How has Canada fared on resettling Syrian refugees? And government not releasing information.

On how the Government avoids providing information that the public is entitled to:

It was clear, though, that the government had details about the number of arrivals on hand throughout the process. In December 2014, Alexander tabled in the House of Commons a written response to a question by NDP MP Paul Dewar indicating, as of three weeks previous, how many Syrian refugees had arrived and, of those, how many were privately sponsored and how many came with government assistance.

Alexander or his spokesman also made public statements in December and January updating these figures.

It stands to reason, then, that the government knows how many of the 10,000 promised spaces for Syrian refugees have so far been filled. They just won’t say.

Earlier this month, a spokesperson for Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) told me the information was “not available publicly.” The email from CIC went on to provide a link to make a request under the Access to Information Act.

This act is one of those creatively named pieces of legislation that don’t mean what their titles suggest they should. You file a request; weeks, months or sometimes years pass. What you finally receive is heavily redacted. Eventually, you stop asking. If it didn’t suggest such boggling cynicism on the part of the government, I’d swear that was the point.

I decided to play along and filed a request asking how many Syrian and Iraqi refugees have arrived in Canada since January, how many are privately sponsored, and how many came with government assistance.

Today I received a letter from CIC’s Access to Information and Privacy Division, informing me that the information I sought is excluded from the act because it concerned “published material or material available for purchase by the public.”

The letter continued: “Regulation 314 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (attached) allows for the production of customized reports for immigration statistical data that have not been published by the Department.”

That’s right: I could buy my answer. The attached regulation informed me that the cost of processing my application for data would be $100 for the first 10 minutes or less of access to the department’s database, plus $30 for each additional minute or less of access.

Or maybe Chris Alexander could publicize that information, because he made a promise, and Canadians have a right to know what progress he’s made toward keeping it.

Given the Minister’s performance on Power and Politics Wednesday, he would be well advised to follow Petrou’s advice.

Source: How has Canada fared on resettling Syrian refugees? – Macleans.ca

Europe’s fear of Muslim refugees echoes rhetoric of 1930s anti-Semitism – The Washington Post

A useful historical reminder by Ishaan Tharoor:

Over the past year, many in Europe have bristled at the influx — from far-right political movements and fear-mongering tabloids to established politicians and leaders. The resentment has to do, in part, with the burden of coping with the refugees. But it’s also activated a good amount of latent xenophobia–leading to anti-Islam protests, attacks on asylum centers and a good deal of bigoted bluster.

Some governments in Eastern Europe have even specifically indicated they don’t want to accommodate non-Christian refugees, out of supposed fear over the ability of Muslims to integrate into Western society.

“Refugees are fleeing fear,” urged a spokesman for the U.N. refugee agency last week. “Refugees are not to be feared.”

It’s important to recognize that this is hardly the first time the West has warily eyed masses of refugees. And while some characterize Muslim arrivals as a supposedly unique threat, the xenophobia of the present carries direct echoes of a very different moment: The years before World War II, when tens of thousands of German Jews were compelled to flee Nazi Germany.

Consider this 1938 article in the Daily Mail, a British tabloid still known for its bouts of right-wing populism. Its headline warned of “German Jews Pouring Into This Country.” And it began as follows:

”  “The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest.”

In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the ‘back door’ — a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.”

No matter the alarming rhetoric of Hitler’s fascist state — and the growing acts of violence against Jews and others — popular sentiment in Western Europe and the United States was largely indifferent to the plight of German Jews.

“Of all the groups in the 20th century,” write the authors of the 1999 book, “Refugees in the Age of Genocide,” “refugees from Nazism are now widely and popularly perceived as ‘genuine’, but at the time German, Austrian and Czechoslovakian Jews were treated with ambivalence and outright hostility as well as sympathy.”

Source: Europe’s fear of Muslim refugees echoes rhetoric of 1930s anti-Semitism – The Washington Post

Ontario says it can’t get data on effectiveness of carding for current review

Evidence-based policy requires data:

The provincial government cannot compel Ontario’s police forces to hand over their data on street checks — including information as to how many times the controversial practice has helped solve crimes, according to Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services Yasir Naqvi.

That means that as the province continues its review of street checks, commonly known as “carding,” it will do so without knowing how often the practice has actually proved useful to investigations, by leading to an arrest, to the discovery of a weapon or drugs, or more.

“Legally we are not entitled to that data, under the Police Services Act, unless we require it in the regulation,” Naqvi told reporters during Tuesday’s public consultation at the Toronto Reference Library. Naqvi said his ministry has been consulting with Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner about how to gain access to this policing data in aggregate form, stripped of any personal information.

“One of the reasons why this regulation is needed is to give the province the ability to require the disclosure of data, specific to how police services conduct street checks, to ensure that they are conducted in a way that is rights-based, fair and consistent across the province,” Lauren Callighen, Naqvi’s press secretary, said in an email.

Under Ontario’s Police Act, Callighen said, there are certain circumstances where the province may inspect municipal police services to review their practices, such as the use of force. “This regulation will ensure the same oversight for any policy on street checks.”

Nonetheless, in the absence of such data, the province described street checks in its online discussion document as a “necessary and valuable tool for police” when used properly —something critics of the provincial review have decried as, at best, presumptive.

Naqvi’s office did not respond to a question about what criteria were used to describe street checks as “a necessary and valuable tool,” if not police data.

The lack of information as to how carding interactions produce results has become one of the central issues in the heated debate around the practice.

Carding proponents, including Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders and Toronto Police Association president Mike McCormack, defend it as a vital investigative tool. Police have said the information contained in carding records can help officers connect the dots, perhaps to show an association between individuals, to place someone in an important place at a key time, and more.

Source: Ontario says it can’t get data on effectiveness of carding for current review | Toronto Star

Débat dans Mont-Royal: Israël au coeur des échanges

Diaspora politics in action (Mont-Royal is 30.7 percent Canadian Jews):

Les personnes portant la kippa se comptaient par centaines dans la salle remplie à craquer d’une synagogue de Côte-des-Neiges hier soir où elles étaient venues entendre les candidats des trois principaux partis débattre d’économie, de langue et d’Israël.

C’est dans cette circonscription où le scrutin s’est révélé très serré en 2011 que Stephen Harper avait lancé sa campagne il y a un mois, dans l’espoir de conquérir le fief libéral longtemps détenu par le libéral Irwin Cutler.

À tour de rôle, les candidats du Parti libéral et du Parti conservateur, qui portaient tous les deux la kippa, ont croisé le fer sur la question israélienne.

«Je suis fier d’être Juif. Mon entreprise a des bureaux en Israël, j’y suis allé souvent. Je vais me battre pour Israël !», a lancé Anthony Housefather, le candidat libéral et actuel maire de Côte-Saint-Luc.

Sans s’en prendre à son adversaire libéral, le candidat conservateur a concentré ses attaques sur le chef Justin Trudeau, dont la «boussole morale varie avec le vent».

«Israël est certainement devenu un sujet important de cette élection, il n’y a aucun doute. Mais de dire que la position du Parti libéral sur Israël est la même que celle du Parti conservateur de Stephen Harper est vraiment tiré par les cheveux», a-t-il déclaré.

Le candidat conservateur a remis en question l’approche plus nuancée prônée par Justin Trudeau au sujet de la politique étrangère canadienne.

«Qu’est-ce que “nuance” signifie? Est-ce que ça veut dire que le Canada devrait diminuer son soutien à Israël? Est-ce que c’est ça que Justin Trudeau veut?», a-t-il lancé sous les applaudissements.

«L’appui du Parti libéral à l’endroit d’Israël est sans équivoque. Il n’y a aucune hésitation», a répété son vis-à-vis libéral.

Robert Libman a été chaudement applaudi par la foule lorsqu’il a ardemment critiqué l’accord sur le nucléaire de l’Iran, « pays qui veut détruire Israël».

Devant les attaques incessantes contre son chef, le candidat libéral s’est même senti obligé de préciser que le Parti libéral «ne support[ait] pas le régime en Iran».

«L’Iran est la plus grande menace du monde, je vais tout faire pour éviter que l’Iran n’obtienne la bombe nucléaire», s’est-il exclamé, également applaudi par une bonne partie des quelque 500 électeurs.

Le candidat du Nouveau parti démocratique (NPD) Mario Jacinto Rimbao, un membre bien en vue de l’importante communauté philippine de la circonscription s’est toutefois fait chahuter en évoquant la position néodémocrate sur l’accord iranien.

Source: Débat dans Mont-Royal: Israël au coeur des échanges | Louis-Samuel Perron | Élections fédérales

Our Radical Islamic BFF, Saudi Arabia – The New York Times

Tom Friedman on Saudi Arabia and its role in spreading extremism:

But if you think Iran is the only source of trouble in the Middle East, you must have slept through 9/11, when 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Nothing has been more corrosive to the stability and modernization of the Arab world, and the Muslim world at large, than the billions and billions of dollars the Saudis have invested since the 1970s into wiping out the pluralism of Islam — the Sufi, moderate Sunni and Shiite versions — and imposing in its place the puritanical, anti-modern, anti-women, anti-Western, anti-pluralistic Wahhabi Salafist brand of Islam promoted by the Saudi religious establishment.

It is not an accident that several thousand Saudis have joined the Islamic State or that Arab Gulf charities have sent ISIS donations. It is because all these Sunni jihadist groups — ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Nusra Front — are the ideological offspring of the Wahhabism injected by Saudi Arabia into mosques and madrasas from Morocco to Pakistan to Indonesia.

And we, America, have never called them on that — because we’re addicted to their oil and addicts never tell the truth to their pushers.

“Let’s avoid hyperbole when describing one enemy or potential enemy as the greatest source of instability,” said Husain Haqqani, the former Pakistani ambassador to Washington, who is an expert on Islam at the Hudson Institute.

“It is an oversimplification,” he said. “While Iran has been a source of terrorism in supporting groups like Hezbollah, many American allies have been a source of terrorism by supporting Wahhabi ideology, which basically destroyed the pluralism that emerged in Islam since the 14th century, ranging from Bektashi Islam in Albania, which believes in living with other religions, to Sufi and Shiite Islam.

“The last few decades have seen this attempt to homogenize Islam,” claiming “there is only one legitimate path to God,” Haqqani said. And when there is only one legitimate path, “all others are open to being killed. That has been the single most dangerous idea that has emerged in the Muslim world, and it came out of Saudi Arabia and has been embraced by others, including the government in Pakistan.”

Consider this July 16, 2014, story in The Times from Beirut: “For decades, Saudi Arabia has poured billions of its oil dollars into sympathetic Islamic organizations around the world, quietly practicing checkbook diplomacy to advance its agenda. But a trove of thousands of Saudi documents recently released by WikiLeaks reveals in surprising detail how the government’s goal in recent years was not just to spread its strict version of Sunni Islam — though that was a priority — but also to undermine its primary adversary: Shiite Iran.”

Or consider this Dec 5, 2010, report on BBC.com: “U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned last year in a leaked classified memo that donors in Saudi Arabia were the ‘most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.’ She said it was ‘an ongoing challenge’ to persuade Saudi officials to treat such activity as a strategic priority. The groups funded include al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba, she added.”

Saudi Arabia has been an American ally on many issues and there are moderates there who detest its religious authorities. But the fact remains that Saudi Arabia’s export of Wahhabi puritanical Islam has been one of the worst things to happen to Muslim and Arab pluralism — pluralism of religious thought, gender and education — in the last century.

Source: Our Radical Islamic BFF, Saudi Arabia – The New York Times

Citizenship – Differences Among Visible Minorities

A recent Twitter enquiry asked what percentage of visible minorities are also Canadian citizens. The overall answer is 78.3 percent, but that question provoked me to prepare the following chart showing the differences between different groups:

Citizenship - Visible Minorities.001

The chart is ordered in increasing order of those who remain non-citizens (but does not distinguish between those who are eligible or not).

Hard to explain some of these differences as no one variable (e.g., education, income, number of second-generation or more) seems at play. Nor is the time resident in Canada (needed to be eligible) likely to be a significant factor as it could not explain the large differences between groups (e.g., Chinese and Filipino).

The relatively large share of dual nationals for West Asian, Arab and Latin American groups may be explained by the greater convenience of being able to return to one’s country of origin with that country’s passport (e.g., Iranian Canadians cannot enter Iran on their Canadian passport and thus need to maintain their Iranian nationality).

When solidarity fails | Institute of Race Relations

Reprinted in its entirety, Liz Fekete, Director of the Institute of Race Relations (IRR), captures all too vividly the failure of Europe in addressing the refugee crisis along with integration:

I want to talk about the immediate institutional crisis in the EU, as hostility grows towards a modest plan by the European Commission to relocate a little over 32,000 asylum seekers from Greece and Italy. The failure of the member states to rise to the humanitarian challenge posed by the boat people arriving via the Mediterranean Sea, the mean-spirited and positively hostile response of some governments, both national and regional, and the breakdown of solidarity between the receiving countries and their richer neighbours, has had consequences. These consequences need to be discussed in terms of cause and effect, in order to fully grasp the intersection between the breakdown of a humanitarian approach to asylum and the growth of racism.

But I would first like to frame my points by making two short observations. First, failures in the institutional response should not blind us to the absolute heroism of ordinary people and over-stretched civil society actors such as Refugees Welcome (Germany), Caritas (Austria) and Migszol (Hungary) who are feeding, clothing and welcoming the new arrivals. Second, we must recognise that the current lack of political leadership, and the failure to find adequate and secure accommodation, is not something new. What I will describe serves merely as the top layer of an existing situation. Europe has fallen far short of providing a safe haven for displaced people, and deaths of migrants do not just occur in tragic circumstances at Europe’s borders. The fact that deaths inside accommodation or removal centres, or as the result of enforced destitution, are met with official indifference, suggests continuity with the moral inertia towards border deaths [2]. The Institute of Race Relations recently published an audit of 160 asylum-and immigration-related deaths within EU States between 2010 and 2015, 46 per cent of which were by suicide, as desperation reached epidemic proportions.

Scaremongering in the media

The roots of the current spate of attacks on migrant accommodation centres start with a scaremongering media discourse and equally irresponsible words from some politicians. Migrants are represented in the media as toxic waste, a dangerous mob, human flotsam, an unstoppable flood and a terrorist threat. In the UK, they have been compared with insects, through the use of inflammatory terms such as ‘swarms of people’ (British prime minister David Cameron) and ‘like cockroaches’ (Sun columnist, Katie Hopkins). The British foreign secretary, Philip Hammond singled out African ‘economic migrants’ in Calais, describing them as ‘marauding migrants’ ‘threatening our standard of living’ and opining that ‘Europe can’t protect itself, preserve its standard of living and social infrastructure if it has to absorb millions of migrants from Africa.’ (It’s also worth noting here that, in relation to Calais, there has been barely a flicker of concern about the fact that at least thirteen migrants, including two teenagers have died attempting to reach the UK since June.)

Spreading hostility not curbing it

The consequence of such scaremongering – which portrays migrants as a security threat – is that it has become much more difficult for electorates to understand why migrants take such a perilous journey, particularly if they hail from African countries, the problems of which are barely covered in the European press. In this climate, too many politicians are pandering to prejudice, acting for short-term self-interest, whipping up distrust, spreading hostility, not curbing it. Unless politicians at a national, local and regional level are encouraged to act responsibly, xenophobia will continue to be manipulated into something more sinister, and potentially deadly. France has sealed its Italian border at Ventimiglia, Hungary is constructing a wall at the border with Serbia (reportedly with the use of prison labour). The Czech interior ministry demands cultural compatibility of those relocated,[3] and the governor of Lombardy threatens to financially penalise northern Italian prefects who go along with the national relocation plan. Luigi Ammatuna, the mayor of the Sicilian port town of Pozzallo, in the Ragusa region, summed up the Italian North-South divide well when he said that the North’s anti-immigration stance was ‘spreading bad feeling’ about migrants across the entire country, adding that its leaders are ‘heartless’ and ‘selfish’ for not working with the government to solve the crisis. Meanwhile, the leader of the powerful Northern League, has declared that the ‘League is prepared to occupy every hotel, hostel, school or barracks intended for the alleged refugees’.

Anti-black racism, anti-multiculturalism

The first step is to end rhetoric which, in some countries, has now gone beyond anti-immigration into a wider anti-multiculturalism and a discourse with heavy overtones of anti-black racism. Here we can specifically identify the interventions of electoral extreme and far-right politicians. For example, the Finns Party – the second largest party in the Finnish parliament – has representatives such as Olli Immonen MP, who wrote on social media that he was ‘dreaming of a strong, brave nation that will defeat this nightmare called multiculturalism’.[4] And Marian Kotleba, the state governor of the Banská Bystrica region, told a rally of 8,000 people in Bratislava protesting against relocation of refugees, ‘I wish you a nice, white day … we are here to save Slovakia’.

Demonstrations and vigilante-style attacks

Such rhetoric encourages hostility at a local level, where examples abound of migrants, seeking safety, being greeted by hate-filled mobs. In Prague, anti-immigration demonstrators waved gallows and nooses, calling for the death of ‘traitors’, i.e. all those who support migrants. In Treviso, Italy, 100 migrants had to be evacuated from one town after two days of protests spearheaded by fascists from Casa Pound – and after the Northern League mayor for the Veneto region had called for the refugees to be cleared out of accommodation near tourist resorts, warning that the region was in danger of ‘Africanisation’. And in Germany, where attacks on refugee accommodation centres for 2015 – specifically arsons – now exceed that of the whole of 2014 (in turn, attacks in 2014 were up threefold from 2013), journalists and local politicians are now facing death threats and the car of one east German politician was blown up.

When politicians lead the way

While Germany has its protest movement, PEGIDA, hostile responses in other countries are led by politicians – in Hungary, by the prime minister,[5] and in others, such as Austria, where the Social Democrats in Burgenland have formed a coalition government with the extreme-right Freedom Party, by state governors and local mayors from both centre Left and centre Right. In Bavaria, the state premier Horst Seehofer has been accused by the Central Council of Jews of provoking hostility towards asylum seekers, and across the North of Italy, hostility has been fuelled by senior politicians in Liguria, Lombardy and Veneto. Other countries like the UK and Denmark have started to cut welfare payments to migrants, in a further lurch towards the nativist agenda of the anti-migration movements. The UK government, for example, has slashed asylum support payments and is proposing to withdraw automatic support for families whose claims are refused but who for legitimate reasons cannot return home – amounting to enforced destitution. And both Italy and the UK are attempting to drive those without papers out of private housing, by outsourcing immigration controls to landlords.

The danger is that xenophobia ‘from below’ will combine with structural neglect of human rights ‘from above’. This will result in a further deterioration of conditions (overcrowding, lack of health care) in reception and detention centres. ‘Fast-track procedures’ to speed up asylum claims will not only lead to grave injustices but more forcible deportations, which also claim lives, as we saw most recently in March 2015 in Sweden when an Iraqi asylum seeker suffocated during a deportation attempt, the seventeenth such deportation death in Europe since 1991.

Though there has been a huge drive by ordinary European citizens to welcome refugees, to take a stand for human dignity, another trend is undermining it. The truth is that we face the possibility of a perfect storm unless those in power take cognisance of their positive duty to combat racism, rather than fuel it.

Source: When solidarity fails | Institute of Race Relations

Iran’s Surprising New Foreign Legion

Ironic. Follows US approach of granting preference to those who serve in the military, which Canada also adopted in the 2014 Citizenship Act changes:

Proposed amendments to Iran’s Civil Code under the name “Facilitating Naturalization of non-Iranian Veterans, Warriors and Elites” will offer citizenship to foreigners who join Iranian military units—be it border patrol, militias confronting the so-called “Islamic State” in Iraq and Syria, groups involved with public order operations, or any of Iran’s less “official” military initiatives, including support for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Under the amendments, “revolutionary heroes” can become citizens without undergoing existing naturalization requirements.

Parliamentarians who signed the bill say those who “serve the revolution,” including people who have contributed to Iran’s scientific progress, will be entitled to easier access to the citizenship they deserve. Yet human-rights activists and lawyers say the amendments are part of a political and militaristic strategy to entice immigrants, who have resided illegally in the country since 1979, into fighting Iran’s proxy wars.

If passed, the amendment to Article 980 will allow a new working group—the Committee for Granting Naturalization to non-Iranian Veterans, Warriors and Elites—to decide if a non-Iranian “revolutionary” will be granted Iranian citizenship. The MPs who tabled the bill on January 12 include several conservative parliamentarians who are currently waiting for their amendment to be reviewed.

Who does this new law affect and what is it really trying to achieve?

“After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan [in 1979], the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran opened its doors to Afghans, arguing that Islam does not recognize any borders,” explains Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian human-rights lawyer and 2003 Nobel Peace laureate. “At that time, around 4 million Afghans came to Iran, but only around 10 percent of them managed to obtain residency permits.” The rest, she explains, remained illegally, and were thus denied basic rights which citizens enjoy. “At that time,” Ebadi continues, “Iran had begun an eight-year war with Iraq and was naturally in need of inexpensive labor. Iran took advantage of illegal Afghan workers to satisfy this need.” But when the war ended, the policy remained.

Source: Iran’s Surprising New Foreign Legion – The Daily Beast

Are migrants settling in? | OECD Insights Blog

The latest OECD report comparing integration across member countries (I relied heavily on the previous report for cross-country comparisons in Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote):

Nevertheless, despite all these variations, not to mention the differences between immigrants themselves in terms language ability; education; reasons for migrating – be it for employment, family, or humanitarian; and so on; certain broad themes emerge in the report:

  • There is no “integration champion”: Whereas countries such as Australia and Canada – which have taken in large numbers of skilled labour migrants on top of family and humanitarian migrants – have better outcomes than most European destinations, they too face some challenges, for example with respect to making the most out of migrants’ skills.
  • More immigrants doesn’t mean less integration: There’s no obvious link between the proportion of immigrants in a population and how well they do across a range of areas, such as in employment, income levels and education. In terms of employment, countries that are home to larger proportions of immigrants even tend to have better outcomes.
  • Things get better over time: In many areas immigrants tend to do a less well than native-born. In particular, recent arrivals face difficulties virtually everywhere. However, the longer immigrants stay, the narrower the gap with native-born becomes. That underlines the reality that integration is a process, not an overnight transformation, and reflects the success – or otherwise – of immigrants in making friends, learning local ways and acquiring a new language.
  • Immigrants’ kids still face problems: The acid test of integration is the fate of the so-called “second generation” – that is, the native-born children of immigrants. If integration efforts are working, the children of migrants born in adopted countries should be doing about as well in education and, later, the workforce as the children of natives. But the signs of success for them are mixed. While they’re narrowing the gap in educational performance and with respect to labour market outcomes – particularly for women – they still lag behind in other areas, particularly in Europe when it comes to employment. In Europe also, the proportion of locally born children of immigrants who say they feel discriminated against is worrying high – a feeling that could have grave implications for social cohesion.

Will review the report over coming weeks to see if any notable changes from the previous one.

Source: Are migrants settling in? | OECD Insights Blog

Canadian living takes toll on immigrant hearts: Study

Not surprising. As new Canadians integrate and adopt our sedentary lifestyle and poor nutrition habits, their health worsens. One of the downsides of integration:

Is living in Canada bad for your heart?

A groundbreaking new study has found that recent immigrants have a 30 per cent lower rate of major heart problems, such as heart attacks and strokes, than long-term residents, but that gap shrinks the longer they spend in Canada.

While newcomers are known to have better health than the general population because they must pass rigid health screening, Dr. Jack Tu, lead author of the study, says “part of it can be explained by most immigrant groups having lower rates of smoking and obesity than Canadian-born individuals.”

But after 10 years in Canada, and some of the negative impacts of Western culture, like fast-food and cigarettes, that “healthy immigrant effect” diminishes, the study shows.

While recent East Asian immigrants, predominantly Chinese, had the lowest incidence of major heart problems overall (2.4 in men and 1.1 in women per 1,000 person-years), South Asian immigrants from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Guyana had the highest rates, at 8.9 in men and 3.6 in women.

However, after 10 years in Canada, the rates among East Asians increased by 40 per cent for men and 60 per cent for women, said the study released by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in the American Heart Association journal Circulation on Monday.

“East Asians — Chinese from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan — are the most sensitive to the acculturation of Western culture. The overall incidence rate of the other (ethnic) groups is only up by 10 per cent after 10 years,” said Tu, a cardiologist at the Sunnybrook Schulich Heart Centre.

…Other key findings of the study:

  • The rate of heart attacks and strokes varies drastically among the eight ethnic communities studied, but the differences diminish the more time they spend in Canada.
  • While 5.6 per 1,000 immigrant adult males and 2.4 of females had major heart problems, long-term Ontarians had a rate of 8.1 for men and 3.4 for women.
  • Among immigrant men, East Asians had the lowest rate of heart disease, followed by black, white-Western European, Southeast Asian, Latin American, West Asian/Arab, white-Eastern European and South Asian.
  • Among immigrant women, the order was somewhat different, though East Asian females still shared the best cardiovascular health. They were followed by white-Western European, Southeast Asian, white-Eastern European, black, Latin American, West Asian/Arab and South Asian.

Source: Canadian living takes toll on immigrant hearts: Study | Toronto Star