation will only grow even more serious due to the increasing need for immigrant labour: without new immigrants, Canada will wilt and be absorbed by the United States. Among so many doubts, this is certain.
However, there are additional questions, two in particular: first, where would these new Canadians come from? Second, after landing in Canada, which culture will they have to confront, conform to or conflict with?
As a consequence, the two most important Ministries for Canada's future are Immigration, i.e. the gate that will let new Canadians in, and Heritage, i.e. the Ministry that will tell us what we Canadians will be like in the coming years.
Canada, we said, is a land of great opportunity, as it is rich in primary resources with a lot of available space, constantly developing economically also thanks to its proximity to the world's largest consumer market, the USA.
Our country has the capability of absorbing fresh labour and the capability, or better yet, the need to increase its population. It is also a land of great contradictions. Despite that need, it cannot make the quota it sets for new arrivals. Many applicants are refused admission, or forced to wait so long that they give up.
At the same time, there are in Canada between 150,000 and 200,000 illegal immigrants, many of whom are integrated in society, working illegally, with no assistance but paying no taxes. Billions of dollars get lost every year. The unions ask for more labour, but people have a hard time coming to Canada, as the point system favours those who speak the official languages and not those who know how to build houses. "As if immigrants come to Canada," said a union official some time ago, "to lecture at universities instead of working, e.g., in construction." In short, our birthrate is low, but population keeps growing.
Moreover, our proximity to the United States, a source of commerce and prosperity for many of us, has become an element of controversy and discord, of political, economic and cultural debate. We claim to be different from the USA, but our cable companies, with the blessing of the CRTC, inundate us with all sorts of U.S. programming: entertainment, sports, news. At the same time, however, the CRTC fills its documents of terms like "Canadian content" and "Canadian cultural identity".
Where is Canada going?
To find out, we interviewed the people in charge of those two important Ministries: Immigration minister Judy Sgro and Heritage minister Liza Frulla.


Liza Frulla:
Working on strategies

Unless something completely unforeseen happens, I think that the CRTC will release its decision about RAI International before Christmas," declared Minister of Canadian Heritage Liza Frulla in an interview.
During our conversation, Frulla also discussed the broadcasting industry in general and her concerns for the future of Canadian industry.
In regards to RAI, Frulla confirmed the commitment of the Federal Government to facilitate access to third-language programming for Canadians who request them.
Speaking of the recent refusal opposed to RAI some months ago, Frulla remarked, "the CRTC had rules to enforce, and in particular the one that saw RAI as a direct competitor of a similar Canadian service." The reference is to the old joint application by RAI International and Telelatino for the RAI Canada service. RAI International decided to repudiate that station for several reasons, but the CRTC still regarded RAI Canada as a Canadian service that deserved protection.
Frulla repeated, "the CRTC is a Federal entity but it is independent from the Government," which is therefore not in a position to steer CRTC's decisions. This notwithstanding, "the Government informed the CRTC of our concern for this whole situation, and formed a three-person advisory committee."
This committee made some recommendations, "which we forwarded to the CRTC," said Frulla. "They will make their own independent evaluations and decisions." Such a decision was expected for March, but according to minister Frulla's remarks it would come before Christmas instead, "barring unforeseen events."
Most of our interview was devoted to the situation of Canadian broadcasting.
"We have, as you know, two groups: public and private broadcasters. I think," said the minister, "that we need the public broadcasters to protect our industry, more than ever. In fact, this system is the only one broadcasting, encouraging and financing the production of Canadian content."
The whole Canadian movie industry is in dire straits already. "Production of English drama is diminishing at an alarming rate."
The reason is simple. Canadian broadcasters don't use local productions, "because they only look at the bottom line, lowering production costs and pursuing big ratings." This is possible, according to the minister, "because U.S. productions are much cheaper." The broadcasters are also compelled to air those programs during prime time, in order to maintain simultaneous timing with US channels, thus confining Canadian content to less popular time slots."
Frulla remarked that the only broadcaster "participating, encouraging and financing the production and airing of Canadian programming is the CBC."
The situation is serious, and there's a pressing request "for our Ministry to help the production of these programs, or risk losing this whole Canadian industry."
We asked the minister why, since Canada has the ability and the talent required, don't we try conquering the U.S. market?
The reason is, of course, money. "It's much more expensive, and broadcasters would need to finance production. They already do so, sometimes, but the next problem is finding a time slot for airing those programs."
Frulla said that finding a Canadian prime time audience is possible. She underscored the situation of French-language producers and broadcasters in Quebec. "The message I send out is to look at French-language stations, which very often air Quebec content programs at prime time." The reason, according to the Heritage minister, is simple. "People love to watch programs that promote their culture and that they can identify in. I believe that if Canadians are offered a program that reflects their reality, they prefer it to another produced in the United States."
The conversation then fell on the situation at the CRTC; especially with the new technologies, how can this commission regulate such a volatile sector?
"Undoubtedly the challenge is a hard one," said Frulla, "but we should not forget that the CRTC served its purpose very well for 56 years, pursuing a double mission: defending Canadian content and the Canadian industry. Let's not forget that we have a very powerful neighbour."
Minister Frulla admitted, "new technologies make it increasingly harder to accomplish. The CRTC must keep abreast of the situation with new regulations and much flexibility."
Anyway, she said, "I disagree with those who would dismantle the Commission after so many years of good work. With no CRTC, there would be no Canadian industry."
This industry generates $26 billion a year and employs thousands of people, "writers, artists, journalists, authors, and many more."
The final part of our interview was devoted to the role of cable companies and the number of TV stations they carry. "Sure, we can say there is a concentration of ownership in an increasingly competitive sector." Minister Frulla thinks that, in order to operate in this field, companies must be solid and big enough to survive. "The issue of ownership bothers me less than the risk of lack of diversity in what reaches the audience. This is a big issue, not easy to handle.
"How should we regulate it? Should we let the industry manage this issue? One thing is for sure: I spoke with a lot of people across Canada, and nobody wants a single voice from the ether, a uniform opinion. They want diversity."
A first element to tackle this issue will come to Frulla "from a Senate committee that is discussing this. They've been studying the problem for a year now, and I'm anxious to see their report." She wants to get the House Heritage Committee involved and make use of their conclusions.
"As I said," concluded Frulla, "ownership is one thing, diversity another." She intends to satisfy the demand for diversity. "Guaranteeing diversity of voices is a social commitment of our Government, one I want to respect in full."


Judy Sgro: Revolutionizing immigration

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Judy Sgro, who wants to act swiftly and radically in her new portfolio, says she wants a profound debate on the future of Canada and questions whether it's good for the country to keep "celebrating our differences, instead of what brings us together."
Declared Ms. Sgro: "I believe that Canadians need to be engaged in: Who do we want as new Canadians in this country? Where should they came from? What skills should they have? We, as Canadians, should start talking about that."
But the minister elaborated, saying that Canadians should also be "looking at the whole identity of the people living here currently and whether we continue along the avenue of allowing people to celebrate diversity, and look at the heritage of many of these people. Canada is so diverse now that, to pretend it isn't is a huge mistake. We need to concentrate more on what brings us together and what we celebrate together and we move forward to build the country."
Ms. Sgro said she believes that "clearly it is time we get engaged in what we need, what Canada needs to stay competitive, internationally. There are a lot of complications now. All the countries have the same problem Canada has: an aging population and declining birth rate. Canadians have to pay attention to those two issues."
Ms. Sgro said she wants to move swiftly. In fact she had a meeting with her provincial counterparts to "talk to them of a plan for the future, and start to look at a five-year new strategy to make sure that Canada will stay in the right position and we will bring in the right people that Canada needs."
Ms. Sgro said it's important that Canadians start asking themselves questions like: "What the labour market needs, what the employers think they are going to need in the next four to five years, how are we going to get them here and from what country? How are we going to deal with those things? Do we need a new system to handle immigration in Canada?"
According to Ms. Sgro, Canadians should ask themselves if "the system we presently have, which people say is very good compared to other countries, is still the system for the 21st century that Canada needs. I'm not sure it is."
According to the minister "we have to look at how we handle the applications, how we process them, how we determine who comes to this country and who doesn't and then, very important, how we determine who needs Canada's protection. How are we fulfilling our obligations under the international obligations, including the Geneva Convention?"
Those are important issues and the minister said she doesn't believe "Canadians realize how important those questions are. I believe that we take immigration for granted because this is a natural process that happened in a country where people apply and come here."
The only time people are engaged "is when they mix the two issues up: one is a refugee, which has nothing to do with immigration. Immigration is still hard to get into Canada, like it was when my husband came and many others. It's still tough to get into Canada."
In fact, according to the ministry, there are 700,000 applications for people wanting to get into Canada around the world and Canada accepts 250,000 a year.
"We also have to make sure that those people who do come here are able as soon as possible to access the labour market and find a job. As soon they do, they buy a house. Immigration keeps the economy going. That's critically important. But we do not have a plan and it is time that Canada has a plan. That has to be worked out with employers, the provinces and others and we have to make sure that we know where Canada is going in a successful way."
Moreover, Ms. Sgro said that she wants to have more input from other levels of government, not only from the provinces "with which we have agreements and we are working also to make one with Ontario, but also with municipalities."
Ms. Sgro said it is important that "we find out, for example, what Saskatchewan needs, versus Ontario needs or Manitoba. We need an immigration system that is, in this regard, more flexible and responds to employers, the provinces and our cities."
Municipalities are very important, said Ms. Sgro, in this process: "Having an agreement with cities will be ultimately another avenue to get closer to where people understand where the needs are. By the time the provincial and federal governments get up to the mark, often is too late. I want to turn the pyramid around. We should facilitate the needs of our employers, the cities and our provinces. That's different from how we handle immigration today."
According to the minister "now the system is led by the government of Canada, it's very bureaucratic and not always in touch with the reality of what happens on the ground today."
Then there's the issue of refugee claimants. Is our system abused? "Clearly. In all programmes there is always an opportunity for abuse. There is a lot of abuse in the refugees' determination system. People know we have a fair and generous system. That's a reality. We have abuse."
Ms. Sgro said that "when people come to our border and claim refugee status, we have the obligation to process that application and see if that person genuinely needs our protection. And we want to do that."
But clearly there is something wrong: "We had to introduce a visa requirement for Costa Rica early this year. The reason? We had 3,000 people come to our ports of entry last year alone claiming refugee status. Out of 3,000 only one was granted refugee status. They clog the system and people can appeal it. So, people that truly need our protection take sometimes three or four years before they get a decision. We need to shorten the system."

Publication Date: 2004-11-21
Story Location: http://tandemnews.com/viewstory.php?storyid=4646