Metropolis 2016 – Areas of Focus

Metropolis 2016.001With the draft program for Metropolis out (here), I took some time to analyze the areas of focus for the academics, settlement organizations and other NGOs, and government officials who have organized plenaries, workshops and roundtables.

The conference themes are: selection, governance, settlement and access to services, and identities and migration history.

With the exception of the plenaries – determined largely by the Association of Canadian Studies which organizes the conference – the focus reflects the response to these themes from participants, and thus gives a sense of what individuals and organizations involved in immigration-related issues are working on.

The chart above is my admittedly somewhat subjective take (not always clear, and in some cases, sessions cover more than one area).

Not surprisingly, integration and settlement are the most active areas, followed by multiculturalism, immigration and refugees.

Citizenship is largely absent (and was not mentioned specifically in the sub-theme of identities and migration history)), surprising given the magnitude of the 2014 and earlier changes to citizenship under the Conservative government, and the effect these are having on the immigrant-to-citizen model.

Federal government organized sessions involve two departments (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, StatsCan), and are largely integration, refugee and research focussed.

This is another illustration of IRC’s relative neglect of citizenship and longer-term integration issues, given that these are outside its ‘centre of gravity’ and focus.

Given the transition of multiculturalism back to Canadian Heritage, there are no government-organized sessions on multiculturalism (but academics and others are heavily engaged given the identities theme).

Only Saskatchewan, PEI and Ontario are organizers or panelists in  some sessions, although settlement organizations in most provinces are heavily involved.

I have organized two sessions: From the ‘Big Shift’ to the ‘Big Return’? Election 2015 Mainstreaming of Ethnic Votes and Citizenship: Finding the Balance to address some of the gaps.

While a ‘market-driven’ approach to conference themes responds to those active in the field, it can also result in neglecting significant policy areas, as the lack of attention to citizenship attests.

That being said, Metropolis provides one of the few opportunities for academics and practitioners to exchange findings and knowledge.

When Tim’s is more popular than the Queen, how to tell Canada’s story? – The Globe and Mail

Jack Jedwab of the Association of Canadian Studies on recent polling data on elements of the national narrative. Not surprisingly, the Charter still holds first place, probably to the chagrin of the government which has downplayed the Charter and given greater prominence to the Monarchy. In Delacourt’s Shopping for Votes, there is a good section on how Tim Horton advertising captures citizenship better than the government (here).

But the broader challenge remains:

In a regionally diverse and demographically pluralist country like Canada it is no simple task to establish an official or common narrative. It is essential to promote ongoing discussion and debate about the Canadian story that highlights its historic achievements and past failings. That many of us arrive at different conclusions about the meaning of our shared past is the sign of a healthy democracy far more so than a problem for societal cohesion. As we approach the 150th anniversary of Canada we should seize the opportunity to embark upon a national conversation about the nation’s past so as to enhance collective knowledge about ourselves.

When Tim’s is more popular than the Queen, how to tell Canada’s story? – The Globe and Mail.

Du bilinguisme au multiculturalisme – Selon qu’on est anglophone ou francophone…

Interesting poll comparing support for bilingualism, multiculturalism, biculturalism, and official languages. Fairly significant age and regional differences, but nothing too surprising:

Selon Jack Jedwab, ce sondage permet aussi de faire des recoupements fort révélateurs. « Par exemple, le sondage démontre que les répondants qui sont les plus favorables au multiculturalisme sont aussi ceux qui sont les plus favorables au biculturalisme. C’est que, dans leur perception, le multiculturalisme n’est qu’une extension du biculturalisme. À l’inverse, les répondants les moins favorables au multiculturalisme sont aussi ceux qui sont les moins favorables au biculturalisme, leur perception identitaire étant plutôt celle de la singularisation. Il est donc faux de prétendre que les tenants du multiculturalisme sont opposés au biculturalisme et au bilinguisme. Ce sont plutôt les opposants au multiculturalisme qui s’opposent aussi au biculturalisme et au bilinguisme. »

Du bilinguisme au multiculturalisme – Selon qu’on est anglophone ou francophone… | Le Devoir.