Marco Campana
Our website, maytree.com, is one of the key ways we keep you informed about our work, issues and ways to work with us. We’re giving it a needed overhaul!
Please help us improve the maytree.com website by completing the following online survey. We welcome your honest feedback and all responses will remain confidential.
It should only take you about 10-15 minutes to complete the survey. Please note that none of the questions are required. If you wish to focus your input and comments on a particular area, due to time constraints or interest, feel free to do so.
We’ll also be running some focus groups and one-on-one interviews. If you have more to say after you’ve completed the survey, let us know. We’d be happy to chat.
If you have any questions, please contact:
Marco Campana, Maytree Communications
mcampana@maytree.com
Tel: 416-944-2627 x252
Today is Refugee Rights Day in Canada. Not sure what it is about? Read Samuel Getachew’s backgrounder that explains what it’s all about and why it’s important.
The Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR) is marking the day by asking Canadians: are you proud to protect refugees?
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that we here at Maytree say, yes.
Learn more about CCR’s Proud to Protect Refugees campaign and help change the narrative on Canada’s history, obligations and practice of protecting refugees.
CCR explains its campaign:
“Recent changes to Canada’s refugee system and increased negative rhetoric about newcomers may make it tougher for refugees to find protection and to feel welcome in Canada. … The Canadian Council for Refugees is suggesting that refugee advocates and allies find some way to show this publicly under the banner ‘Proud to protect refugees’ in Canada. Help send a positive message about refugees, in the face of the negative discourse and restrictive changes.”
Related:
For the last 20 years, the Caledon Institute of Social Policy has played an essential role as an independent and critical voice, providing rich, evidence-based research and analysis to inform public opinion and policy. Its recent 20th anniversary celebration presented a look back, with a look forward, at Canadian public policy.
Caledon’s three principle policy consultants – Ken Battle, Michael Mendelson, and Sherri Torjman – presented a look back, with a look forward, at Canadian public policy. Speakers also included Caledon’s founder Alan Broadbent and Environics President Michael Adams. A wrap-up address by Caledon Board member Tom Barber ended the day.
Videos of these powerful presentations are now available below.
Alan Broadbent: Welcome and Introduction
Ken Battle: Architecture of Federal Income Security in Canada, with a commentary by Ken Jackson
Sherri Torjman: Social Policy Challenges for Canada, with a commentary by André Picard
Michael Mendelson: Is Canada (Still) a Fiscal Union? With a commentary by Richard Simeon
Michael Adams: Datacide: Policy in the Dark
Tom Barber: Wrap-Up
Related:
- Transcript of introductory remarks by Alan Broadbent, Chairman of Caledon
- The next 20 years of policy in Canada – 20th anniversary presentations by Ken Battle, Sherri Torjman and Michael Mendelson
- Five Good Ideas about Policy with Sherri Torjman
- Caledon rescues data
Diaspora Dialogues has launched Spur, Canada’s first national festival of politics, art and ideas. The festival is designed to engage Canadians in a feisty, cross-country search for ways forward on pressing issues.
In the first year, the festival will include Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver with more editions rolling out in 2014.
Spur Toronto runs from April 11 to 14:
“Now that the economy has become a water-cooler subject, The Bottom Line – Spur’s Toronto edition – looks at the intersection of money, politics, art and ideas, and asks how we might reimagine their connections in our society.
Spur Toronto’s eclectic mix ranges from panel discussions with The New Yorker senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg on vested interests in politics to politically hot theatre with playwrights Hannah Moscovitch, Michael Healey and Guillermo Verdecchia; debates from political operatives Chima Nkemdirim, Jaime Watt and David Herle on electoral alchemy to breakfast with first-time author Ayelet Tsabari with her brilliant short fiction collection and Ins Choi’s (Kim’s Convenience) brand new theatrical walking piece. There will be discussions, town halls, readings, performances, walking tours and funky late-night music at the Pilot Tavern to tempt you – and much more.”
Book early so you won’t miss out! Tickets can be purchased on the Spur site. Festival passes get you in to all events, as well as a private reception.
Visit Spur Toronto for the complete lineup of sessions and presenters.
Here are a few sessions we think might be of interest to our community:
Calling all political artists! Hosted by Andy Bichlbaum of The Yes Men, The Yes Lab is a three-hour workshop designed to generate ideas and get groups of people thinking creatively. Social justice organizations can take advantage of all the Yes Men have learned, including how to use humour to open minds and share ideas, figure out which culture-jamming activities are effective, understand “laughtivism” and collectively brainstorm potential project ideas.
Political Advertising: Electoral Alchemy (April 13)
Political messaging has become increasingly refined and tightly targeted. But do the subtle arts of political communication actually serve democracy, or seduce voters into abandoning rational or practical choices? A panel of distinguished political strategists, consultants and advisors discuss their personal favourite pieces of political storytelling and the quantifiable impact and ethics of artful spin.
Strictly Canadian = Doomed to Fail? (April 13)
In a town-hall- style forum that bridges the blogosphere and conventional media, Spur challenges journalists across genres to debate whether labelling something as “Canadian” builds our society or dooms our cultural industries to failure. Be part of the debate: join a local columnist and some of the city’s most-followed culture bloggers in an energetic conversation.
Who Should Own an Idea? (April 13)
Canada invests significant amounts of public money in the arts and sciences through institutions such as hospitals or universities or through extensive grant programs. Who benefits from the commercialization of ideas generated from all that activity – and who should?
The Theatre of Politics (April 14)
Playwrights – like politicians – have powerful roles in society, shaping and reflecting back to us relevant social issues and crafting persuasive stories in ways that may move us into action or news ways of thinking long after we turn from the stage. But is some content too hot to handle? Join Canada’s top political playwrights as they discuss the intersection of politics and theatre.
Vested Interests in Politics (April 14)
Do people with money have an undue influence on our political system? Well-informed panelists bring their expertise and experience to discuss comparative models of political campaign financing in Canada and the United States.
Join Diaspora Dialogues for what promises to be a fun, informative, irreverent series of presentations and discussions.
2012 was an exceptionally busy year in the Canadian immigration system. Building on last year’s “Top 10 Canadian Immigration Stories of 2011,” Z Sonia Worotynec, Gregory Johannson, Bonnie Mah and Marco Campana present a similar top 10 list for 2012. For each story, we’ve provided a brief introduction, some background and related links and resources.
This year’s overarching theme: while 2011 was the year of consultations, 2012 was a year of change. It brought an explosive number of changes and proposed changes to the ways that Canada selects and treats immigrants, refugees and citizens as well as how we talk about immigrants and refugees. Multiple announcements and re-announcements from the Minister’s office made it challenging to figure out what changes had been made, what had been proposed only, and when changes or proposed changes would take effect.
1. Selection of Economic Class Immigrants
2012 brought big changes to the way economic-class immigrants to Canada are selected. The Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP), often considered the backbone of Canada’s economic immigration, was the target of many of the proposed changes.
2. Refugee Reform
2012 witnessed the most significant reforms to refugee policy in Canada in at least a decade, encompassing legislative and policy changes. The most substantive reforms were passed in Bill C-31, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
3. Facilitating Temporary Residence and Two-Step Immigration
The trend towards temporary resident growth continued in 2012. In particular, a number of changes made it easier for employers to bring temporary foreign workers to Canada.
4. Conditional Permanent Residence
The government enacted a two-year period of conditional permanent residence on sponsored spouses. This could mark a precedent for a new, longer road to permanent status for future Canadians.
5. Focus on Security
The government took various steps in 2012 that can be seen as extending its “law and order” agenda to the immigration and refugee system.
6. Community Response to Immigration and Refugee Reform
Alongside political debate over Bill C-31 (and its predecessors), a more dynamic dialogue has taken place between community members, groups, the media and politicians. The increasing salience of this debate on both sides of the political spectrum is important for all Canadians.
7. Culture Clash?
The niqab has been a hot button political issue in Canada for some time. According to the CBC, the wearing of the niqab has “divided Canadians and even the Muslim-Canadian community, which debates whether the niqab has any religious significance under Islam.”
8. Public Discourse and Immigration
Immigration jumped to the fore of public discourse in 2012. It was a year when information and discourse about immigration was as exceptionally high as it was polarized.
9. Increased Selectivity in Who Becomes a Refugee
In public and political discourse, 2012 marked a departure from the concept of political neutrality in refugee claims. We saw significant politicization of refugeehood, and more common acceptance of the concept that the political realm should have a stake in who receives protection.
10. Citizenship Changes
2012 saw significant changes and proposed changes to Canadian citizenship.
1. Selection of Economic Class Immigrants
The Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP), often considered the backbone of Canada’s economic immigration, was the target of many of the proposed changes. The points system is being re-configured to:
- Increase the number of points for the first official language spoken;
- Increase points for younger applicants;
- Decrease points for work experience gained outside of Canada;
- Require a credential assessment by a third party at the time of application.
While it re-tooled this program, the government stopped accepting applications to the FSWP on July 1, 2012. This program is expected to re-open on May 4, 2013.
Alongside these changes, the government also announced a new stream for skilled tradespersons, who traditionally have had a difficult time qualifying under the FSWP criteria. Like the FSWP, the trades stream will accept applications from individuals with occupations on a predetermined occupations list. The stream will be capped at 3,000 applications for 2013. It opened on January 2, 2013, and has been well-received, despite its small size.
In addition, the Canadian Experience Class, Provincial Nominee Programs, Investor Class and Entrepreneur Class all saw changes or proposed changes this year.
To deal with the long-standing backlog of applicants to the FSWP, the government proposed to return FSWP applications and fees submitted before February 27, 2008. The decision cut off 280,000 applicants, and is currently being challenged in Federal Court.
To prevent the development of future backlogs, the government proposed moving to a selection system similar to New Zealand’s Expression of Interest system. Under this system, applicants are selected from a pool – rather than from a queue – allowing unsuccessful applicants to be removed quickly. Canada’s new system is expected to be implemented in 2014.
Related Resources
- Shaping the future: Canada’s rapidly changing immigration policies (Maytree)
- More changes to Canada’s immigration program (Maytree)
- Choosing the right new Canadian (Maytree)
- Submission to Government of Canada about Immigration Initiatives (Office of the Fairness Commissioner, Ontario)
- Applications being accepted – Skilled Trades (CIC)
- News articles on the legal challenge on immigration backlog
2. Refugee Reform
The year 2012 witnessed the most significant reforms to refugee policy in Canada in at least a decade, encompassing both legislative and policy changes. The most substantive reforms were passed in Bill C-31, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which had been debated in Parliament in previous iterations and governments for several years. Discussion over the issue was charged, with arguments in favour and against the reforms. At the Parliamentary Committee stage of debate in April and May, a number of key refugee advocates opposed to the Bill assembled on Parliament Hill to convey their perspectives on the proposals.
The package of reforms in Bill C-31 included several major changes (see the Canadian Council on Refugees resource page or the Parliamentary Legislative Summary of the Act for more details), including:
- The implementation of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) within the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). The RAD had legislative origins in 2001, but had not been implemented.
- The creation of the Designated Countries of Origin (DCO) list. A DCO is a country the Minister of Immigration has declared to be safe, based on a stable political climate and adequate state protection, and from which bona fide refugees are therefore improbable. Asylum-seekers from DCO countries face high obstacles, limited recourse in making claims, and do not have access to the Refugee Appeal Division.
- Mandatory detention of individuals over 16 years of age that are designated “irregular arrivals” by the Minister. Essentially, irregular arrivals are individuals who are suspected of being smuggled into Canada in a group of two or more.
Proponents argue these changes will streamline refugee protection for those that need it most. In the case of the DCO, they argue the IRB will be able to streamline legitimate refugee claims, since individuals that falsely claim they are victims of persecution in “safe” countries will be weeded out and deported more quickly. In doing so, greater care and resources can be afforded to claimants from manifestly unstable or undemocratic regimes or regions.
On the other hand, those opposed to the reforms argue they represent a digression from values of judicial equality. They argue that the DCO system lacks accountability, since the Minister can unilaterally declare countries “safe.” They argue that it will institutionally entrench a two-tiered, discriminatory model of refugee determination.
Another major reform to refugee policy involved changes to benefit eligibility for the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP). As a result of these cuts, refugee claimants awaiting a decision on their file can no longer access a variety of medical services. Although proponents positioned the cuts as a means to equalize health coverage between claimants and Canadian citizens, critics argue that refugee claimants now lack access (PDF) to federal funding for many basic medical services, including those of an urgent nature. Debate continues over whether the provinces will foot the bill.
Related Resources:
3. Facilitating Temporary Residence and Two-Step Immigration
The trend towards temporary resident growth continued in 2012. In particular, a number of changes made it easier for employers to bring temporary foreign workers (TFWs) to Canada.
In April, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) introduced a ten-day Accelerated Labour Market Opinion (A-LMO) process to approve employers seeking to hire a TFW. At the same time, HRSDC changed the rules on pay for foreign workers. Employers can now pay TFWs in high skilled positions 15% less than the prevailing wage, and TFWs in lower skilled positions 5% less than the prevailing wage.
In July, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) expanded a pilot project that allows employers in Alberta to hire TFWs in some trades, and allows these workers to move between employers without going through the Labour Market Opinion (LMO) process.
Just as the year was about to close, the government announced it would table new rules for international students. The rules would designate educational institutions permitted to host international students and remove the requirement for international students who wish to work part-time to get an off-campus work permit. These changes are intended to be part of Canada’s efforts in attracting international students – who are “a great source of potential permanent immigrants.”
In 2012, the government again signaled the growing preference for two-step immigration – that is, permanent residence after temporary residence – by easing requirements of the Canadian Experience Class (CEC). This change means that TFWs in high-skilled jobs will require only 12 months of in-Canada work experience (down from 24 months) to apply for permanent residence through the CEC.
4. Conditional Permanent Residence
In 2012, the government enacted a two-year period of conditional permanent residence on sponsored spouses. This change requires all spouses of less than two years and with no children in common to live together for two years before the sponsored spouse can be considered a permanent resident. The government argues that this requirement will address “marriage fraud.” As Naomi Alboim and Karen Cohl argue in their paper, Shaping the Future, “In the absence of data showing that marriage fraud is a widespread problem, applying a two-year cohabitation requirement is excessive.”
Much of the public discussion of this change has focused on the significant and negative affects that it might have on sponsored spouses. Critics argue that this change will make sponsored spouses more vulnerable to abuse, as they might feel that they need to stay in the relationship to maintain/gain permanent resident status, or might not be willing or able to access procedures intended to protect abused spouses from losing their immigration status.
This story is also important because it could mark a new, longer road for would-be Canadians. As we normalize the idea of “conditions” placed on new permanent residents, will the government look for other ways to use this policy tool? For example, could permanent residence for Federal Skilled Workers become conditional on finding employment in Canada? Could permanent residence for refugees become conditional on the changing situation in their source country? Could conditions be placed on Canadian citizens that require them to reside in Canada to maintain their citizenship?
Related Resources
- Comments on proposed conditional permanent residence for sponsored spouses, March 2012 (Canadian Council for Refugees)
- Conditional permanent residence rules will put immigrant women and children at risk (OCASI)
- Backgrounder – Conditional permanent residence (CIC)
- Shaping the future: Canada’s rapidly changing immigration policies (Maytree)
5. Focus on Security
2012 saw the tabling of a bill providing the Minister with unprecedented power to deny people from coming into Canada. Bill C-43, or the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, would allow the Minister to deny “temporary resident status to foreign nationals based on public policy considerations.” As the CBC reported: “The power, known as negative discretion, would allow the immigration minister to deny entry to Canada for a non-citizen who may promote hatred or violence. The minister can currently deny entry to a foreign national based on criminality or national security reasons.”
Many critiques of the Bill suggested that it is heavy-handed and unnecessary. The Canadian Bar Association commented: “While the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) welcomes an amendment that would allow more temporary entrants to Canada, it says the majority of the proposed changes to Bill C-43, Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, are unnecessary and unjustified.”
Others have also pointed out that these changes fit within the context of the federal government’s focus on a “law and order agenda.” According to Naomi Alboim and Karen Cohl in Shaping the Future, “it is risky to contextualize immigration within a law and order agenda, to implement enforcement measures in a way that may be perceived to be uneven and unfair, and to label people as ‘queue jumpers’, ‘bogus refugees’, and ‘marriage fraudsters’. The overemphasis on certain types of enforcement and the mixed and negative messaging may ultimately reduce support for immigration among Canadians.”
This law and order context is being applied across the entire immigration system and is evident in the government’s use of language, which portrays the immigration system as dangerous and desperately in need of a strong reform.
Related Resources:
6. Community Response to Immigration and Refugee Reform
Although 2012 reforms will represent an important point in the trajectory of Canadian refugee determination, the public dialogue inspired by the reforms is significant in its own right. Alongside political debate over Bill C-31 (and its predecessors), a more dynamic dialogue has taken place between community members, groups, the media and politicians. The increasing salience of this debate on both sides of the political spectrum is important for all Canadians.
Bob Rae, interim leader of the Liberal party, said that the Conservatives were trying to “whip up hostility to refugees” – while Ezra Levant of Sun News went on the air to argue that that Roma shouldn’t be allowed to Canada (Sun News has removed the video following a hate speech investigation by Toronto police). Moving forward into 2013, it is hard to discern whether this trend will continue or whether it was merely a reactionary phenomenon.
Two groups were formed in 2012 that had an important impact on how the discussion relating to refugee reforms played out. The first was the Justice for Refugees and Immigrants Coalition, comprising the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and others. These groups were unified in opposition to many of the reforms included in Bill C-31, and made their voices heard through direct-action (including the “jail cell” protest set out in front of Parliament to protest mandatory detention of ‘irregular arrivals’) and lobby activity.
The second group, the Canadian Doctors for Refugee Health, was formed in response to cuts to the Interim Federal Heath Program (IFHP) for refugees. Their actions to stimulate public debate on the cuts illustrate an increasing level of engagement from those outside of the traditional immigration and refugee sector.
Others have been emboldened to convey anti-immigration perspectives. One notable group that testified in support of Bill C-31 was the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform (CIPR), which seeks to ”expose myths and reveal facts about Canadian immigration and refugee policies and provide authoritative research and data… about immigration issues.” The CIPR generally spoke in favour of Bill C-31, but also noted that it did not go far enough in limiting immigration and refugee intake. Other conservative groups and individuals took the opportunity to voice their perspectives on immigration reform. Grassroots conservative opinions on reforms were less represented in the discussion, not because they were less important or forceful in their positions, but more likely because the reforms were politically conservative in nature.
7. Culture Clash?
The niqab has been a hot button political issue in Canada for some time. According to the CBC, the wearing of the niqab has “divided Canadians and even the Muslim-Canadian community, which debates whether the niqab has any religious significance under Islam.”
In 2012, the Supreme Court released a split decision about whether a woman could wear a niqab when testifying in court. As the CBC wrote, the “decision favours balance between religious rights and fair trial, when possible.” The Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic called it a “complex” case, but one that they hoped “captures the core concerns about the justice system held by many of our clients and we hope that [Supreme Court Justice Abella’s] dissent will serve to guide courts and judges that are faced with these issues in future cases.”
For some, including immigrants themselves, the “clash of cultures” in Canada’s multicultural “experiment” puts the country at risk. In October 2012, author Salim Mansur “appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and, more or less, warned that unless Canada abandons its current multicultural policies and, accordingly, its immigration policies, we will in the not too distant future ‘severely undermine our liberal democracy.’ In particular, he focused on the need to curtail immigration ‘from Muslim countries for a period of time given how disruptive the cultural baggage of illiberal values is brought in (to Canada) as a result.’”
In the same year, Globe and Mail journalist and author Doug Saunders published the book, Myth of the Muslim Tide. According to the American Nation Public Radio (NPR): “Saunders says an increasingly influential group of writers and activists believes immigration and high birth rates will make Muslims a majority in Europe in coming decades — and that their hostility to Western values makes them a threat to Western culture, democracy and security. Saunders argues that these fears are based on inaccurate assertions of fact, and he says the fear of Muslim immigration in the U.S. is similar to past chapters in American history about other immigrant groups.”
In a Globe and Mail article, Saunders points out that the notion of “non-preferred” immigrants is a cyclical part of immigration history throughout the Western world: “These statements sound like grotesque religious prejudice today, but to many they seemed well-justified at the time. After all, most Catholic countries had fallen to fascism or religious extremism; Catholic immigrant neighbourhoods were crime-ridden, violent and impoverished; and the worst acts of North American terrorism to that point had been committed by people from Catholic backgrounds. Who wouldn’t look askance at their Catholic neighbours? We have forgotten this history. And we have forgotten that the same things were said about the waves of East European Jewish immigrants before the war.”
What we are seeing is what we typically see on this issue: an ongoing polarizing debate punctuated by truths, half-truths and historical omissions.
8. Public Discourse and Immigration
Immigration jumped to the fore of public discourse in 2012. As professor Arthur Sweetman commented: “Usually Citizenship and Immigration puts out press releases and every 7th or 8th one includes something of minor importance… In the last month or 3 almost every single press release has been a major announcement about a very substantial change to the system… In the last couple of months, the rate of announcements of major changes has increased quite dramatically.” The sheer number of announcements and the incredible activity of the Minister kept issues related to immigration in front of the media and Canadians for the entire year.
The Globe and Mail published a major immigration piece in their series, Our Time to Lead, which generated thousands of comments and online discussions. Generally positive, the series sought to begin a national conversation that was somewhat missing from the government deluge of announcements and changes. And, while not framed as such, this brief national conversation indicated just how interested and polarized Canadians are on the topic of immigration.
At its core, 2012 can be viewed as a year when information and discourse about immigration was as exceptionally high as it was polarized in our country.
Related Resources:
9. Increased Selectivity in Who Becomes a Refugee
In public and political discourse, 2012 marked a departure from the concept of political neutrality in refugee claims. In addition to increasingly negative tones in Canadian discourse on asylum, 2012 saw significant politicization of refugeehood, with the concept that the political realm should have a stake in who receives protection.
This was illustrated in Roma refugee claims from the EU. Roma have consistently been targeted by politicians and some mainstream media as undeserving of refugee protection. Whether or not this is true, the issue is not merely the negative tone associated with (for example) Roma claimants, but the fact that politicians are influencing and “selecting” what groups should be provided asylum.
Although an easy political target, the politicization of refugeehood is not new. Rather, what is new is the apparent truism that politicians (and the people that elect them) should be allowed to select who is granted refugee status.
It is a common misconception that refugeehood is synonymous with displacement or hardship per se. In fact, the 1951 Convention on Refugees defines a refugee as an individual who suffers persecution on a set of given criteria. Thus an individual in Ireland may constitute the definition of a refugee, while a famine victim in Ethiopia may not. In academic realms it has long been discussed whether the definition of refugeehood should be expanded, for example by including climate change as a de facto form of persecution. Although this academic debate was not new in 2012, norms concerning political interference in determining who is (or is not) a refugee have changed substantially.
In the ideal refugee determination system (PDF) set forth by the international community, political selection does not factor into determining refugeehood. The principles of legal equality and justice indicate that refugee determination should be conducted impartially – and without political interference.
Related Resources:
- National Post Article: Efforts to keep bogus Roma refugees out have failed: Jason Kenney
- Op-Ed: Ottawa’s Bogus Refugee Bill
- Refugee Handbook (PDF)
10. Citizenship Changes
2012 saw significant changes and proposed changes to Canadian citizenship. Changes implemented and proposed included:
Implemented:
- Harder exam and 75% minimum passing grade;
- No automatic citizenship for foreign-born children;
- Requirement to uncover face during citizenship ceremony.
Proposed:
- Proof of language required with application;
- No automatic citizenship for everyone born in Canada.
The Minister also announced intentions to revoke the Canadian citizenship of more than 3,100 people who allegedly lied on their citizenship applications (mainly related to residency requirements), as well as the department’s taking action to prevent “birth tourism.” While both garnered much press, critics suggest: “There does not appear to be a strong evidentiary base to support the need for any of these changes. In some cases no data exists. For example, how many foreign-born children of foreign-born Canadians are there? How many people without status in Canada come here to give birth? Are people who passed previous citizenship tests not good citizens? …Citizenship is the foundational element of nation-building. It is in Canada’s interest to encourage and empower future citizens. Canada should collect data, analyze results and establish an evidence base before proceeding with further action that discourages, delays or prevents the attainment of citizenship.”
Further supporting this lack of evidentiary base, Maytree, in partnership with Environics Institute, the Institute for Canadian Citizenship (ICC), the CBC and the Royal Bank of Canada, released a major survey exploring issues around citizenship acquisition, rights and responsibilities, civic participation, civic education and multiple identities. Overwhelmingly, the survey found that Canadians (including newcomers) have a positive view of citizenship: “‘The results couldn’t be more Canadian – we share an overwhelming consensus of what it means to be a good Canadian citizen,’ said Michael Adams, President, Environics Institute. ‘Obeying the laws and paying taxes are important, but they’re not enough. All Canadians are embracing active participation in the community, simple acts of kindness, respect, openness, compromise and environmental stewardship are fundamental components to today’s current definition. This is why the world wants the Canadian experiment to succeed.’”
Related Resources:
- Minister Kenney announces new language rules for citizenship applicants
- Canadian citizenship not for sale: Minister Kenney provides update on residence fraud investigations
- Speaking notes for the Honourable Jason Kenney, P.C., M.P. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism at a News Conference Regarding Citizenship and Immigration Fraud Investigations
- Canadian Citizenship – Impacts of Changes
- New Survey Research Reveals Canada’s Attitudes towards Citizenship
(with notes from Bonnie Mah)
We know that immigrants overwhelmingly choose to settle in cities and metropolitan areas. This is confirmed by the latest Statistics Canada numbers. Between July 2011 and 2012, census metropolitan areas (CMA) received 92% of immigrants to Canada.
The numbers also tell of a different trend. While Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver MTV continue to be the main magnets for immigrants (in 2011-2012, approximately 60% of all immigrants to Canada settled in one of these CMAs), immigration has become increasingly important for smaller cities. Yes, the number of immigrants settling in smaller cities is still relatively small, but the proportion of immigrants going to smaller cities has increased from 5% in 2001-2002 to 8% in 2011-2012.
This trend towards smaller cities is even more prevalent in many small CMAs in western Canada and the prairies (e.g.Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary and Edmonton) which are attracting a large proportion of immigrants. In fact, between 2001-2002 and 2011-2012, the share of immigrants settling in these five CMAs nearly tripled, from 7% to 20%.
This trend to smaller cities isn’t entirely surprising. We’ve seen reports about immigrants moving out of Toronto, for example, to smaller centres.
Not all regions are experiencing the same trend. Economic regions in Western Canada (especially Alberta and Saskatchewan) are experiencing the highest population growth, while Atlantic Canada recorded the lowest growth. According to the latest numbers, immigration is the main driver of population growth in more than one-third of economic regions – e.g. Montreal, Winnipeg, Toronto, Saskatoon-Biggar, Regina-Moose Mountain, Vancouver, and Halifax.
What does this mean for cities?
This confirms that cities are critical integration actors. It means that all cities, small and large, need to take a look at how they attract, welcome and include newcomers. In Ontario, small and large municipalities have been creating immigration portals to ensure that newcomers find, choose and stay in their cities.
Cities of all sizes need to understand the importance of attracting, welcoming and have immigrants grow roots in their communities. And we can help.
Our Cities of Migration site focuses on sharing good ideas about integrating immigrants in cities. We’ve just completed a series of publications, Good Ideas from Successful Cities: Municipal Leadership in Immigrant Integration, that all cities should read.
The series highlights more than 70 promising practices from cities in Europe, North America,Australia and New Zealand. Some of the featured cities are old hands at integration – such as Toronto, London, and New York. Others you may find more surprising – such as Newport News, Richmond Hill, Valongo. The final publication applies a policy lens, looking at what good practices can tell us about the role of local governments in immigrant integration. Four international experts have contributed analysis and policy insights on the range of municipal levers available to promote both immigrants and city success.
It’s also practical. We’ve made specific recommendations for local governments and community partners. We think you’ll find them useful.
Related:
- Good Ideas from Successful Cities: Municipal Leadership in Immigrant Integration
- Practice to Policy: Lessons from Local Leadership on Immigrant Integration (full report, PDF)
- Good Ideas from Successful Cities: Municipal Leadership in Immigrant Integration (PDF)
- Taking It to the Streets: A Municipal Role in Immigrant Integration
- Recommendations for Local Governments and Community Partners
- From Practice to Policy
Statistics Canada glossary notes:
What is a CMA? A CMA must have a total population of at least 100,000 of which 50,000 or more must live in the core. Slightly more than two-thirds of the Canadian population live in CMAs.
What is an economic region? An economic region is a group of census divisions (counties and their equivalents) that are grouped together to analyze their regional economic activity.
Canada has always been proud of its naturalization rate among immigrants as compared to other countries. However, a recent Toronto Star article suggests that for some the road to citizenship has become fraught with roadblocks. Intentional or not, the article outlines how many immigrants “will have to wait as long as nine years to become full-fledged citizens.”
How did this happen? And what does this mean for immigrants, and for Canada?
Recently, we have been seeing complaints about an increase in requests for applicants to complete the citizenship residence questionnaire. On newcomer discussion boards in particular the key issue has been an unreasonably long processing time. This issue has been confirmed by the Toronto Star article. The article suggests that a “crack down on citizenship fraud” may be to blame, but there are a number of other factors that may be contributing to a dip in our access to citizenship.
Residence Questionnaire
The residence questionnaire requires individuals to provide information and a variety of documents as further proof that they have resided in Canada for three years. Many find it difficult to obtain all necessary documents within the timeframe allocated (45 days), especially without advance notice that this will be necessary. For example, some records must be requested and then sent from the individual’s source country, or picked up in person from the source country by the individual or a retained lawyer.
Proof of Language Skills
The proof now required to demonstrate official language knowledge may also be a deterrent to some applicants. Those who have not been educated in French or English must either pay for a language assessment test or provide the results of federally funded language course they have completed.
Citizenship Exam and Guide
Citizenship exam failure rates have also increased as a result of changes (made in 2009 and again in 2011) to the citizenship study guide on which the exams are based. The new guide places more emphasis on Canada’s military history and sports figures, for example.
Processing Times
Processing times are also getting longer at every stage. According to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) website, it already takes 21 months to process “routine Canadian citizenship applications.” There are delays before applicants can write the citizenship exam, there are delays until residence questionnaires are processed (up to 2 years), and there are delays until citizenship ceremonies take place. The idea that immigrants may become citizens after three years of permanent residence must be tempered with the reality that processing times can double or triple that time frame.
Unintended consequences
These developments, along with recent changes that deny citizenship to those born abroad to Canadian citizens unless their parents were either born or naturalized inCanada, reduce the pool of potential citizens.
In our recent report, Shaping the future: Canada’s rapidly changing immigration policies, Naomi Alboim and Karen Cohl argue,
“Changes to the rules for obtaining citizenship are also weakening Canada’s democracy as growing numbers of people either will not be able to obtain citizenship, will have to wait longer, or go through ‘more hoops’ to do so. Without citizenship, individuals cannot participate in the fundamental aspects of democratic life, including the opportunity to vote for the municipal, provincial or federal representatives who make decisions that affect their lives. [...] All those who cannot or do not qualify, or must wait longer to pursue citizenship will be deprived, at least for a time, of the opportunity to participate in the fundamental aspects of democratic life.” (page 69)
We do not imagine that our federal government intended to decrease access to democracy for Canada’s immigrants. But this appears to be a consequence of some of its policies designed to “crackdown” on citizenship fraud.
Alboim and Cohl argue that such policy changes that lack, or run contrary to evidence, could have unintended consequences. They write, “Many changes to the family class and citizenship are based on anecdote without evidence to show the magnitude of the problems. […] [T]he sheer pace and scope of changes to immigration policy and programs creates a climate of unpredictability.” (pages 65-66)
A national discussion is essential in this climate – one that seeks to ask the right questions. A discussion about what kind of country we want to be and how immigration can help us get there. We believe that these four principles should guide the conversation and any subsequent immigration reform:
- Immigration policy should be based primarily on long-term social and economic objectives and a commitment to citizenship.
- Immigration policy should be evidence-based, comprehensive, fair and respectful of human rights.
- Immigration policy should be developed through public and stakeholder engagement, meaningful federal-provincial-territorial consultation, and democratic processes.
- Immigration policy should enhance Canada’s reputation around the world.
The time for a national conversation is now. In the coming weeks, we’ll propose some questions to guide us in this conversation. We encourage you to join us in this discussion.
Related:
- Shaping the future: Canada’s rapidly changing immigration policies
- New Survey Research Reveals Canada’s Attitudes towards Citizenship
- Five reasons Canada leads the world on immigration
- Immigration Policy: The Sound of One Hand Clapping
- Recent Immigration Changes Deserve Debate
- Sticky Fingers and Social Glue
Recently, Maytree was honoured with an Excellence in Community Service Award from the Intercultural Dialogue Institute of Toronto. In his acceptance speech, Alan Broadbent reflected on Maytree’s mission and what our priorities continue to be.
In the coming weeks, we’ll be sharing some additional posts reflecting on our work in 2012, as well as our priorities for 2013. For now, please read Alan’s remarks on why we do what we do at Maytree.
For our 30+ year history, Maytree has worked on issues of equity and equality, focusing on bringing people in from the margins of society to the centre. Through the creation of The Caledon Institute of Social Policy twenty years ago, and the Tamarack Institute ten years ago, Maytree has worked through policy and practice to reduce the terrible burdens of poverty for Canadians.
And through Maytree’s own work, we have focused on the immigrant and refugee communities in Canada to accelerate their settlement and inclusion in the life of our country. Through our work in developing leadership in new Canadians, in effectively connecting immigrants to the labour market, and in helping society develop its skills in including newcomers, we have sought to collapse traditional timeframes to create success for everyone sooner.
We can be proud that Canada has done a very good job for over a century in developing the instruments and investments to welcome and include immigrants and refugees. As we travel internationally, we are consistently told that Canada has created a model for the world.
From our work at Maytree, we believe this to be true, but we also know that there is always room for improvement. In the process of building a great nation, there is no room for complacency.
Nor is there room for attempts to rewrite history as many in Canada do when discussing immigration. To characterize our immigration practice as a failure, as turning a blind eye to terrorists, as being unconnected to the labour market, or as being replete with bogus claims and fraudsters, is an attempt to rewrite history. Such claims may make interesting political tactics or sell some media, but they ignore our comparative success among nations. Worse, they divert us from the steady improvement of our practice, from the regular maintenance and improvement that anything worthwhile requires.
Immigrants and refugees have proven to be one of Canada’s great strengths. As we sit tonight in the middle of Toronto, which has risen in the last quarter century to be consistently ranked among the world’s great cities, we realize that much of this has been driven by immigrants, and by our region’s ability to embrace them, to change as needed to make them succeed, and to play host to the millions of daily interactions across religion, culture, and language that are so commonplace they go almost unnoticed.
We are grateful for this recognition of our work. We salute IDI Toronto for the power of its work and the example it sets.
Thank you.
IDI Toronto created this great video celebrating Maytree, enjoy:
View more of the IDI Toronto annual Dialogue and Friendship dinner.
Related:
Video has become an increasingly important tool in our work. We’re able to tell better stories. And we can capture events so you can watch them again, or, if you weren’t able to join us, watch them for the first time.
Here, then, are our most watched videos from 2012 on the Maytree and Cities of Migration channels:
Maytree
- Tips for a Successful Mentoring Relationship
- Five Good Ideas with Sherri Torjman: Policy Lessons
- Shaping the future: Canada’s rapidly changing immigration policies with Naomi Alboim
- Setting up a Mentoring Program
- The Benefits of Mentoring
- Why do diversity and inclusion matter to Maytree staff?
- Mike Lipkin: Forging Ahead: How To Inspire Others on the Cusp Of Change
- Five Good Ideas: Campaigning for Social Change with Dave Meslin
- How to Hire Skilled Immigrants?
- Five Good Ideas with Peter Sloly: Public Safety, Service, Trust & Value
Cities of Migration
- Narratives of Belonging – London, Paris, Lisbon
- Cities of Migration Welcome Video
- In Conversation with Suketu Mehta: Turning Immigrants into New Yorkers
- Webinar – Living Together: City Strategies for Social Inclusion
- Conversation with Rokhaya Diallo on Minorities in France – in French
- Interview with José Ramón Fernández-Peña, Welcome Back Initiative
- Conversation with Susan Marjetti, CBC
- Webinar: All Kids are VIPs: Immigrant Integration at School
- Webinar: Count Us In: Building Citizenship through Participation
- Marketplace of Good Ideas in Immigrant Integration, Seattle, US
Thanks for watching! We look forward to bringing you more interesting videos this year.
ALLIES research initiative, Global Talent for SMEs: Finding Solutions, is bearing fruit through creative action! Our research examined ways to better understand the hiring needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and to develop strategies on how to better support them in attracting immigrant talent. The study made several recommendations on how to connect SMEs with unemployed or underemployed skilled immigrants.
As a direct result of this research project, new and innovative strategies and programs are being initiated to connect SMEs and immigrant talent in Calgary, Halifax and Toronto with support from the RBC Foundation.
The Calgary Region Immigrant Employment Council (CRIEC) has launched Mentoring Circles – a group mentoring program that will match over 20 mentors from SMEs with more than 70 skilled immigrants across different sectors and occupations. Each SME will be mentoring three skilled immigrants at their workplace. This will give the mentees a hands-on opportunity to understand workplace culture and communications.
The Greater Halifax Partnership will host speed interviewing sessions with 20 SMEs and over 40 skilled immigrants. This cost-effective and efficient model will connect potential employees with SMEs that are in need of talent. Candidates and employers who make the right connections during the rapid-fire discussions will have the option of moving on to a more traditional full-length interview.
The Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council (TRIEC) will develop an innovative outreach strategy to connect SMEs with immigrant talent. This will be done by connecting with employer partners who provide business services to SMEs and through government programs that provide funding and services to such enterprises. TRIEC will support this outreach with the creation of targeted marketing materials with messaging that speaks more directly to the needs of these employers. Once connected to SMEs, customized strategies will be implemented to meet their needs. Overall, the project will test various models of engagement, and those that are successful will be expanded and integrated into TRIEC’s ongoing employer outreach work to engage even more SMEs in hiring skilled immigrant talent.
Related links:
- Global Talent for SMEs: Building Bridges and Making Connections
- Attracting, Retaining and Integrating Skilled Immigrants: An Analysis of Canada’s Leading Employers (PDF)
- Hireimmigrants.ca - Supporting the recruitment, retention and promotion of skilled immigrants
- Immigrant Employment Councils (IECs) across Canada
