Maytree Conversations

You may have seen it already – the Canadian Institute of Diversity and Inclusion (CIDI-ICDI) started using a new hashtag on Twitter: #cdndiversity. We thought it was a great idea. We tweeted it out and suggested that Canadians tweeting about diversity start using it.

Wait, what’s a hashtag?

By using hashtags, Twitter allows you to share tweets and have conversations on specific topics that become organized, archived and findable. Any time you see a # followed by a word or phrase (no spaces), this is the equivalent of categorizing or tagging a message (e.g. #cdndiversity). Others can follow, subscribe or easily find messages tagged in this way. Some people use hashtags to have organized, time-specific “Tweetchats” about a particular issue, or use them to help organize tweets from a specific event. In this case, check out #cdnimm and #cdndiversity to see what’s being shared and discussed. In fact, you don’t need a Twitter account to follow the conversation and sharing. Just click on the link to see a search result of all the relevant tweets.

A #diversity hashtag has existed and been used for some time. Like the move in Canada to use #cdnimm for news, issues, discussions specifically related to Canadian immigration, we assumed this to be a move to create a Canadian focus on diversity.

So, we asked the folks at CIDI-ICDI to tell us about it:

Why did you create it?

One of the reasons we created the CIDI-ICDI itself was because there is a growing need among Canadian organizations to clearly define what diversity and inclusion (D&I) in Canada is. #cdndiversity is an extension of that conversation. We created #cdndiversity to create an immediate public resource to collect digital content specific to both Canada and the D&I conversation. It’s a resource that we not only hope to provide, but one we hope to utilize ourselves should its popularity continue to grow.

While the CIDI-ICDI has a special interest and expertise in what’s happening in Canada, we also know that we are not the only ones talking about D&I.

There are a plethora of thought leaders and organizations in Canada. We may all have different directives, mandates or goals, but when broken down, we generally share the same audience of people: people who care about other people and the betterment of the Canadian society. For example, at the CIDI-ICDI we have an employer/employment/workplace culture focus, while the Canadian Centre for Diversity has an educational focus. One group may be dedicated to disability awareness, while organizations like yours at Maytree are focused on immigrants. At the end of the day, there is one thread that connects us all, the empowerment of Canada’s people.

If we all share this thread, and attract similar audiences, then we can, at some level, work to support one another.

Social Media is the perfect driving force to do just that.

#cdndiversity creates an “at a glance” view for this collective audience to know what’s happening right now in Canada when it comes to the experiences of Canadians. What ideas are being shared? What events are happening that you may otherwise not have known about? What unintentional hidden resources are out there, just waiting to be found? What might we work on together?

What does #cdndiversity mean to you? How inclusive is it of diversity, broadly defined?

In the development conversation around the hashtag, we realized that #cdndiversity could be so much more. #cdndiversity has the power to actually become a movement. #cdndiversity isn’t just about branding the CIDI-ICDI, it’s about branding a specific part of the D&I conversation as Canadian for all Canadians. We want to lead that charge.

#cdndiversity is a concept with a root purpose of encouraging all Canadians to build a personal appreciation for their own individuality, while at the same time learning how to collaborate with one another as empowered individuals. The benefits of encouraging this yin/yang of thinking reaches to so many levels of our society; in our education systems, our workplaces, our everyday communities, and even our home-lives.

#cdndiversity represents all the things we may categorize under the diversity umbrella: Diversity, inclusion, human rights, civil rights, innovation, collaboration, inspiration, pride, diversity of experience, diversity of culture, yet compiled in one place and with a Canadian focused lens.

What value is there to having a Canadian subset of the diversity hashtag?

Our laws, while similar, have some very specific differences from other countries. For example, in the U.S. there is a national accessibility effort, the Americans with Disabilities Act, while here in Canada it’s still very much a provincially focused conversation, which in many cases is only just beginning.

To the other side of that; just this week, Canada marked the ten-year anniversary of LGBT Marriage Equality, while the U.S., France, England and more are still in the midst of an intense debate. While the conversations are similar between many of these countries, there are gaps. By creating a separate hashtag dedicated to D&I in Canada, we can casually help fill in those gaps as a community of Canadian thought leaders.

Beyond tagging/categorizing tweets, might you use it for online conversations, Tweetchats, etc., in the future?

We recognize that #cdndiversity carries a multitude of opportunities. We have a few things on deck that we are mulling over and considering in terms of its use. Hosting Tweetchats is certainly one of them, but we want to make one thing very clear: while we created this hashtag, this hashtag is for everyone. This hashtag isn’t just for Canadian D&I professionals, it’s for all Canadians. We would love for all organizations to think about using this hashtag to host Tweetchats if the topic should fall under the Canadian D&I umbrella.

Related:

• Five Canadian diversity thought leaders you should follow on Twitter

Maytree is a SmartSAVER partner, and we’re happy to share their special email alert.

By May Wong, Executive Director of the Omega Foundation

“SmartSAVER is a highly effective initiative that has broken important new ground in Toronto from a community engagement point-of-view.” (Radha Nayar, evaluator of SmartSAVER’s Toronto Pilot)

Last week, the Omega Foundation wrapped up its SmartSAVER Toronto pilot. The results and learning from the pilot exceeded all of our expectations. We wish to thank everyone who contributed to its success.

With the help of our funders, our staff, volunteers and our many partners in government, the community and the financial services industry, SmartSAVER has demonstrated that it’s possible to improve the reach of the Canada Learning Bond to seed real savings for lower-income kids.

Results

Our goals were:

• To reach Canada Learning Bond-eligible families in their own communities to encourage their participation; and
• To make it easier for families to access the Canada Learning Bond (CLB).

What we accomplished:

• Reached Toronto families through over 1,000 different community-based organizations;
• Trained over 2,500 frontline community workers in the basics of the RESP and the Canada Learning Bond;
• Engaged over 13,000 parents directly in RESP discussion;
• Received almost 2.7 million hits on SmartSAVER.org; and
• Created and piloted numerous collaborative strategies that helped families secure their children’s CLB quickly, efficiently and safely.

Since SmartSAVER’s launch in September 2010, CLB enrolment in Toronto has grown by 85% and over 27,000 more Toronto kids have begun to receive their Canada Learning Bond. Over a three-year period, the CLB take-up rate in Toronto has grown from 27% to almost 40%.

With complementary promotion efforts now underway in Peel and Halton regions, the federal government tells us that the Greater Toronto Area is driving improvement in CLB take-up nation-wide.

As a foundation committed to creating and testing new approaches to financial inclusion, Omega makes evaluation – both quantitative and qualitative – a priority. Nayar Consulting’s evaluation of SmartSAVER’s Toronto pilot reports that the project’s strategic approach of engaging active collaboration to achieve a single, shared goal of increasing Canada Learning Bond enrolment has been instrumental in its successful results. Read the evaluation of SmartSAVER’s pilot.

Our next update will look at how other Canadian communities can put SmartSAVER’s experience to work to benefit local families.

Watch Charley’s story to learn more:

Help get the word out about the Canada Learning Bond:

• Find us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Watch and share our Youtube videos

As Toronto’s city council gets ready to examine the idea of allowing permanent residents who are not yet Canadian citizens to vote in municipal elections on June 11 and 12, one of the questions that they will need to consider is what Canada’s constitution has to say on the matter.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), a national organization that promotes respect for human rights and civil liberties, has long argued that the right to vote is so fundamental in a democratic society that there must be an extraordinary reason to deny people of that right. In the article, “Non-Citizen Voting Rights: A Constitutional Perspective,” CCLA’s Cara Faith Zwibel examines the legal and constitutional argument for voting rights for permanent residents.

Overview

Zwibel argues that not only is it bad public policy to deny permanent residents who are not yet Canadian citizens the right to vote at the municipal level, it is also contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Overall, she argues that if governments want to ensure that only those with long-standing commitment can vote in municipal elections, excluding permanent residents does not help to achieve that goal – particularly considering that non-resident citizens are able to vote. Zwibel writes that minimum time of residency might be a better way to demonstrate a commitment to and knowledge about the municipality where a permanent resident would cast a vote. In addition, she examines legal and constitutional aspects of the issue, including the role of the Charter in establishing a minimum level of rights, the  definition of “citizen,” how equality rights might apply to this situation, and previous Supreme Court decisions on other cases involving discrimination based on citizenship status.

At a recent panel discussion on the issue, Nathalie Des Rosiers, General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, provided additional insights.

Here is a summary of her presentation:

The Canadian Civil Liberties Associations approaches this issue as an interaction between two fundamental rights:

1. Voting
2. Equality before the law

Both of these rights are enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Des Rosiers made three key points in favour of voting rights for permanent residents:

1. Extending the franchise is the right thing to do. Voting rights engage people in democratic participation, which is a value in itself.
2. The advantage of extending the franchise outweighs the disadvantages.
3. Toronto should not lag behind other countries on democratic empowerment. As a city of immigrants, Toronto should be proactive and take a leadership role in this issue.

Bottom line

Des Rosier argued that the right to vote is so fundamental in a democratic society, that there must be an extraordinary reason to deny that right. Lethargy, myth and historical advantage are not extraordinary nor legitimate reasons to deny a group of people the right to vote.

To illustrate her point about myth and advantage, Des Rosier looked at some of the reasons used historically to deny women the right to vote:

• Women should not have the right to vote because it is impossible to imagine a woman being minister for war.
• Women should not have the right to vote because past legislation shows that men reflect the interests of women well.
• Women should not have the right to vote because women’s suffrage is based on the idea of equality between the sexes – and this would destroy chivalrous consideration.
• Women should not have the right to vote because the effect of introducing a large female element may change politics.

Compare these arguments to the ones being made to deny the right to vote to permanent residents; they are similar:

• If we allow permanent residents the right to vote, a permanent resident may get elected.
• Permanent residents should not be allowed to vote because municipal bodies already know, reflect and look after the needs of permanent residents.
• Permanent residents should not be allowed to vote because the idea of equality will be put forward in politics.
• Permanent residents should not be allowed to vote because their voting may have an influence on politics.

In summary, Des Rosiers argued that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. We do not want Toronto to lag behind other jurisdictions on democratic empowerment. It is the right thing to do. And it is in line with legal principles and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Related links:

• Voting rights for Permanent Residents: Citizen Engagement or Citizenship Devaluation?
• All permanent Toronto residents deserve a vote in municipal elections: Editorial (Toronto Star)
• Should permanent residents be allowed to vote in municipal elections? (Toronto Star)
• City of Toronto Staff Report on Proposed Electoral Reforms, April 2013 (City of Toronto)
• Non-citizen voting rights: A constitutional perspective (Canadian Civil Liberties Association)
• Municipal voting rights for non-Canadian citizens (Mowat Centre)
• Non-citizen voting in Toronto: A case of too little, too soon? (Mowat Centre)
• Permanent Residents Should Vote in Toronto’s Elections

Repost from Tamarack Institute for Community Engagement

Does the diversity gap in leadership matter to people on the street? What do they see as the benefits of leadership that reflects the population? And what can we do about it?

On May 22, pollster Nik Nanos and DiverseCity released a report that set out to answer those questions. What we found should hearten and encourage us all. Yes! Residents in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) do care about diversity in leadership. What’s more, they think we should take action to make it happen.

The survey found that when GTA residents learned of the facts about diverse leadership in the GTA – that is, that only 14% of leadership reflects visible minorities and under-represented immigrant groups – they were concerned. Nearly two-thirds (61%) of respondents said that this is not enough.

Further, the respondents were concerned not only with the social risks that this under-representation entails, they also saw it as limiting the GTA’s potential to:

1. Attract foreign investment;
2. Attract skilled workers;
3. Innovate in business; and
4. Create prosperity for the region

Diverse leadership was seen as an essential step towards becoming a world-class city.

The majority of respondents (75%) did think that the GTA’s leadership will be more representative of the population in the future. However, on average, they think it will take another 18.9 years – almost two decades! – before this happens. That’s the bad news. The good news is that nearly two-thirds of respondents said that action should be taken to speed up this process.

Many survey respondents did not know about the diversity gap in leadership, but when they found out, they appreciated that it was a problem – so we need to continue to raise awareness of the issue. The survey results also indicate that GTA residents understand the economic arguments for closing this gap – which confirms to us that it is time for political, business and community leaders to take action.

At Maytree, this survey has encouraged us to re-double our efforts to support emerging diverse leaders. We are now replicating our award-winning DiverseCity onBoard program, which facilitates the placement of diverse leaders on public and non-profit boards in the GTA, in seven cities across Canada. We are also supporting cities around the world – including Berlin, London and Boston – so they can create their version of the program. On June 19, our Diversity in Governance Awards will recognize public, non-profit and private sector organizations that are showing commitment and innovation to create inclusive governance boards. In anticipation of a number of elections in 2014, we are also once again offering our popular School4Civics boot camps for aspiring political leaders. And, finally, in partnership with the Toronto LHIN (Local Health Integration Network) and Mount Sinai Hospital we will be turning our attention to diverse leadership in the health care sector for our next piece of research. GTA residents have spoken. This survey is a rallying call. Our work must continue.

Learn more:

• Read Public Opinion on Diverse GTA Leadership: Research Findings and the Path Forward
• Visit the DiverseCity website
• Learn more about the Diversity onBoard Initiative
• Discover Maytree’s School4Civics Boot Camp
• Join Ratna Omidvar, Adam Kahane and other dynamic thought-leaders at Tamarack’s 2013 CCI: Accelerating Impact

Hundreds of thousands of Toronto residents pay local taxes and use city services, but have no say in who represents them, because they are permanent residents and not yet Canadian citizens.

In January, the City of Toronto’s Community Development and Recreation Committee put forward a request to review “the opportunity to have permanent residents in Toronto be given the right to vote in municipal elections.”

What’s happening on this issue in Toronto?

January 31, 2013 – City of Toronto’s Community Development and Recreation committee requests review of issue

April 24 – City of Toronto releases report on proposed electoral reforms

May 13 – City of Toronto Government Management Committee refers the report to City Council, which is scheduled to meet June 11-12.

On March 20, 2013, four experts came together to discuss whether permanent residents should have the right to vote in municipal elections. This is a summary of some of the main points of the discussion.

What is the issue?

In Toronto, 15% of residents – about 380,000 people, or roughly the population of Halifax – are permanent residents (“landed immigrants”). These residents pay local taxes and use city services, but cannot vote or run for elected office.

Permanent residents must live in Canada for a minimum of three years before they can apply to become a Canadian citizen. While this may not sound like a long time, recent reports have indicated that the processing time for citizenship applications is growing, so that it is taking years longer for immigrants to become citizens. In addition, because elections only take place every few years, someone might have the opportunity to vote only after they have lived in Canada for eight or nine years.

Can people who are not citizens vote in other places?

Yes, some countries allow permanent residents to vote in local elections. In fact, resident non-citizens can vote in municipal elections in some cities in more than 40 countries – including countries in Europe, as well as the U.S. and New Zealand.

What are the benefits of allowing permanent residents to vote in municipal elections?

This would give permanent residents an opportunity to actively participate in decisions made on local services and issues. It will enhance the legitimacy of local government, which is responsible for the services and well-being of all city residents. If permanent residents are voters, this will encourage elected officials to listen to and respond to these constituents.

In addition, permanent resident voting would be in line with well-established democratic principles, such as “no taxation without representation” and equality before the law.

Evidence indicates that the earlier that people begin participating in political life, the more likely they are to continue participating in the long term. This is a value for all Canadians, and would encourage newcomer integration.

What are the disadvantages of allowing permanent residents to vote in municipal elections?

Critics argue that the right to vote is a major incentive to become a Canadian citizen, and that granting voting rights to permanent residents removes this incentive and makes citizenship merely symbolic. However, the experts on this panel suggest that citizenship carries significant practical benefits – such as a Canadian passport, secure status and protection against deportation – that will continue to motivate immigrants to become citizens.

Overall, the panelists agreed that the benefits of permanent resident voting outweigh the disadvantages. A better question to ask is: Is there a good reason to restrict the vote based on citizenship status? The right to vote is so fundamental in a democratic society that we must have an extraordinary reason to deny people of that right. Further, since the terms of citizenship can be easily manipulated, we must ask whether politicians and governments should be the ones deciding who can vote.

What are the disadvantages of restricting the vote to citizens?

The panelists argued that citizenship status is not the right “tool” or criteria to use to determine who should vote. In the past, citizenship has been used as a proxy for connection to Canada. However, this is no longer true – with new communication tools and more widespread global mobility, attachment to Canada happens in many different ways.

If Canada has a problem with voting, it is that too few people vote. We need to encourage more people to vote, not restrict access to voting.

—

The preceding is a summary of a panel discussion of:

• Jehad Aliweiwi, Executive Director, Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office
• Nathalie Des Rosiers, General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
• Michael Pal, Research Fellow, Mowat Centre (University of Toronto)
• Myer Siemiatycki, Professor of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University

The panel was moderated by Matthew Mendelsohn from the Mowat Centre (University of Toronto).

The event was organized by OCASI (Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants) and the Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office.

Related links:

• All permanent Toronto residents deserve a vote in municipal elections: Editorial (Toronto Star)
• Should permanent residents be allowed to vote in municipal elections? (Toronto Star)
• City of Toronto Staff Report on Proposed Electoral Reforms, April 2013 (City of Toronto)
• Non-citizen voting rights: A constitutional perspective (Canadian Civil Liberties Association)
• Municipal voting rights for non-Canadian citizens (Mowat Centre)
• Non-citizen voting in Toronto: A case of too little, too soon? (Mowat Centre)

On April 29, the government announced changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) program and encouraged employers to “triple” their efforts to find workers in Canada. The changes follow recent controversies over temporary foreign workers and increased public scrutiny of this program. While they might address some pressing issues, they focus on a small portion of the TFW program. Many issues with the program remain.

Adding checks on employers

The government has billed the changes as ways to ensure that employers use the program only when they truly cannot find workers in Canada. Many of the proposed changes focus on the Labour Market Opinion (LMO), which approves an employer to hire a temporary foreign worker and is issued by the Canadian government.

Some of the changes are effective immediately. Others will be introduced through legislation.

The following changes are effective immediately:

• The Accelerated LMO, which allowed certain employers to get an LMO in as little as ten business days, is suspended.
• Employers must pay temporary foreign workers the prevailing wage for that occupation in that region. (Previously, employers could pay temporary foreign workers 5-15% less than the prevailing wage.)

Other changes will be introduced through legislation:

• Employers will have to answer questions on the LMO application to confirm that they are not using the program to facilitate the outsourcing of Canadian jobs.
• Employers will need to have a plan in place to transition to a Canadian workforce over time.
• Employers may not require language skills other than English or French in their job description.
• Employers will start paying fees for LMO applications.
• The government will have increased authority to suspend and revoke LMOs if the program is being misused.

Interestingly, some changes target the temporary foreign workers themselves. For example:

• Applicants will have to pay increased fees for work permits. (Unlike employers, workers have always had to pay a fee to apply.)
• The government will have increased authority to suspend and revoke work permits if the program is being misused.

Many issues remain

About 40% of temporary foreign workers come to Canada with an LMO. The above changes focus only on these temporary foreign workers (the Seasonal Agricultural Worker program will be exempt from some of these provisions).

In other words, the changes don’t address the majority of temporary foreign workers. About 60% of temporary foreign workers come through streams that do not require an LMO. These include youth exchange programs, intra-company transfers, post-doctoral fellows, spouses of international students and temporary foreign workers, and those who come under international agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

And many issues facing our TFW program remain. For example:

• The program continues to lack targets or caps on admission.
• Many temporary foreign workers continue to pay taxes and contributions, but cannot access the services and benefits they pay for (such as Employment Insurance special benefits).
• The “four-in, four-out” rule continues to require some temporary foreign workers to leave after four years and remain outside of Canada for four years before being eligible to return. Meanwhile employers can apply to hire a new temporary foreign worker right away.

Perhaps most importantly, the trend towards the temporary and away from permanent immigration will continue, untouched by these changes.

This is just one piece of Canada’s immigration system

Some level of temporary foreign workers, both with and without LMOs, is necessary and desirable. We should welcome changes that, if implemented effectively, will ensure that the TFW program fulfills specific, short-term purposes.

However, we must consider these changes as one small piece of the TFW program, which is, in turn, one small piece of Canada’s larger immigration system. Traditionally, our immigration system has been built on the foundation of permanent immigration. As we turn our attention to the TFW program, we must look beyond tweaks and towards the growing role that temporary residence is playing in our immigration system, and what this means for Canada.

Related links

• News release on reforms to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada)
• Video of announcement (CBC)
• TFWs are a concern for all Canadians (Maytree)
• Shaping the Future: Canada’s rapidly changing immigration policies (Maytree report)

“How do we build a really big tent with a lot of different perspectives working together, locking arms and taking a big initiative forward? It turns out that no one organization has all the best ideas and the idea of bringing people together in a big tent kind of way can often really be a leap forward, a swing for the fences kind of opportunity.” Jean Case, CEO, Case Foundation

On Feb 21, 2013, I attended Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO) Strategic Co-funding Conference in Washington DC. The gathering was part of GEO’s Scaling What Works initiative, which connects grantmakers to practices that grow impact and build stronger and more effective nonprofit organizations.

The focus of this particular conference was exploring “co-funding.”

In brief, the idea of co-funding suggests that “what one grant or grantmaker can do alone pales in comparison to joining forces and funding with others…. [I]n order to maximize everyone’s resources and, ultimately, social impact, you must look outward to other funders and partners.”

As a small grantmaker that recognizes the need to collaborate with other funders, grantmakers, partners and our broad and diverse network to have social impact bigger than ourselves, this approach is very much of interest to us here at Maytree.

The setting

Approximately 140 grantmakers explored different approaches to strategic co-funding, to deepen their knowledge and advance their practice around key areas such as:

• building trust;
• developing joint strategies, goals and common processes (e.g., due diligence, reporting);
• coordinating with public systems, policy and funders; and
• collectively raising, administering and evaluating pooled grant dollars.

Practitioners presented a number of co-funding examples during the break-out sessions, including projects such as the California Civic Participation Project (CCEP).

Co-funding backgrounder

Co-funding practitioners themselves presented their approaches and perspectives. Their “rapid fire” presentations dug deeper into the benefits that participating grantmakers and grantees realized, along with lessons learned, challenges and questions.

They presented three Co-Funding Models:

1. Pooled Funding – where funders contribute to a collective fund, which may be jointly administered by the group or by a lead donor or third party
2. Targeted Co-Funding – where funders deliberately but independently make grants to the same program, organization or issue
3. Strategic Alignment – where funders agree to adopt joint or complementary strategies in pursuit of a common goal, and put their resources toward aspects of that strategy

The co-funding approach is perhaps best described by the Case Foundation’s Be Fearless project.

“Those of us charged with finding or funding solutions to social challenges – philanthropists, government, nonprofits – seem to be moving too slowly and often operating with the same set of tools, concepts, and caution of the generations before us. If we’re going to keep up with the rapid pace of change and the daunting complexities of these challenges, we must rethink traditional models. It’s time for us to be bold, act with urgency, and embrace risks with potential to produce exponential social returns. It’s time for us to Be Fearless!”

In his opening remarks Jim Canales of the Irvine Foundation noted that a move to co-funding requires three shifts in the way that grantmakers work:

1. Impact – a grantmaker must think beyond attribution to contribution
2. Culture – move from taking controlled risks to taking considered risks
3. Leadership – leaders need to be engaged in collaborative, not person-focused, leadership

Watch Jim’s presentation:

Moving forward, practically

In the final plenary, Case Foundation CEO Jean Case and GEO President and CEO Kathleen Enright shared an insightful conversation about five principles of their Be Fearless project, directly related to a co-funding approach:

1. Make Big Bets and Make History – set audacious, not incremental goals
2. Experiment Early and Often – don’t be afraid to go first
3. Make Failure Matter – failure teaches, learn from it
4. Reach Beyond Your Bubble – while it’s comfortable to go it alone, innovation happens at intersections
5. Let urgency conquer fear – don’t over think and analyze, do

Related:

• We’re better together: creating large scale change at Tamarack
• Backbone Support: Essential for Successful Collective Impact

(image: Lollyman, Working together…, March 11, 2010, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic)

The recent and relentless coverage of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program has focused national attention on an issue that has silently crept up on us. The truth is that the program has grown at a rapid and exponential rate over the last few years without much public dialogue or consultation. At the same time as employers are looking overseas for talent that they believe they cannot find at home in Canada, we know that there are many thousands of immigrants, refugees and other Canadians who cannot find a job suitable to their skills and experience. As Rick Miner noted in his landmark 2010 study (PDF), it is the classic conundrum of “People Without Jobs; Jobs Without People.”

The changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker program that the federal government announced on April 29 will make it more difficult and more expensive for Canadian employers to overlook talent on the ground.

This presents both an opportunity and a challenge for the ALLIES community.

The opportunity

It calls on us, employers, community agencies, government, and post-secondary institutions, to strengthen our relationships. It calls on us to understand employers’ hiring needs and realities, to identify local talent and showcase it to employers in different ways. Minister Kenney urged employers to “triple” their efforts to find local talent. Let’s make sure we triple our own efforts in serving and connecting our local communities of employers and immigrants.

The challenge

Some habits are hard to break. The affinity for the easy route of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program may have become just such a habit. But the larger community of trainers, educators, NGOs and immigrant-serving agencies may also have fallen into some bad habits by failing to correctly identify the skills, competencies and attributes that today’s labour market demands, or to appropriately prepare, train and coach our job seekers to demonstrate these to employers. Here, too, we must triple our efforts to bridge whatever gaps exist.

Are we up to the challenge? I believe we are. ALLIES’ partners in cities across Canada have their ears to the ground and are connected with both local employers and with immigrant talent. These excellent relationships have brought us solutions such as the Internationally Educated Engineers Qualification program in Winnipeg, along with many other successful bridging programs.

Employers, too, have taken great strides in immigrant employment. Some of these leading employers have been recognized with RISE Awards in Edmonton, Immigrant Success Awards in Toronto, Employer Excellence Awards in Ottawa, and the Best Employers for New Canadians award among others. In addition, the hireimmigrants.ca website highlights promising practices from employers across the country.

We have the opportunity and responsibility to turn the situation around to “People with Jobs; Jobs with People.” If we continue to open the lines of communication and develop trust between us, ultimately, we will reap the results.

The Canada Job Grant is a new initiative that the federal government announced in its 2013 Budget. It has piqued a lot of interest in the immigrant employment sector, and for good reason. The Canada Job Grant could present both challenges and opportunities for our sector. At this time, it exists as an announcement only; however, a few details in the announcement give some indications of how the program might be implemented.

The grant will provide up to $15,000 to individuals for short-term occupational training.

Employers can apply for the grant to train unemployed or underemployed workers. The maximum federal contribution of funds will be $5,000, which must be matched by $5,000 in provincial/territorial funds, and $5,000 from the employer.

The government funds will come from the federal-provincial Labour Market Agreements (LMAs). The federal government plans to negotiate implementation with provinces and territories in 2014-15, and fully implement the program by 2017-18.

Challenges

Eligibility requirements, shifts in funding, and a shift in approach to training could present challenges for immigrant employment programs and services.

We do not yet know many details about the individuals or employers who will be able to use the grant, nor about the kinds of training and organizations that will be considered eligible. The Budget document indicates that eligible training institutions will include “community colleges, career colleges and trade union training centres,” but we do not know whether programs delivered by community organizations will be eligible. If they are not, this might drive skilled immigrants and employers to programs offered by “approved” institutions.

Further, the Canada Job Grant will be funded through federal-provincial Labour Market Agreements (LMAs), which fund programs and services for people who are not eligible for Employment Insurance (EI). When fully implemented, 60% of LMA funding will go towards the Canada Job Grant, leaving only 40% for everything else that is currently funded through LMAs. This could leave proven programs – such as mentoring for skilled immigrants – vulnerable to funding cuts.

The grant also represents a shift in approach to skills training. It relies on the participation and, by extension, the direction of the employer. Some argue that employers are likely to focus on training for immediate needs, which means that broad-based training that might bring longer-term benefits to workers and the labour market could suffer. In addition, employers might tend to rely on training and institutions that they are already familiar with, which might not be targeted at the specific needs of skilled immigrants.

Others question whether employers will be willing to pay $5,000 for training a new worker in the first place, or in the case of small businesses, whether they will have the resources to do so. If employers are allowed to apply for the Canada Job Grant for training programs that they are already running, then this grant might not actually impact how employers hire or encourage them to consider under-employed workers, such as skilled immigrants.

Opportunities

Since we don’t have many details on how the Canada Job Grant will be implemented, we might have opportunities to share our ideas on how to make it most effective. The federal government has indicated that it will consult with stakeholders such as employer associations, educational institutions and labour organizations. In fact, the first consultation was held on April 19 in Brantford, Ontario. It might be possible to encourage federal and provincial/territorial governments to consider the work that we do with skilled immigrants. Perhaps this is a time to consider whether fees for community-based programs are appropriate, if individuals and employers can use the grant to pay them.

If implemented in a way that makes sense for employers, the Canada Job Grant could encourage employers to take risks on candidates who they wouldn’t normally hire. This could benefit many workers, including skilled immigrants. Targeted outreach about the grant and how it could help them hire skilled immigrant talent could nudge employers in that direction.

It is important for those of us working with skilled immigrants and employers to take part in this conversation. We must monitor and share information about the consultations and possible directions for implementation. We need to provide evidence of the success and potential of our work, and consider how to make the Canada Job Grant work for skilled immigrants and employers.

Related links

• Budget 2013, Chapter 3.1: Connecting Canadians With Available Jobs (Government of Canada)
• Backgrounder: Canada Job Grant (Prime Minister’s Office)
• Backgrounder (PDF): Canada Job Grant (ALLIES)
• Analysis: A Flimflam Budget (Caledon Commentary)
• Austerity Through Infrastructure Cuts (Behind the Numbers, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives)
• Budget 2013 Issue Note: The Canada Job Grant and Federal Funding for Skills Training (CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees))

by Gillian Smith, Executive Director & CEO, Institute for Canadian Citizenship

This week marks National Volunteer Week, the perfect time to highlight the connection between volunteerism and citizenship.

As the Institute for Canadian Citizenship’s (ICC) Executive Director, I’m equally passionate about citizenship and volunteerism because citizenship is the most important thing Canadians share, and each volunteer effort (big or small) made by citizens strengthens communities, building a better country.

All Canadians have a responsibility to be active, engaged citizens, but many of us aren’t sure how to do it. This is understandable because for most, the concept of citizenship isn’t top of mind.

Take a moment to ask yourself – when was the last time you thought about what you do to be a good citizen?

Most Canadians automatically associate being a good citizen with legal responsibilities: obeying the law, paying taxes and voting. Although these are undeniably important, much more is involved.

Last year, the ICC collaborated with Maytree and other organizations on Canadians on Citizenship, a national survey asking what it means to be a good citizen in Canada. The responses revealed that Canadians also see giving back to one’s community, civic participation and respecting and accepting difference as vital measures of a citizen. These findings position citizenship in a more tangible, relatable way: citizenship is a series of everyday acts that contribute to the life of a community and to our country.

What’s more, Canadians on Citizenship demonstrated that not only is this textured understanding held by all residents of this country, but we all believe that everyone can be a good citizen, regardless of whether your family has been here for four months or 400 years.

Volunteerism is how every Canadian can live up to the challenge of being an active citizen. When you give time, talent or treasure, your actions benefit your community and create a ripple effect that reinforces our country’s overall capacity to accept and include.

Added to the challenge of active citizenship, Canada’s demographics are changing, and changing fast. Did you know that, today, our labour force would shrink without new Canadians joining the ranks? Or that by 2030 – at the latest – Canada’s net population growth will rely solely on immigration?

These facts are crucial when considering the future of volunteerism. Who will be our future givers?

Citizenship is the uniting common denominator and volunteerism is a means to connect Canadians and build a stronger Canada.

If we don’t act now to create an inclusive, welcoming space that allows everyone to fully participate, we risk harming the foundations of our stable, successful society. We must get involved in our communities and embrace our roles as active, engaged citizens.

This is the citizenship-volunteer connection, and how we can ensure our great country grows ever stronger.

Learn more about the Institute for Canadian Citizenship on our website. You can also follow us on Twitter, @ICCICC.

Related:

• Canadians are open to the world
  
• When was the last time you thought about what it means to be Canadian?
• Access to citizenship becoming more difficult – unintended consequence of policy changes?
• Shaping the future: Canada’s rapidly changing immigration policies