The Political-Demographic Environment of Canadian Jewry

The Political-Demographic Environment

of Canadian Jewry ranked as the most undc discussion of the behavior I image ofinactivity by its 01 Morton Weinfeld activity (pross, 1975). More recent analyses I segment of non-economic i This paper will attempt to elucidate the concept of the political demography of increasing levels of consul Canadian Jews. With the help ofthe 1986 Canadian census, as well as other data, the Ottawa (Thorburn, 1985, . demographic profile of Jews will be compared with that of other ethnic and racial working of ethnic organ: groupings in Canada. Differences in these profiles, and their consequences for the government, are few. One 5 successful attainment of Jewish communal objectives will be assessed. (ponting and Gibbins, 1981 organizations and their op Demography and Communal Political Behavior Nazi war criminals in Can~ Jews, because of the pe Jews, like other minority groups, be they ethnic, racial or religious, can be start over comparable ethl understood and studied as a polity (Elazar, 1976). In a multi-cultural society such as organizations. This Diaspt q.nada, the notion of ethnic polities has been gaining wider recognition (Breton, tions, but also-and here ( 1981). This recognition relates to the internal structure and functioning of the group, between the community an as well as to the external relations of the group to other groups and to the state. Jewish interests. Indeed, since the adoption of Canadian multicultural policy in 1971, government No other minority groul ministries have acted as catalysts in energizing ethnic organizations, giving them Jews, nor does any other political clout operative in two spheres. The first, often called ethnic politics, refers to awareness, measured by k the role of ethnic organizations and groups in the electoral process, as voters, ethnic press, etc. (Breton, [ fundraisers and donors, party organizers and candidates. Activity here is tuned into same time a relatively idl the electoral cycle. The second refers to the role ofethnic polities as pressure or lobby educated and well versed in groups, active in the normal routine of policy-making on issues which affect the Indeed, some observers mi interests of the group. battles for turfand duplicat With the exception of traditional French-English rivalries, ethnic politics in of their own community, general has been a recent arrival as a subject for systematic Canadian scholarship. aspiring ethnic groups. This does not mean that ethnic groups, including Jews, have been inactive in The success of any min. mainstream politics, including the fielding ofcandidates. But until the 19808 it seems will depend on several 'Ii that mainstream parties were not sensitized to the existence and certainly the important. But our cone importance of the ethnic vote. Indeed, the federal elections of 1984, and particularly distinguish groups from a 1988, were characterized by an emergence in the public eye ofethnic issues and ethnic categories. One can be ter: mobilizations in key ridings (Stasiulis and Abu-Laban, forthcoming). Scientific group, its rate of growth lUI studies of the political and voting behavior ofCanadian minority groups and Jews in net migration, fertility rate- particular (again excepting the French and English) are of recent vintage (Black, The second set of varia 1987; Laponce, 1988; Waller and Weinfeld, 1987). measurements are quantit This was also true for the study of minority lobby or pressure groups and the resources available for the I governmental process. Analysts looking at data from the 19608 found minority viable organizations should groups to be relatively few and inactive. Presthus (1973) found only 4% ofhis sample in the majority languages, of 640 Canadian interest groups identified as ethnic and 6% as religious, and these birth, and ofcourse, data 0: the bases for effective polit Ifwe had to charactenz. American Jews in the secc 204 qualititative, rather than Papers in Jewish Demography 1989 205 Environment 'fy ranked as the most underorganized and least effective. Another authoritative discussion of the behavior of Canadian pressure groups, indirectly corroborates this image of inactivity by its omission of any evaluation or examples of minority group activity (pross, 1975). More recent analyses have included minority groups as part of the growing segment of non-economic interest groups, whose influence is enhanced through the he political demography of increasing levels of consultations with non-governmental organizations found in us, as well as other data, the Ottawa (Thorburn, 1985, Jackson et aI, 1986). But detailed studies of the actual .t of other ethnic and racial working of ethnic organizations, and their relations with other groups and l their consequences for the government, are few. One study dealt with organizations representing native people ill be assessed. (ponting and Gibbins, 1980). Another examined Ukrainian and Jewish community organizations and their opposing political efforts on the issue of policy regarding cal Behavior Nazi war criminals in Canada (Troper and Weinfeld, 1988). Jews, because of the peculiar nature of their Diaspora experience, have a head start over comparable ethnic and racial groups in the development of communal racial or religious, can be :lUlti-cultural society such as organizations. This Diaspora experience includes not only self-governing institu wider recognition (Breton, tions, but also-and here the record is more checkered-experience in intercession between the community and the authorities (shtadlanut) trying to make the case for od functioning of the group, Jewish interests. - groups and to the state. No other minority group in Canada is as institutionally complete as are Canadian I policy in 1971, government Jews, nor does any other group have such a high degreee of communal self organizations, giving them awareness, measured by knowledge of organizations and leaders, reading of the alled ethnic politics, refers to ethnic press, etc. (Breton, 1981; Isajiw, 1981). In part this is because Jews are at the lectoral process, as voters, same time a relatively identified, unassimilated group, while also being highly I. Activity here is tuned into educated and well versed in the ins and outs of politics (Troper and Weinfeld, 1988). polities as pressure or lobby Indeed, some observers might claim that Jewish life may be over-organized, with on issues which affect the battles for turf and duplication. Yet, despite the insider Jewish jokes about the foibles of their own community, Jewish community organization remains a model for rivalries, ethnic politics in aspiring ethnic groups. :latic Canadian scholarship. The success of any minority group in advocating the interests of its constituents :WS, have been inactive in will depend on several variables. Charismatic, effective leaders are certainly But until the 19808 it seems important. But our concern is with the socio-demographic variables which :xistence and certainly the distinguish groups from one another. These variables can be grouped into two ns of 1984, and particularly categories. One can be termed quantitative, and refers to the absolute size of the ie of ethnic issues and ethnic group, its rate of growth and traditional demographic factors such as age structure, .n, forthcoming). Scientific net migration, fertility rates and exogamy. :ninority groups and Jews in The second set of variables can be construed as qualitative (though the actual -e of recent vintage (Black, measurements are quantitative), in that they measure the human and material resources available for the group to act effectively in the public arena, and to sustain IQr pressure groups and the viable organizations should they so desire. These variables include linguistic abilities the 19608 found minority in the majority languages, familiarity with the host society as measured by native oundonly 4% ofhis sample birth, and ofcourse, data on education and socioeconomic status, which can provide I 6% as religious, and these the bases for effective political participation. Ifwe had to characterize a demographic survival strategy operative among North American Jews in the second half of the twentieth century, it would probably be qUalititative, rather than quantitative. As is well known, Jews are effective 206 Morton Weinfeld contraceptors, with among the lowest fertility rates on the continent (perhaps challenged only by the French Canadians). The age structure of North American While, to be sure, there current ethnic political agen, Jews is advanced, and the period of mass Jewish migration is over. Intermarriage on "visible minorities", hig) rates of Jews move ever upward, though they remain much lower than those of comparable ethnic groups. While Canadian multia non-French origin groups a! In contrast, the socioeconomic news is all good. Jews rank far above other groups it has become apparent that on practically all measures of socioeconomic status, and have even begun to differ. The former group is penetrate previously exclusive elite sectors typified by antisemitism, in the corporate, status issues; the second gro governmental and educational world. Jews have made it (Silberman, 1985). racial prejudice. The first : One can contrast the Jewish patterns with those of an equally committed communal organUations, t Canadian survivalist group, the Hutterites of Western Canada (comparable to the substantial growth in numb American Amish). This is a group whose fertility rate is perhaps the highest on the Canadian Jews find thel continent, and pursues a clearly quantitative demographic strategy. Hutterites live in these two groups. On the 01 farm colonies and pursue a devout brand of Christianity. While they are successful integration in Canada, the) farmers, they avoid any contact with the institutions of the outside world, and tradition as underdog, as , certainly are in no way active in the social and political life of the broader particularly Jewish organiza community. There is no Hutterite agenda which requires pressure group activity, Canadian Jewish Congress c outside of the immediate economic concerns of each colony (Hostetler and issues of affirmative action, Huntington, 1980). In the concluding sectio: This paper will not attempt to devise an optimal demographic strategy for the of this dual coalition strate purposes of a group's survival. In fact, an optimal strategy depends on other social Jewish demographic profile characteristics of the group, its communal agenda and general values and orientations. If all North American Jews became Hutterites-or Hassidim-some aspects of communal survival would be assured. But many other valued features of The ComparE Jewish life would be eliminated. There would be no Jewish Nobel Prize winners and neither Commentary nor Moment (Lieberman and Weinfeld, 1978). ' The data in Table I wi The conventional wisdom about Jewish political success in North America is that declared single Jewish Origil sheer numbers have never loomed large. Indeed, the mystery of Jewish survival people claiming whole or through the ages may lie in the emphasis on quality rather than numbers, despite high seemingly large proportion Jewish fertility levels historically. Jewish influence has been exercised in the United Jewish-English or Polish-Jt States through activity at the senior levels of the Democratic Party, through identity compares very well fundraising and donations, and through concentrations of the Jewish vote, with high similar Eastern European registration and turnout in key sections of the urban North East. (The degree to relatively high single identif: which these American characteristics persist will not be discussed here.) In the following compa In Canada the Jewish proportion of the population has historically been about single or partial membersl one half that of the United States. Like most immigrants and urban dwellers in multiple ethnic origin still Quebec and Ontario, Jews tended to favor the Liberal Party (La Ponce, 1988), double counting of the 28~ despite recent gains by the Conservatives (Waller and Weinfeld, 1987). with higher proportions of Ethnic groups in Canada can be divided into two categories. On the one hand we Use of the enlarged categOl have those which are primarily white, of European origin, second or third perhaps some more margin generation, and either affluent or on their way to socioeconomic success. The Persons of recorded JevI second.grouping consists primarily ofnon-white and non-European groups (in large They are the most urbanize. part With a non-Judea-Christian heritage), which are more likely themselves to be major metropolitan areas; 'j immigrants and are still struggling with racial discrimination and lower socio 1.4% to 4.2% of the total ( economic status. in terms ofmaximizing the Papers in Jewish Demography 1989 207 n the continent (perhaps Icture of North American While, to be sure, there is variation and diversity within these groupings, the ion is over. Intermarriage current ethnic political agenda in Canada, with the emphasis in policy-making circles on "visible minorities", highlights this dichotomy (Samuel, 1987). nuch lower than those of While Canadian multicultural policy attempts to consider all non-English and non-French origin groups as sharing basic commonalities as Third Force Canadians, mk far above other groups it has become apparent that the interests of the two ethnic groupings considered may lnd have even begun to differ. The former group is concerned largely with cultural survival and symbolic semitism, in the corporate, status issues; the second group is largely concerned with bread and butter issues and (Silberman, 1985). 'I racial prejudice. The first group usually has more established and well-financed of an equally committed i communal organizations though members of the second group, spurred on by anada (comparable to the l i substantial growth in numbers, are developing rapidly. i ?Crhaps the highest on the 'I Canadian Jews find themselves in a somewhat schizophrenic posture regarding strategy. Hutterites live in Ii these two groups. On the one hand, by most measures of socioeconomic status and i While they are successful II .f the outside world, and integration in Canada, they resemble the first group-the "haves". Yet, the Jewish tradition as underdog, as victim of discrimination, viscerally ties many Jews, and tical life of the broader !I particularly Jewish organization professionals, to the second group. For example, the :s pressure group activity, I Canadian Jewish Congress can be found making common cause with these groups on :l colony (Hostetler and ii! issues of affirmative action, and joining in the fight against racism. 'I In the concluding section of this paper we will raise questions about the viability 1: ' .ographic strategy for the 'I of this dual coalition strategy. But we turn now to a detailed examination of the ~ ;y depends on other social Ii Jewish demographic profile, in comparative perspective. 1 and general values and 1 ii, erites-or Hassidim-some The Comparative Demography of Canadian Jews i/I "i other valued features of IIi Nobel Prize winners, and il: The data in Table 1 will just be highlighted here. In 1986 246,000 Canadians 1'1 ]d, 1978). '!I !l in North America is that declared single Jewish origin, and 98,000, partial Jewish origin, for a total of 344,000 ,Ii people claiming whole or partial Jewish ethnicity. While Jews might decry the :1 ~stery of Jewish survival 'i :lan numbers, despite high seemingly large proportion of 28.5% who reported a shared Jewish ethnicity (e.g. I -n exercised in the United Jewish-English or Polish-Jewish), the fact that 71.5% of the total claimed single mocratic Party, through identity compares very well with the other groupings presented, such as the culturally :1 I lhe Jewish vote, with high similar Eastern Europeans (poles and Ukrainians primarily). Of course, this •rth East. (The degree to relatively high single identification ofJews also reflects the lack ofpast intermarriage. l !!CUssed here.) In the following comparisons, each group consists of those who claimed either I IS historically been about single or partial membership. The assumption is that even those who report a Is and urban dwellers in multiple ethnic origin still retain some tie to each group. This means that there is I :Party (La Ponce, 1988), double counting of the 28% who indicated a multiple origin. By and large, groups Ilfeld, 1987). with higher proportions of immigrants tended to have more single origin members. I Use of the enlarged categories yields a fuller representation of the group, including .1 .ries. On the one hand we I origin, second or third perhaps some more marginal members. I -oeconomic success. The Persons of recorded Jewish ancestry comprise 1.4% of the Canadian population. !uropean groups (in large They are the most urbanized group, as measured by concentrations in Canada's three e likely themselves to be major metropolitan areas; 75% of Canadian Jews live there, and they comprise from :tation and lower socia- 1.4% to 4.2% of the total CMA (metropolitan areas) population. This is important in terms of maximizing the socio-political impact and visibility of the group, relative

ilj ,:,' tv ,..... , 0 00 ...... ,...".....QIiMIIIl...... ,. E'Ir!C tJIDI,,;tf. {II ~ L.... e-.I &1l1lfl1 ... Inri", 11'.., .." EUI .- ... e..- A,.. IIfI1 Saot~·E." lilt" § - r.-- r.- &...., &...., SdlAIMfi:M " - T'" £hie ClritIiN. 000't '1371 ,,1a .., 3.3M 1.705 1.N7 344 210 11 104 50 ... 341 -52 ~ ~ •.0t3 212 1,32l 1.242 241 175 41 72 32 100 -267 10 ...... S· ...... QI9nI •• 2.030 .7. 2.013 .63 ... II 15 33 31 II 17 10 ~ ...... 0Iigin0 •••51.2 75.0 30.7 .0.0 73.0 .7.1 7U 17.3 51.3 ".2 ".0" 17.2 IS.O 71.1 Ci: T.... BMic QIlgM .... /IIe-dIo~ .... 321 2.7 13.2 6.7 7.5 U 1.0 0.3 0.• 0.2 2.7 1.2 0.2 ... /II GIaup'a T,u. 0Iigin'* ...... 3.2 21.1 to 2.0 17.1 •. 0 27.' 23.5 2... 21.0 7.' 6.7 33.1 T_ lU 3.3 ••• U 31.1 lO.' .1.3 .7.7'''' .... ".2 21.0 33.• 31.' 33.3 V_ 6.5 U 113 7.0 5.5 1.1 5.5 :1.1 0.2 2.1 '.0 22.1 '''' 7.7 GIIlUp ...../II ellA. pap...... 13J ".2 OJ U 5.2 U 3.• 1.7 0.7 1.0 0.5 1.t 0.7 0.6 T_ 52.' 7.' 13 ••• lI.l 7.' U U 1.2 0.6 0.• 1.1 3.7 0.5 V_ 51.1 '.1 U '''' 1.1 '.5 U 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 11.2 3.' 0.3

"~1'.• '" 23.7 23.5 27.2 21.1 24. I 24.1 21.5 21.2 2'.4 21.' 34.0 25.1 21.6 al 1$-24 17.0 17.3 17.2 11.3 11.3 11.3 13.1 11.5 15.4 ".0 11.1 15.• 25034 17.6 11.1 17.' 11.2 ".4 ".0 ''''11.1 11.5 11.2 ".0 ".2 '''' 11.2 3Il-4ol IU 13.5 IU ''''13.7 lU 16.0 17.7 17.3 15.4 ".0 15.1 '''' IS.• 45-51 ... '''''.5 1.1 121 '.7 '.7 '.2 U '.7 '.0 U ''''U U 55-44 U '.2 7.3 •••'.0 • .7 '.5 '.7 4.2 3.7 5.' 4.0 1.5 5.1 7.7 ..74 '.7 5.3 5.1 4.7 3.' '.5 2.3 2.5 2.' 2.0 •.3 2.5 3.' 75+ 3.7 2.5 3.2 U 2.0 3.7 •••5.' U 1.2 I.' 0.6 2.0 1.0 U IolIrUI SI...... Ior pop. IS. • 27.6 21.5 21.1 26.7 300 27.7 25.' 31.1 35.1 21.7 30.3 32.2 25.3 30.0 _Ill 5.' 5.1 U U .0 6.1 6.7 3.3 3.5 '.1 3.0 5.3 '.1 5.0 ---...... , 3.7 3.6 3J 3.3 21 3.1 '.1 5.5 5.3 2.7 3.0 U U 2.5 IIllIriod 62.1 61.7 62.5 61.0 ".0 12.2 63.3 51.4 57.' 60.' 6U 11.1 ".2 60.0

7 A l.Inpge 1!ocIog1llllld'" ,..,.T..... fI9lI\ 1S.7 24.1 ".4 7'.1 36,2 IS.' 7'.0 13.5 75.3 33.4 24.' 26.3 42.3 17.3 FNni:h 2.2 72.2 0.3 U 2.7 0.7 3.' U lU U 3.3 0.' 0.3 3.' 0.' 0.3 11.1 17.4 521 27.7 17.2 4.2 U .0.• 12.0 60.' 43.0 17.3 -tMpIt ..... U 3.4 21 2J '.0 5.7 4.' 3.1 5.0 15.4 10.0 n.' 14.3 13.5

• Han""'''' fI9lI\ .6.3 27.7 1S.3 ".0 ".7 13.6 ".7 ".2 76.5 42.3 33.6 32.7 ".7 21.1 FNni:h U 61.3 0.3 U 3.1 0.7 2.' '.1 13.1 11.5 5.1 0.7 0.3 3.' Nor>dIiciII ~ 0.2 0.1 U 3.' 31.1 '.1 5.' 2.7 3.7 22.1 .1.1 ".0 30.6 17.3 ,.... U 3.' 2.5 4.0 15.' U '.5 5.0 U D.I 20.1 17.4 20.4 13.5 COllicill~ fI9lI\ .... 20.' 13.5 .U 72.2 10.2 70.0 10.0 72.1 57.7 60.3 7'.1 ".3 57.7 FNni:h 0.1 16.1 0.1 0.7 3.1 0.4 1.2 '.5 lO.' '.7 13.7 U 0.3 3.1 a..h 0.2 33.0 7.6 17.7 '.4 21.0 11.5 123 33.7 ".0 6.7 7.6 30.6 N_ 1.6 0.0 0.3'" 0.4 6.3 1.0 0.' 0.5 0.6 2.' '.0 126 5.7 7.7

'lloc.n.dlnCllizen .7.5 16.5 16.2 17.3 170 ,u • .... 13.' 10.' n.' IS.' 7'.' n.o 73.1 ,... ~., u u u u ,-' u I.l 1J 1.1 0.1 2-0 1.0 u • _ SIll"." Iorl'OP. IS. 27.1 21.5 28.8 28.7 30.0 27.7 25.1 31.1 35.1 21.7 30.3 322 25.3 30.0 H 5.1 4.8 403 4.0 1.1 1.7 3.3 3.5 4.1 3.0 5.3 4.1 5.0 ~ 3.7 31 3.1 33 2.1 3.' 4.1 U 5.3 2.7 3.0 1.4 U 2.5 -- 12.1 11.7 12.5 14.0 14.0 12.2 13.3 51.4 57.t 10.8 13.1 11.1 1t.2 10.0 7. \M9'91!odopau11d"- ...... r..... &tW> .5.7 24.1 11.4 71.1 31.2 85.1 74.0 13.5 75.3 33.4 24.1 21.3 42.3 17.3 FIwdI 2.2 72.2 OJ 1.1 2.7 0.7 U 8.8 13.1 II 3.3 0.1 0.3 U ...... U 0.3 11.1 17.4 52.1 27.7 172 4.2 1.2 40.4 IU 10.1 43.0 17.3 lUipIo U 3.4 2.1 2.8 '.0 5.7 4.1 U 5.0 15.4 10.0 Il.1 14.3 13.5

I-~" &tW> ".3 27.7 15.3 11.0 41.7 13.1 14.7 84.2 71.5 42.3 33.6 32.7 11.7 28.8 FIwdI 1J 18.3 03 1.4 3.1 0.7 U 1.1 13.1 11.5 5.1 0.7 0.3 3.1 Moo4icial\.qulgt 0.2 III 1J U 31.1 1.1 5.1 2-7 3.7 22.1 41.1 4'.0 30.1 17.3 NtiINr 1.1 U 2.S 4.0 15.1 U U 5.0 U 11.1 20.1 17.4 2G.4 13.5 C 0Iici0l Languogt &tW> IU 2o.t 13.5 11.4 72.2 10.2 70.0 10.0 72.1 57.7 10.3 71.1 81.3 57.7 FIwdI 0.1 41.1 0.1 0.7 3.8 0.4 12 U IU 1.7 13.7 U 0.3 U BoIh 0.2 33.0 II H 17.7 1.4 21.0 11.5 12.3 33.7 11.0 1.7 7.6 30.1 N_ 1.1 0.0 03 0.4 6.3 1.0 0.' 0.5 0.1 U 1.0 12.6 5.7 7.7

"ConodIn Ciliun 87.5 1t.4 ".5 ".2 17.3 17.0 IU 10.8 n.' 15.1 11.4 78.8 no 73.1

" Fortign !!om 17.7 2.1 12.7 16.7 46.8 11.4 31.7 57.3 68.0 54.' 70.0 1t.2 71.3 75.0

10 ~ who irml9l1ocl ",.7 000'1 131 29 51 70 58 19 41 II 20 II 231 73 19 II "oflolllg""", inmgfIIod 1178·11 1.1 0.4 12 15 41 3.1 5.5 15.1 17.3 11.2 35.0 34.6 23.2 36.5 12 ""'lol" CInIdon irml91lioft 1178·. 11.7 4.0 lD 7.0 II 1.0 u u 2.5 u 2.5 32.8 10.1 2.6

11 &b:Ilion A "'S...... -*Y ~ ....i:II. (high .,..,.. clog,., 42.8 44.5 37.5 40.1 53.0 41.5 21.3 3U 40.3 32.4 31.1 31.7 35.3 33.3 '6 I ,,_,q"h dogr. 10.0 6.0 llJ 10.0 7.4 lU 21.1 1.7 8.8 203 12.1 21.3 15.4 ".0 ~ 14 0l:cupIli0n " "iIbN'...... br egl S' A 15·24 11.3 15.5 71.7 73.0 71.1 72.5 62.4 515 13.2 12.6 57.3 61.3 61.7 51.0 ~ I 25. 61.4 14.1 70.7 71.4 71.7 1t.0 10.8 7U 7U 73.1 74.0 71.1 68.1 I'" ~ " ...... br. 1:;' C 1!-24 16.1 lU 15.6 13.1 13.4 14.2 IU 21.1 20.4 11.2 21.2 14.4 ".2 22.2 ::t D 25. 7.1 103 7.7 8.4 7.1 7.4 5.7 10.4 14.1 E ... "'_,.... in _,_ U II 7.3 10.7 lU t;, ...l1li""" ...... 27.8 26.8 21.5 21.1 lU 21.4 4t.7 26.0 24.4 35.0 11.1 21.2 26.0 32.0 § 18 ...... _ '4,04' 12,143 14,081 14.071 14.013 13,173 11,201 12,730 13,144 13.170 10,455 13,017 13,311 11,732 ~ "'''' IS. wih '-no .... 135, 000+ 13.8 10.& 15.1 13.6 10.8 13.7 25.1 7.1 8.3 15.7 7.2 U 13.3 12.5 ~ C <13,000 125 123 13.4 13.4 12..8 4.7 10.1 11.2 14.1 13.1 17.0 1403 ".4 lH D A hcomolor ~ ...._....,.. 27,747 25.440 28,512 21.031 27,435 31,412 22,331 21.255 22,718 23,715 26,321 26,814 _.. 26.17' 22,Zl' ~ (I) l.

b. __ .. 210 Morton Weinfeld to its numbers, and approximates earlier American Jewish population concentra earning potentials of lev. tions in the North East. groups, who eam below"" The difference in age structure between Jews and all other groups is stark. While Additional data are av 15.2% of the Jewish population is over 65, all other ethnic groupings are so in single Jewry. Brym has estimateo digit percentages. risen to about 25%, comp Almost one third of the Canadian Jewish population is foreign born, a figure which indicate that opposi much higher than American estimates for Jews and which places Jews in some in Canada from 28% in 1 respects midway between the older white European groups (e.g. the Eastern, Western Census data from 198: and Northern Europeans) and the non-European immigrant groups. Jewish stand well below those of immigration continues steadily. Between 1978 and 1986 (up to the month of May over in Canada, the numl inclusive), at least 19,000 Jews immigrated to Canada. (The actual total is higher, but gap is even larger for com: because of re-migration, return migration and deaths, the number presented in 1986 women 2,236. was 19,000.) 5.5% of Canadian Jewry consisted of these most recent immigrants and All this means that th. these in tum comprised 2.6% of the total 1978-86 immigrant cohort, above the total these fertility data, attitu, Jewish population proportion of 1.4%. Thus, migration not only replenishes but very low. augments the Jewish proportion of the Canadian population. One analyst has pre This augmenting of the group proportion via immigration is just barely true for Metropolitan Areas, to th. the South and East European groups. But it is dramatically the case for the newer Canadians as reported in non-white groups, where recent immigrants comprise a far greater proportion of the would increase, barely, fr_ total group in Canada, from four to eight times the percentage among Jews. minority groupings are fa: With regard to socio-demographics, Jews are found to have the highest educational, occupational and income attainments of any of the groups identified here (fable 1). If anything, these data understate the Jewish position in that they do TABLE 2. PROJECTED pOPU not assess the role of wealthy Jewish business families at the top of the Canadian BY ETHNIC ORlG income distribution. Some points should be made. First, the reported educational qualifications of the non-European groups are in general higher than those of the Ethnic oriain older European groups. Canadians of Arab and South Asian origin both reveal over 20% with completed university degrees, with the Jewish group at almost 29%. Second, the degree of economic inequality between the non-white groupings and Total the European groupings is much smaller than the degree ofinequality between whites British (all sna. and French (all sna. and a~ and non-whites observed in the United States. For example, among American males British and French' in 1985 who received any income, black median income was 63% that of whites. In Dutch, German. other V. and North Europe Canada, the comparable percentage is 77.3%, for black male income as a percentage Polish and Ukrainian ofBritish origin male income. Racial gaps in other indicators, such as unemployment Greek, Portuauese. oth. East and South Europ rates, are even smaller in Canada (Farley and Allen, 1987, Ch. 9 and to). And Italian Canadian gaps between whites and other non-black but "visible minority" Jewish South Asian immigrant groups are smaller still. This is important to the extent that narrow Chinese Filipino, other Asia, socioeconomic differentials will limit the degree of inter-racial social and political Arab, Pacific Islane friction, a cross-fire in which Canadian Jews would prefer not to be caught. Black, African, Caribb. Latin, Central. South I Finally, it should be noted that other studies have found that, depending on Aboriainal measures, at most half of the Jewish income advantage can be explained by factors Other sinale oriains Other aultiple oriains such as age, immigration, educational attainment, language ability and full time vs. Visible minorities- part time work. The residual advantage, a mysterious "bonus" associated with a. Includes "British ~ Jewish origin, is difficult to explain (hard work, connections, inherited wealth) but b. Includes "French on: indicates that existing levels of antisemitism are unlikely factors affecting income c. Includes British aD' d. Includes South Asi~ Black/African/Carib Source: Balakrishnan ( Papers in Jewish Demography 1989 211

.sh population concentra earning potentials of Jews. However, racism does continue to affect non-white groups, who eam below what can be expected (Balakrishnan, 1988). :her groups is stark. While Additional data are available on the long term demographic future of Canadian ,groupings are so in single Jewry. Brym has estimated the Canadian mixed marriage rates as of 1984 to have risen to about 25%, compared to 15% in 1971. Moreover, he cites Gallup poll data I is foreign born, a figure which indicate that opposition to Jewish and non-Jewish intermarriage has declined lrich places Jews in some in Canada from 28% in 1968 to 10% in 1983 (Brym, 1989). :(e.g. the Eastern, Western Census data from 1981, also cited by Brym, confirm that Jewish fertility rates lmigrant groups. Jewish stand well below those of other groups. Per 1,000 ever-married women fifteen and (up to the month of May over in Canada, the number of children is: total, 1,781; Jewish women, 1,596. The eactual total is higher, but gap is even larger for completed fertility for women 45 and over: total, 3,304; Jewish number presented in 1986 women 2,236. ost recent immigrants and All this means that the likelihood for Jewish natural increase in Canada-given mt cohort, above the total these fertility data, attitudes on intermarriage, and the prevailing age structure-is not only replenishes but very low. :ion. One analyst has projected the Jewish population in Canada's 25 Census -lion is just barely true for Metropolitan Areas, to the year 2001. (Table 2; these projections are for single origin ally the case for the newer Canadians as reported in the 1986 census.) We note that while the Jewish proportion "greater proportion ofthe would increase, barely, from 1.60 to 1.64%, the changes projected for the non-white ntage among Jews. minority groupings are far more substantial, at the expense of the British and French nd to have the highest "J of the groups identified ah position in that they do TABLE 2. PROJECTED POPULATION IN THE 25 CENSUS nETROPOLITAN AREAS OP CANADA, the top of the Canadian BY ETHNIC O~IGIN 1986-2001 (PERCENTAGES) the reported educational higher than those of the Ethnic or-iain Census Pr-ojection 2 1986 an origin both reveal over 1991 1996 2001 ..oup at almost 29%. non-white groupings and Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 inequality between whites Br-itish (all ana. and lIult.)" 40.13 39.65 39.23 38.85 ~, Fr-ench (all sna. and lIult.)" 23.77 23.34 22.97 22.63 among American males Br-itish and Fr-ench' 6.40 6.29 6.20 6.11 as 63% that of whites. In Dutch, German. other lIest and Nor-th Eur-ope 5.32 5.27 5.23 5.19 -Ie income as a percentage Poliah and Ukr-ainian 2.87 2.89 2.90 2.92 1'8, such as unemployment Greek, Portuau8ae, other East and South Eur-ope 4.45 4.56 4.66 4.75 187, Ch. 9 and 10). And Italian 4.28 4.23 4.18 4.14 but "visible minority" Jewish 1. 60 1. 61 1. 62 1. 64 South Asian 1. 56 1. 72 1.87 2.00 I the extent that narrow Chinese 2.24 2.53 2.80 3.03 -acial social and political Filipino, other A.ia. Ar-ab, Pacific Islands 2.20 2.53 2.82 3.08 not to be caught. Black, Afr-ican, Car-ibbean 1.44 1. 56 1. 66 1. 76 Latin, Centr-al, South Aller-ican 0.20 0.24 0.27 0.30 Jund that, depending on Abor-i&inal 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.52 n be explained by factors Other sin&le or-iains 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.28 Other aultiple or-i&ins 2.71 2.75 2.77 2.80 e ability and full time vs. Visible lIinor-ities" 8.19 9.12 9.95 10.69 'bonus" associated with a. Includes "Sr-itish only" .ultiple and "Br-itish and other-" lIultiple. ns, inherited wealth) but b. Includes ·Pr-ench only" lIultiple and "Fr-ench and other-" lIultiple. factors affecting income c. Includes Br-itish and Fr-ench and other-. d. Includes South Asians. Chinese, Filipino, other- Asia/Ar-ab/Pacific Ielanda, Slack/Afr-ican/Car-ibbean, Latin/Centr-al South Aller-ican and Abor-i&inal. Sour-c.: Balakr-ishnan (1988). 212 Morton Weinfeld origin groups. A similar pattern is obtained from projections limited only to terms of organizing in rid: Metropolitan Toronto (Balakrishnan, 1988). the much touted Jewish I The data suggest that ethnic politics in the future will become more demanding for Jews, as the political demographic environment changes. Non-white groups are new players in Canadian ethnic politics. Traditionally, and even up to the very founding of the policy of multiculturalism in 1971, the most effective ethnic groups were those who were of European extraction, including of course Jews. Many of The demographic fu these groups, like Germans, Poles and Ukrainians, had a long tradition of primarily to the low fertil antisemitism, rooted in the old country. Yet in Canada, Jews were largely able to increasing levels of outrm: find common cause with these groups on policy matters like support for ethnic migration, barring a maj- languages and cultures, equal opportunity and non-discrimination. Moreover, these Other minority groU); groups all shared the European experience, which meant specifically they were groups, can be expected to familiar with the horrors of the Holocaust and espoused generalized support for the This is due to their you recent immigration coho State of Israel. The new and growing non-white or non-European ethnic groups do not carry the This shift in the de: same sort of cultural baggage as do the Europeans. Many of their home countries Canadian Jewish politica. may routinely cast anti-Israel votes at the United Nations. Their historical and has been relatively skit cultural matrix is one where the Holocaust, antisemitism and, with the exception of multicultural umbrella, Arab Canadians, Israel, do not play a role. In the United States the political evidence suggests that d antagonism between blacks and Jews has been marked for at least twenty years and realities. Moreover, as "'" shows no signs of abating. It thus becomes a legitimate question to ask whether urban centers vis-a-vis Je tensions among "have" groups in Canada, notably Jews, and other groups, more agendas can remain coml recently victimized by current racism, will not ensue. politics has been badly Ifthe other European groups begin to catch up to the Jewish community in terms Democratic Party) sugge of numbers and political sophistication; if "visible minorities" come to dominate in public discussion of prejudice and racism; and if they may develop different domestic and foreign priorities for their communal agendas, then the Jewish position may become delicate indeed. In fact many of these groups already exceed the estimated Balakrishnan, T.R. I 344,000 Jews, and there already are expansions in the scope of affirmative action. Canadian Cities". Re); There is already evidence of some political marginalization of the Jewish Implications for Monom community. One Conservative government insider, when commenting on the Black, J. (1987).. respective positions of the Jewish and Ukrainian communities in Canada over the Transferability Among Nazi war criminal issue, confessed that the government was well aware of the smaller Political Science, Vol. 2C current and future size ofCanadian Jewry, compared to Ukrainians and indeed other Breton, R. (1981). ] groups (Troper and Weinfeld, 1988, pp. 268-269). Moreover, conservative strategists Problems: Perceptions , had identified twenty ridings in which Ukrainian Canadian voters comprised at least University of Toronto, " 5% of the electorate. The Canadian census, with its detailed breakdown of the Brym, RJ. (1989). population by ethnic origin, religion, language and birth place, becomes an unusual Demographic Profile". tool available for skillful politicians. It can be used to mobilize or appeal to ethnic Elazar, OJ. (1976). voters, and indeed for the deciding of policy outcomes partly on the basis of an American Jewry. Jewish electoral calculus of ethnic gains and losses. Farley, R. and AllCl With these developments the Jewish position might well weaken compared to that America. Russell Sage, ] ofother groups seeking their place in the ethno-political sun. In a published review of Hostetler, J.A. and ethnic politics during the 1988 federal election, the key theme is the new energy Holt, Rinehart and Wit displayed by Italian, Portuguese, Sikh as well as other non-white communities, in Isajiw, W.W. (198 Community Studies, Ul Papers in Jewish Demography 1989 213

projections limited only to terms of organizing in ridings and encouraging candidates. Little mention is made of the much touted Jewish political power (Stasiulis and Abu-Laban, forthcoming). rill become more demanding anges. Non-white groups are ly, and even up to the very Conclusion .most effective ethnic groups ng of course Jews. Many of The demographic future of Canadian Jewry seems uncertain. This is due s, had a long tradition of primarily to the low fertility rate, advanced age structure and likelihood of high and la, Jews were largely able to increasing levels of outmarriage. This shortfall will be offset only in part through net tters like support for ethnic migration, barring a major upswing in the pool of Jewish migrants to Canada. crimination. Moreover, these Other minority groups in Canada, particularly the so-called "visible minority" neant specifically they were groups, can be expected to grow in absolute terms, and relatively more than the Jews.

Jackson, RJ., Jackson, D. and Baxter-Moore, N. (1986). Politics in Canada. ANNEX TO TABLE 1. conpc Prentice-Hall, Scarborough, Ontario. Laponce, JA. (1988). "Left or Centre: The Canadian Jewish Electorate, 1953 83". Canadian Journal ofPolitical Science, Vol. 21, no.4, pp. 691-714. Jewish oriain

Liberman, S.S. and Weinfeld, M. (1978). "Demography Trends and Jewish British oriains Survival". Midstream, Vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 9-20. Enalhh Irish Presthus, R. (1973). Elite Accommodation in Canadian Politics. Cambridge Scottish University Press, Cambridge. lJelsh British, n.!.e. Pross, P. (1975). Pressure Group Behaviour in Canadian Politics. McGraw-Hi11 Other British Ryerson, Toronto. French oriains Ponting, J.R. and Gibbins, R. (1980). Out of Irrelevance: A Socia-Political French Introduction to Indian Affairs in Canada. Butterworth, Toronto. Acsdian French Canadian Samuel, T.J. (1987). "Visible Minorities in Canada". Paper submitted to the lluebecois Festschrift for Professor Karol J. Krotki. Employment and Immigration Canada, Northern European oria: Immigration, Ottawa (Mimeo). Danish Silberman, C.E. (1985). A Certain People. Summit Books, New York. Finnish Icelandic Stasiulis, O.K. and Abu-Laban, Y. (forthcoming). "The Role of Ethnic Norweaian Swedish Minorities in Canadian Politics", in: Gagnon, A.G. and Bickerton, J.P. (eds.). Scandinavian, n.l .• Canadian Politics: An Introduction to the Discipline. Broadvie Press, Peterborough. lJestern European oriail Thorburn, H.G. (1985). Interest Groups in the Canadian Federal System. Austrian University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Belaian Dutch (Netherlands) Troper, H. and Weinfeld, M. (1988). Old Wounds: Jews, Ukrainians and the Hunt German for Nazi War Criminals in Canada. Penguin of Canada, Toronto. Luxelllboura Waller, H. and Weinfeld, M. (1987). "A Viewpoints Survey of Canadian Jewish Swiss Leadership Opinion" Viewpoints, Vol. IS, no. 4. pp. 1-3. (Supplement to the Southern European oria_ Albanian Canadian Jewish News, Oct. 8, 1987). Bulaar Croatian Greek Italian nacedonian naltese Portuauese Serbian Slovenian Spanhh Yuaoslav, n.i.e.

Eastern European oriail Byelorussian Czech Czechoslovakian Estonian Bunaarian (naayar) Latvian Lithuanian Polish Ro.anian Russian Slovak Ukrainian Papers in Jewish Demography 1989 215

986). Politics in Canada. ANNEX TO TABLE 1. conpOSITION OF nAJOR ETHNIC CATEGORIES, 1986 CENSUS

Jewish Electorate, 1953 Sinal. oriains !'Iultipl. oriains )p.691-714. J • ..,ish oriain 246,000 98,000 Iphy Trends and Jewish British oriains 6,332,725 6,038,760" Enalish 4,742,040 4,561,910 Iri.h 699,685 2,922,605 lian Politics. Cambridge Scottish 86,5,450 3,052,605 U.lsh 23,395 126,890 British, n.L •. 800 1,880 1Il Politics. McGraw-Hill Other Bri1:ish 1,360 3,920

French oriains 6,093,160 2,030,200" 'vance: A Socia-Political French 6,087,310 2,027,945 ·onto. Acadian 3,040 5,325 French Canadian 1,025 1,520 Paper submitted to the Ouebecois 1,790 2,345 ad Immigration Canada, Northern European orieloa 212,280 478,645" Danish 39,950 79,105 ·ks, New York. Finnish 40,565 50,770 Icelandic 14,470 39,285 "The Role of Ethnic Nor.... ·aian 61,580 182,100 :i Bickerton, J.P. (eds.). S..,edish 43,340 160,535 Scandinavian, n.l.e. 12,375 19,445 vie Press, Peterborough. .nadian Federal System. Uestern European orieloa 1,321,465 2,013,615" Austrian 24,900 49,740 Belaian 28,395 46,395 Ukrainians and the Hunt Dutch (Netherlands) 351,760 530,170 Ger.an 895,715 1,570,340 .ronto. Luxe..boura 555 1,320 7Vey ofCanadian Jewish S..,l.s 19,135 41,145 -3. (Supplement to the Southern European oriains 1,242,170 463,000" Albanian 875 560 Bulaar 2,465 3,460 Croatian 35,120 9,055 Greek 143,780 33,530 Italian 709,590 297,325 nacedonian 11,355 5,920 !'Ia 1tese 15,345 8,925 Portuauese 199,595 37,590 SerbIan 9,510 3,460 Slovenian 5,895 2,235 Spanish 57,125 56,045 Yuaoslav, n. 1. e. 51,200 33,375

Eastern European orialns 888,195 998,395" Byelorussian 970 1,060 C~ech 20,380 19,255 Czechoslovakian 18,835 24,605 Estonia.... 13,200 7,330 Hunaarian (!'Iaayar) 97,845 91,145 Latvian 12,620 7,380 Lithuanian 14,725 12,225 Polish 222,260 389,845 Romanian 18,745 32,590 RusBlan 32,080 71,585 Slovak 16,320 11,385 Ukrainian 420,210 541,100

J 216 Morton Weinfeld

ANNEX TO TABLE 1 (Cont ANNEX TO TABLE 1 (Continued)

Sinale oriains Kultiple oriains Black or1611n5 Arab 0['1&10S 72,315 31,230 Black Eayptian 11,580 4,135 African black Lebanese 29,345 15,685 Palestinian 1,070 525 Aboriainal peoples Syrian 3,045 4,135 Inuit Arab, n.i.e. 27,275 10,230 Metis American Indian Vest Asian oriains 41,305 10,285 Armenian 22,525 4,865 a. The multiple respon Iranian 13,325 2,430 sum of the compone. Israeli 390 735 ethnic origin combi: Turk 5,065 2,495 the multiple resp, (6,038,760), but wi South Asian oriains 266,800 47,235 and in the Irish mu Benaali 390 200 N.i.e. = not included Gujarati 690 555 Punjabi 10,865 4,680 Sinahalese 745 335 Tamil 1,275 925 Banaladeshi, n.i.e. 1,480 185 East Indian, n.i.e. 220,630 40,805 Pakistani, n.l.e. 24,880 6,775 Sri Lankan, n.i.e. 5,830 1,455

East/South East Asian oriains 600,530 87,960 Burmese 600 810 Cambodian 10,365 1,430 Chinese 360,320 53,720 Filipino 93,280 13,775 Indonesian 1,265 2,265 Japanese 40,245 14,260 Korean 27,680 2,020 Laotian 9,575 1,510 Kalay 815 1,565 Thai 1,230 1,700 Vietnamese 53,015 9,980 Other Asian, n.i.e. 2,145 935

Pacific Islands oriains 6,620 3,725· Fijian 6,035 2,000 Polynesian 230 500 Other Pacific Islanders 360 1,335

Latin, Central South American oriains 32,240 17,795· Araentinan 1,275 1,295 Brazilian 1,365 1,670 Chilean 8,075 2,305 Ecuadorian 1,240 320 nexican 3,000 5,130 Peruvian 2,620 1,600 Other Latin/Central/ 14,660 6,025 South Americ.n oriains

Caribbean oriains 48,475 32,685· Cuban 410 775 Haitian 10,865 6,140 Jaaaican 11,210 8,510 Puerto Rican 375 720 Other Caribbean, n.i.e. 950 1,380 Other Ve.t Indian 24,670 15,620 Papers in Jewish Demography 1989 217

ANNEX TO TABLE 1 (Continued)

Single oC'leins MultIple orieln8 nultiple oriains Black oriains 174,970 85,360· 31,230· Black 170,340 83,775 4,135 African black 4,630 4,120 15,685 525 Aborieinal peoples 373,260 338,460 4,135 Inuit 27,295 9,175 10,230 Metis 59,745 91,865 American Indian 286,230 262,730 10,285· 4,865 a. The multiple response count for each major ethnic cateaory does not equal 2,430 sum of the component ethnic groups. For example, a respondent aiv1na the 735 ethnic origin combination of English and Irish will be counted once in 2,495 the multiple response for the major ethnic cateaory "British orial08" (6,038,760), but will be counted in both the Enalish multiple (4,561,910) 47,235· and in the Irish multiple (2,922,605). 200 N.i.e. = not included elsewhere. 555 4,680 335 925 185 40,805 6,775 1,455

87,960· 810 1,430 53,720 13,775 2,265 14,260 2,020 1,510 1,565 1,700 9,980 935

3,725· 2,000 500 1,335

17,795· 1,295 1,670 2,305 320 5,130 1,600 6,025

32,685· 775 6,140 8,510 720 1,380 15,620

______J "