Serge Guimond

Royal Military College of Canada

Mark P. Zanna

University of Waterloo

Social psychology has a long history of studying attitudes, stereotypes, and psychological reactions of people toward their own and other groups. Canadian social psychology in particular has made a central contribution to this area. Our aim in this chapter is to present an overview of this work in order to illustrate its potential importance for understanding the social psychology of immigration with particular reference to the Canadian context.

More specifically, our focus is on the attitudes of Canadians toward immigration. How do Canadians feel toward newcomers to Canada? Are they accepting of the idea that their country is open to outsiders? What limits do Canadians feel should be put on levels of immigration? What are the factors that shape those attitudes and what factors are likely to make Canadians more open and tolerant of newcomers or more closed and less accepting?

To answer these questions, we begin with a brief description of some of the main theories of intergroup relations and attitudes in social psychology. As we will show, these theories specify a number of factors that account for the development of favorable or unfavorable intergroup attitudes. Thus, they set the stage for a better understanding of the results of research on intergroup attitudes in Canada that are examined in subsequent parts of the chapter.

Because Canada has adopted a policy of multiculturalism and has become over the years a society with a considerable amount of ethnic and cultural diversity, we first consider research on attitudes toward multiculturalism and diversity. Immigrants to Canada nowadays tend to be characterized by a wider diversity of background. Thus, understanding attitudes toward cultural and ethnic diversity can now be seen as a first step toward understanding attitudes toward immigration. As such, one would expect that findings in this area would closely parallel those obtained when examining attitudes toward immigration directly. The extent to which this is the case will be the focus of the third and last section. We will conclude with our observations concerning major areas where existing knowledge is insufficient and suggest avenues for future research.

Taylor and Moghaddam (1994) have recently presented an overview of the main theories of intergroup relations in social psychology. It is important to consider these theories in the context of our study of the social psychology of immigration because they specify some of the factors that may account for the development of positive or negative intergroup relations and attitudes. The first major theory identified by Taylor and Moghaddam is Realistic Group Conflict Theory (RCT). This theory has been supported by a considerable amount of research and provides an interesting perspective. It suggests that the structure of the relations between groups will determine intergroup attitudes, regardless of the particular characteristics of the individuals involved. Thus, to the extent that a group is in competition with newcomers to Canada for scarce resources, members of this group would be expected to hold negative attitudes toward immigrants, not because Candians are inherently bigoted or prejudiced as individuals, but because of the nature or structure of the intergroup relations.

A second major theory of intergroup relations, emerging from the work of European social psychologists, is Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). This theory makes two main points relevant to the present analysis: 1) People have a psychological need to belong to a group that is positively distinct from others; and 2) it is relatively easy to stumulate one group to discriminate against another. It is important to bear this latter finding in mind when considering various claims about the level of racism in Canada. Minimal group experiments (Bourhis, Sachedev and Gagnon, 1994) suggest that the minimal condition necessary in order to obtain discriminatory behavior is the simple belief that two groups, an ingroup and an outgroup, exist, regardless of what differentiates these groups. This condition is obviously present in any society. Consequently, the potential for discrimination, exclusion, and racism is always a reality.

We can classify under the label Social Justice theories a third theoretical approach to understanding intergroup relations. The idea shared by justice theorists is that being objectively deprived does not produce anger and ingroup conflict, it is believing one's situation to be unfair. Within this approach would fit relative deprivation theory and equity theory discussed by Taylor and Moghaddam (1994). The important issues raised by this theoretical framework are those of perceived discrimination, unfair treatment and affirmative action. Collective reactions can be expected if people feel that they or others don't receive what they deserve (Dubé & Guimond, 1986; Guimond & Tougas, 1994; Wright, Taylor & Moghaddam, 1990).

The Five-stage model presented by Taylor & Moghaddam (1994) is a fourth type of theory that directs our attention to the fact that relations between groups, be they newcomers or Canadians, do not exist in a vacuum. These relations exist in a particular historical, social, and economic context from which distinct phases of relationships may be deduced. Thus, it may be important to consider intergroup attitudes over time in order to discover the cyclical pattern in those attitudes. To consider attitudes toward immigration at a single point in time may lead to an erroneous conclusion if the cyclical nature of intergroup relations is not considered.

3.2. Stereotypes and Intergroup Attitudes among French Canadians and English Canadians

Social psychological research in Canada has devoted considerable attention to the study of inter-ethnic relations (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992; Bourhis & Guimond, 1992; Dion, 1985; Dion, 1986; Gardner & Kalin, 1981; Moghaddam, Taylor, & Wright, 1993; Zanna & Olson, 1994). From the end of the 1950's onward, research has focused mainly on ethnic stereotypes (Gardner & Taylor, 1968), bicultural and cross-cultural communication (Dubé-Simard, 1981; Clément & Noels, 1994), and on second-language learning (Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Clément, 1990; Lambert, 1967). Several studies have also compared work values and various attitudes toward work among French Canadians (FCs) and English Canadians (ECs), often employing samples of managers (e.g., Kanungo, Gorn, & Dauderis, 1976).

This work has shown for instance that ECs stereotype FCs as EMOTIONAL, SENSITIVE, TALKATIVE, and PROUD (Gardner, Wonnacott, & Taylor, 1968), while FCs stereotype ECs as EDUCATED, DOMINANT, and AMBITIOUS (Aboud & Taylor, 1971, cite in Baron, Byrne, & Watson, 1995). It has also documented the fact that these stereotypes affect how members of these groups are perceived even when their behavior contradicts the stereotypes (Gardner & Taylor, 1968; Taylor & Gardner, 1969; Taylor & Gardner, 1970). Recent research suggests that people develop stereotypes for a wide variety of groups and for sub-groups as well (Hamilton & Sherman, 1994). Moreover, the current view of stereotypes as cognitive structures or schema indicate that they are likely to shape how people make sense of new events and information they encounter. For example, the same ambiguous behavior that can be construed as playful or to the contrary as threatening is more likely to be evaluated as a threatening when performed by a black person as opposed to a white person (Sagar & Schofield, 1980 cited in Hamilton & Sherman, 1994). Stereotypes can also affect how people behave. Word, Zanna and Cooper (1974), for example, have shown that stereotypes can function as expectancies about how an outgroup member is likely to behave and also as a guide to how one should behave when interacting with that person. Thus, Canadians have stereotypes of ‘immigrants' and particular immigrant groups that are likely to direct their interaction with representatives of those groups. However, this fact need not be viewed negatively. Canadian social psychologists have long argued that stereotypes are not undesirable in and of themselves (Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994; Taylor & Porter, 1993). Several years ago, Gardner et al. (1968) demonstrated that the stereotype that ECs have of FCs does not necessarily imply a negative evaluation or a negative attitude toward FC. This view is now shared by most social psychologists who consider stereotyping as part of the normal cognitive functioning of the individual (Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994). The important point here is that if Canadians are stereotyping newcomers to Canada, this is not in and of itself a ‘bad' thing and it should not be confused with prejudice.

Prejudice is generally defined as a negative evaluation of a person because that person is a member of a particular group (Zanna & Olson, 1994). Prejudice describes a negative attitude that can be applied to an individual or to a group as a whole. From our analysis it is clear that what needs to be prevented is prejudice, not necessarily stereotyping per se. Research has shown for example that the reciprocal attitudes between FCs and ECs tend to be generally positive. Defining rejection of a target group as a score below 40 on a hundred-point ‘feeling thermometer,' Curtis and Lambert (1976 ) report that, among a national sample of Canadians interviewed in 1968, the rejection rate of FCs by ECs was approximately 11%, while the rejection rate of ECs by FCs approached 7%. Thus, only a small percentage of the population express negative attitudes toward the other majority group. This is of course one of the main outcomes of the first major study of multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada, conducted by Berry, Kalin and Taylor (1977). In our analysis of immigration, we will often refer to this study that was carried out during the months of June and July 1974, involving 1,849 respondents across the country. One reason for our frequent reliance on the study is that it is one of the few surveys to measure multicultural and ethnic attitudes with reliable techniques. A second reason is that it is also one of the few national studies to consider the relations between various psychological constructs and attitudes toward immigration in Canada.

In terms of the attitudes of FCs and ECs toward each other, Berry, Kalin and Taylor (1977) were struck by how favorable these attitudes were. In the context of longstanding rivalry and antagonism between the two groups, a certain amount of hostility was expected. Yet, very little hostility could be observed. EC respondents had a clear tendency to attribute the following three characteristics to FCs: ‘Canadians,' ‘similar to me' and ‘familiar.' Although several other groups were judged negatively in terms of certain characteristics, this was not the case for FCs. The attitudes of FCs toward ECs similarly revealed no negative trait attributions. FCs rated ECs as above average on the items ‘important,' ‘Canadians,' ‘clean,' ‘similar to me,' ‘rich,' and ‘familiar.' Berry et al. (1977) suggested that one possible interpretation of these results might have to do with the context of the study. Specifically, they suggested that in the context of multiculturalism and ethnic diversity, FCs and ECs may take each other as positive reference groups and thus have relatively favorable attitudes toward each other. But in the context of bilingualism and biculturalism, differentiation and intergroup rejection might very well be obtained. Thus, the particular context in which intergroup attitudes are assessed can have a major effect on the nature of the views that each group has of the other. Interestingly, the Curtis and Lambert (1976) study described earlier also involved assessing attitudes toward a wide variety of groups in addition to FCs and ECs, and also found favorable reciprocal attitudes between FCs and ECs.

Experimental confirmation of the idea that intergroup judgments are heavily dependent on the frame of reference or the intergroup context comes from several studies carried out within the self-categorization theory of stereotyping (Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994; Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarty, & Hayes, 1992). These investigations show that the stereotype of a social group, far from being rigid and fixed, can be dramatically altered simply by changing the frame of reference of the participants. Different responses are obtained when people are asked to evaluate the ingroup and the outgroup as compared to a situation where they need to judge the ingroup, the outgroup, and several other groups. There are important reasons for insisting on this point. In addition to the fact that it demonstrates a rare convergence of theory and research, it has considerable implications for the analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. These attitudes are likely to vary according to the context of the study but also, more generally, according to the frame of reference that people bring to bear on the issue of immigration when they make their judgments. This suggests that attitudes toward immigration should be considered and understood within the context of the dynamics of the relations between groups in Canada. Just as it may be important to consider how ECs and FCs view each other in a multicultural context, it may be equally crucial to study the reactions of FCs and ECs toward immigration in this context.

Three major policies have attempted to shape various features of intergroup relations in Canada: The official languages act, the multiculturalism act and the French language act in Québec. Various features of these policies have attracted the attention of Canadian social psychologists. It is useful to consider these policies briefly in order to put in perspective a number of factors that characterize the social context of intergroup relations in Canada.

In 1969, the Official languages act was promulgated by the government of Canada. Both English and French became official languages of Canada under federal law. This policy was in part an outcome of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (B & B) which investigated ways to improve relations between French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians. Research by Canadian social scientists played an important role in this commission. One crucial aspect of the commission's report was the documentation of economic inequality between Francophones and Anglophones in Canada (Guimond & Dubé, 1989). In Québec, where the majority of the population is French-speaking, it was found that Anglophones were at the top of the economic hierarchy with Francophones almost at the bottom. Bilingualism, as a federal policy, attempted to create a climate where French-speaking Canadians would feel more at ease across the country and would be in a better position to develop themselves.

Book IV of the report of the B & B commission concerned the contribution of ethnic groups to Canadian society. Book IV formed the basis of Canada's multiculturalism policy which was originally proposed in 1971 but did not gain official status untill 1988. The policy proposed a model of intergroup relations designed to foster harmonious relations among the various social and ethnic groups that are part of Canada. It argued for the promotion of the multicultural heritage of Canada as a means of integration or accommodation rather than for a model of assimilation.

The policy of official bilingualism enjoys the support of the Canadian population, especially Francophone communities outside of Québec. The level of support among ECs can also be assumed to be high, although some active minorities have attempted to question the legitimacy of this policy. Movements such as APEC (Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada) and the ‘English-only movement' in the United States testifies to this fact (Berry & Bourcier, 1989; Guimond, 1991; Guimond & Palmer, 1993). In contrast, in the case of the multiculturalism policy, opposition has been voiced early on by members of the FC community. Guy Rocher, an eminent Québecois sociologist, has criticized the policy suggesting that it would weaken the cultural status of the French communities in Canada and that it would contribute eventually to a policy of multilinguism rather than bilingualism (Rocher, 1976; see also, Corbo, 1991).

The third major policy that altered intergroup relations in Canada became law in the province of Québec in 1977. This law made French the only official language of that province and attempted through various means to insure the predominance of French over English in all major areas of social life (Bourhis, 1984). This policy was strongly opposed by ECs, especially those living in Québec (Taylor, 1986).

Unlike other countries, immigrants coming to Canada face a multicultural country that officially promotes cultural diversity, and that is bilingual at the federal level but unilingual in nine provinces out of ten, the exception being New Brunswick. At a national level, the policy of bilingualism and multiculturalism (having been in existence for almost 25 years) may have become part of the Canadian identity (Kalin & Berry, 1994). Canadians may be so familiar with these policies that they accept them as basic features of their country. To the extent that this is the case, one would expect Canadians to be fairly positive toward cultural diversity and to be generally accepting of newcomers. On the other hand, one wonders whether in such a short time span, people are really aware of some of the major goals of Canada's policy in the field of immigration and multiculturalism. With this in mind, we begin our analysis of social psychological research by examining studies of attitudes toward multiculturalism and cultural diversity in Canada.

After focusing on the relations between FCs and ECs, Canadian social psychologists began exploring issues related to multiculturalism and immigration. Although these issues are intimately connected, they can also be distinguished in important ways. One of the central issues raised by the multicultural nature of Canadian society is that of the acceptance, the respect, and even the promotion of cultural diversity as a means of creating harmonious relations among the various people of Canada. The rejection of such an approach could indicate a more favorable attitude toward some form of blending or melting pot philosophy where each group is expected to assimilate to a common national culture (Lambert & Taylor, 1988; Taylor, 1991; Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994). Immigration in and of itself does not so much refer to issues of cultural diversity but to issues such as: Should we accept people from outside our borders to come to live in and adopt Canada as their homeland? Is the current level of immigration too high? Should Canada be more selective? What criteria should be used to select immigrants? In practice of course, because the proportion of non-Angloceltic and non-French heritage individuals that immigrate to Canada has increased from less than 10% to more than 30% in the past century, questions related to immigration in Canada are also increasingly questions about ethnic and racial diversity. When people indicate their attitudes toward ‘immigrants,' they may well have in mind people of non-Angloceltic and non-French heritage. We will begin then by examining studies on attitudes toward cultural diversity generally, before explaining research related directly to immigration.

In 1974, Berry, et al. (1977) presented three different statements to their respondents representing different policies that a government could adopt in order to manage relations between newcomers and the rest of the population. Respondents had to indicate which one reflected the policy adopted by the government of Canada. This was an ingenious way to find out about the familiarity of the Canadian public with the policy of multiculturalism because obviously, only one statement reflected that policy. The first statement, indicating a policy of assimilation of immigrants to the way of life of their new country, was selected by 13.4% of the national sample. The second statement, indicating that immigrants be allowed to preserve their cultural heritage, was chosen by 60.1%. The last statement, suggesting that immigrants be encouraged to preserve their cultural heritage, was selected by 26.5%. This last option was defined as the actual policy of Canada. These results are quite revealing. More than 20 years ago, the vast majority of the Canadian population shared the belief that assimilation is not the official policy of their government. That this belief is not necessarily based on factual knowledge of the policy is suggested by responses to subsequent questions in the Berry et al. survey which revealed that only about 20% of the sample was willing to indicate having heard about the policy of multiculturalism.

It should be noted that the word ‘immigrants' was used in each of the three statements of possible government policy noted above. The results indicate then a widespread belief in Canada that assimilation is not part of the officially accepted way of dealing with immigrants. By 1991, familiarity with multiculturalism increased. The Angus Reid survey carried out that year indicated that most Canadians (62%) reported an awareness of the federal government's multiculturalism policy (Angus Reid, 1991).

If assimilation is not the ‘Canadian' way then attitudes toward cultural diversity should be generally positive in Canada. On the whole, this appears to be the case. However, most studies have found considerable differences between the two major linguistic groups in Canada, FCs being generally less favorable toward the promotion of cultural diversity than ECs. With an index of preference for cultural uniformity including the item "Canada would be a better place if all people had the same national origin", Curtis and Lambert (1976) found a level of agreement of 54.2% among FCs compared to 31% among ECs. On a scale of 9 items designed as a measure of "multicultural ideology", Berry et al. (1977) reported similar differences. This measure included statements favoring assimilation of newcomers to the Canadian culture as well as statements favoring cultural diversity. Overall, the Canadian public appeared to be moderately positive toward cultural diversity with FCs being less positive or more neutral (Bourhis, 1987). Table 1 indicates the percentage of agreement and disagreement with a statement reflecting a positive attitude toward assimilation that was part of the scale of multicultural ideology and that was also used in subsequent surveys. From 1974 up to 1991, a majority of Canadians consistently rejected assimilation. There was always, however, a minority of 20 to 30% who accepted such a point of view.

Frequency distribution from Canadian opinion surveys carried out between 1974 and 1991 for the item : "It is best for Canada if all immigrants forget about their cultural background as soon as possible."

Similarly, Figure 1 shows that there was clear support for the value of cultural diversity in both 1974 and 1991. If anything, the number of respondents who reject cultural diversity has decreased over time from 23% in 1974 to 14% in 1991. However, this does not appear to mean that Canadians do not favor a certain degree of assimilation or accommodation on the part of newcomers (Kalin & Berry, 1994). Clearly, Canadians also believe that newcomers should do their share to accommodate to the existing society. Thus, whereas most Canadians believe that cultural diversity is positive for Canada, data presented in Figure 2 indicates that most Canadians also believe that newcomers ought to become more ‘Canadian-like.' Moreover, in the 1991 Angus Reid survey, as in the 1974 study, this preference for cultural similarity was found to be more evident among residents from Québec. However, the Angus Reid survey also suggested that "Québecers were more likely than those living in other regions to support efforts to institutionalize equality and to protect the rights of ethnic and racial minorities" (p. 38). This last finding is of some importance in understanding the different psychological perspectives of ECs and FCs on immigration, as will be seen in the next section.

FIGURE 1

Percentage of agreement in the Canadian Population with the statement: "A society that has a variety of ethnic and cultural problems is more able to tackle new problems as they occur."

FIGURE 2

Attitude toward assimilation as measured by the item: "People whocome to Canada should change their behaviour to be more like us."

Citizenship and immigration policies in Canada can be seen as fairly liberal compared to most other industrial nations (Bernard, 1993; Sabbatier & Berry, 1994). Citizenship is based on the principle of jus soli in that any child born in Canada is Canadian by birth. In contrast, several European countries use, on its own or in combination with a territorial criteria, the principle of jus sanguinis which restricts the possibility of citizenship to those who share a certain ancestral or ethnic origin (Bernard, 1993). Similarly, whereas landed immigrants in Canada may become Canadian citizen after three years, it takes a minimum of five years and a strong determination to acquire citizenship in countries like France (Sabbatier & Berry, 1994). The image of Canada as a country open to outsiders then has a certain basis in reality. However, the fact that Canada has had a liberal policy in these matters in the past does not necessarily mean that it will continue such a policy in the future. Knowledge of the attitudes of the Canadian public on these matters may help to gauge what may lie ahead.

In reviewing research on ethnic and multicultural attitudes, Kalin and Berry (1994) point out that "Immigration is not a simple attitude object. Concern with immigration may involve the desired level of the Canadian population.... It may also be concerned with types of immigrants (e.g., regarding ethnic and racial origin)" (p. 297-298). Indeed, they suggest that these issues have sometimes been confused in past research resulting in a questionable account of the attitudes of Canadians toward immigration. Accordingly, we will try to keep these various dimensions of immigration as distinct as possible in the following discussion. Specifically, we will first consider studies dealing with attitudes toward immigrants in general, second, studies of attitudes toward specific immigrant groups and finally, studies of attitudes toward the level of immigration in Canada will be reviewed.

Reactions toward newcomers can be assessed by asking people about their general attitude toward newcomers to Canada or about the label "immigrants". Such a strategy may appear vague and may seem to leave open the specific meaning that is given to these general labels. Yet, as noted by Zanna and Rempel (1988), it may represent a promising strategy because it allows respondents "to self-select their attitudes from whichever sources are personally relevant" (p. 328). Such general evaluative ratings may reveal people's basic affective reactions. Moreover, these basic affective reactions may have considerable predictive power.For example, in a series of studies, Guimond and Palmer (1993; in press) have assessed attitudes of FCs and ECs toward each other with single items using the following format:

Across samples of FC and EC university students from several Canadian provinces, these simple and straight-forward items prove to be sensitive and reliable measures. Thus, a clear link was established between ratings on these two scales and the level of bilingualism of the respondents. At approximately 20 years of age, bilingual FCs and ECs students rated Anglophones and Francophones equally. In contrast, their unilingual counterparts tended to rate their own group more favorably than the other group. Individuals intermediate in their level of bilingualism also fell in between these two extremes. Furthermore, combining these two items in a measure of Favoritism, the authors found that Favoritism predicts attitudes toward official bilingualism in Canada much more successfully than a 30-item scale whose reliability and validity had been carefully constructed over dozens of experiments. The point is not that multiple-item scales do not have certain well known advantages over single items but that, under certain conditions, single items may capture respondents' reactions equally well (Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993; Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993; Kerlinger, 1984; Zanna & Rempel, 1988).

Berry et al. (1977) have studied attitudes toward a wide variety of specific ethnic groups as well as the reactions toward "immigrants in general." They find little evidence that the label immigrant evokes strong negative reactions. In general, immigrants are evaluated less favorably than ECs and FCs, but relatively neutral compared to specific ethnic groups. The only characteristic on which immigrants tend to be rated less favorably is the extent to which they are perceived as "Canadian," a finding that does not suggest a negative attitude toward the group. The global evaluative rating given to "immigrants in general" does vary, however, by geographic region. Respondents from Québec are less favorable toward immigrants, followed by those from the prairies and the Atlantic provinces. Those from Ontario and British Columbia show the most positive evaluation. Analysis by ethnic membership confirmed the fact that FC respondents are more negative toward immigrants than ECs.

Similar results are reported by Lambert and Curtis (1983) using data collected in 1977 from a nation-wide sample of 3,288 persons 18 years of age and older. Compared to ECs, the Québecois were more likely to accept the statement that "Immigrants to this country aren't prepared to work as people born in Canada." At the same time, they were more likely to reject the idea that immigrants "have done a lot to help this country." Such findings have also been obtained more recently among samples of students attending the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston (Guimond, 1995). Using a single item scale (such as the one presented above), students rated "immigrants" and "unions," in addition to their ingroup (Anglophone for ECs, and Francophones for FCs) and the other linguistic group. Figure 3 presents the mean responses given by FC and EC students. For both groups of respondents, the ingroup is rated most favorably, followed by the other linguistic group, immigrants, and, finally, unions. Because scores below 3 on this scale indicate a negative evaluation, it can be seen that the only group that is consistently judged unfavorably by these students is "unions." Consistent with the findings of Berry et al. (1977), the reciprocal attitudes of the two majority groups toward each other were positive, and immigrants were judged less positively than Anglophones and Francophones. Two significant differences between FCs and ECs were obtained. FCs rated immigrants more negatively than ECs, but ECs rated unions more negatively than FCs. These results, obtained in 1986, replicate what was found in 1974 by Berry et al., and by Lambert and Curtis (1983) in 1977. The Guimond study, which focused on young Canadian respondents, provides an important complement to the results obtained in national surveys. Young people represent future generations of Canadians that will occupy various positions in society. If negative reactions are evident among such populations, then one can anticipate some major problems in the future (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). Secondly, national surveys are not well suited to reveal the reactions of certain militant minorities that are likely to have considerable impact on the majority (Guimond & Palmer, 1994; Moscovici, 1979).

FIGURE 3

Mean ratings of "Anglophones", "Francophones", "Immigrants" and "Unions" by English-Canadian and French-Canadian students

Overall then, Canadians tend to be positive toward immigrants. This is also the conclusion of the Angus Reid survey of 1991. Only 33% of Canadians agreed with a statement reflecting a negative attitude toward immigrants ("It makes me angry when I see recent immigrants on television demanding the same rights as Canadian citizens"). On the other hand, 51% agreed with a positive statement ("Recent immigrants should have as much say about the future of Canada as people who were born and raised here"). There is, however, clear and consistent indications of a difference between ECs and FCs, the latter being generally less positive toward immigrants.