Maytree Conversations

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:

1. Immigration policy should be based primarily on long-term social and economic objectives and a commitment to citizenship.
2. Immigration policy should be evidence-based, comprehensive, fair and respectful of human rights.
3. Immigration policy should be developed through public and stakeholder engagement, meaningful federal-provincial-territorial consultation, and democratic processes.
4. 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

Slowing down for summer? Think again.  If you’ve got a stake or interest in Canada’s immigration and financial systems, you’ve got a month to make sure your voice is heard.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) has just launched two online consultations. While it appears that CIC will also be consulting directly with some select “stakeholders”, don’t wait to get your input into them.

2013 Immigration Levels Planning: Public and Stakeholder Consultation

This is a broad consultation, mainly in the form of an online survey. We’ll be adding our comments, ideas and solutions to this consultation. In the coming weeks, we’ll share with you what we think matters and what some of our ideas and solutions are.

According to the CIC website:

“The consultations will explore a number of issues related to three main questions:

1. What is the appropriate level of immigration for Canada? Should the number of immigrants per year change?
2. What is the appropriate distribution – or mix – between the number of economic immigrants, family class immigrants and refugees?
3. Economic immigration is recognized as a key immigration objective for Canada’s long-term economic growth. What role can immigration play to support Canada’s economy?”

Be sure to read their background document, which provides more information about what they’re looking for.

And, be sure to complete their online survey by August 31, 2012.

Stakeholder and Public Consultations on Improving the Immigrant Investor Program

This consultation is definitely more specialized. The focus is on soliciting feedback from organizations/institutions, rather than individuals. It’s also a much more open ended consultation than the online survey for the Immigration Levels Planning consultation.

They’re seeking “policy paper/recommendations” and asking for “your name and/or the name of the organization which you represent with your submission.” If you have an interest in how Canada moves forward with immigrant investment, you’ll want to ensure that your voice is heard.

According to CIC a “summary report on the consultations will be available on the CIC website in fall 2012 or winter 2013″. In this case “CIC will publish the responses received through this consultation process.”

This seems to reflect their expectation that organizations will make the bulk of the submissions.

Once again, be sure to read their backgrounder.

In this case, you can submit your policy paper/recommendations by email to: consultations@cic.gc.ca by September 4, 2012.

Wanted: Canadians’ Ideas for the 2013 Budget

In another very important consultation, Samara Canada is promoting the House of Common’s Standing Committee on Finance’s pre-budget consultation.

From Samara:

“The window to provide your ideas and comments for the 2013 budget is quickly closing with a deadline of August 2nd. It’s simple to register and the Committee has provided questions to guide responses (albeit limited to 350 words). If they like your ideas, you may find yourself discussing them with the Committee’s members!”

If you do get picked to testify before the Committee, you may want to read up on Testifying Before Parliamentary Committees.

Related links:

• For a complete list of consultations currently under way in other federal departments, please visit the Government of Canada’s Consulting With Canadians website.

Have we missed any other consultations you know of? Let us know in the comments below!

If you work in or follow Canada’s immigration sector, your head might be reeling a bit from the recent number of substantive announcements, press releases and comments coming from Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

TVO’s The Agenda recently produced two segments on the proposed changes to Canada’s immigration system and they are well worth your time to watch.

First up: Jason Kenney – Bottom Line Immigration

Overall, this interview brings together a collection of what he’s been saying and has been previously announced. It’s useful as it’s all in one place!  A few interesting points made by Minister Kenney:

• High numbers of temporary foreign workers:
• A high proportion of work permits issued go to foreign students, working holiday/youth program, highly skilled workers here for a short-term stay – not the low-skill, seasonal agricultural workers, as people believe
• Backlog
• He wants to reduce the current backlog to a working inventory in 18 months
• Citizenship by birth – it seems he is suggesting that permanent residents and citizens would still confer citizenship to their children born in Canada
• What does he mean by “transformational change”?
• Moving from a slow, rigid and passive system to fast, flexible and proactive system with better economic results for newcomers
• There are large and growing labour shortages – the bad outcomes are a paradox
• Linking immigrants with the jobs that are available and bringing people in who can work at their skill level
• Economic need is the primary function of immigration, and there is consensus about this
• He also speaks to the issue of putting skilled immigration decisions in the hands of the private sector

Next: The Debate – Realigning Canadian Immigration

This segment featured:

• Audrey Macklin, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
• Arthur Sweetman, Professor of Economics, McMaster University
• Phil Triadafilopoulos, Assistant Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto Scarborough
• Francisco Rico-Martinez, Co-Director, FCJ Refugee Centre
• Binoy Thomas, Editor-in-Chief, The Weekly Voice

Overall, there was a good amount of disagreement about whether changes being proposed are good, bad, or if they even represent real changes. A few interesting points:

• There was some debate over whether these changes are really transformational, or just new expressions of existing trends in immigration.
• These are just continuations of trends we’ve seen since the 1960s and 1980s (Triadafilopoulos)
• Major concerns expressed by panel:
• It’s a move towards, temporary, conditional, provisional status (Macklin)
• It’s changing the culture and ethics of immigration, e.g. Rico-Martinez predicted move to English-speaking source countries and those where credentials likely to be recognized here
• Changes to selection/character of new arrivals will have the most negative impact on those who are one or two steps ahead of them (e.g. recent-ish newcomers). (Sweetman)
• It’s increasing the demonization of newcomers – “bogus” refugees, marriage “fraudsters”, useless to the economy (Macklin)
• Generally positive on admission of mid-skilled workers (trades)
• The romantic myths – about seeking a better life, about selecting country based on ability to sponsor parents and grandparents – are not true. People want a better job. They want their spouse and children only. (Thomas)

Of special note is Arthur Sweetman’s answer to the following question (around 23:30 in the video): Will these changes improve outcomes for Canadians who are already here, and the immigrants who hope to be here?

“Changes, if/when implemented, will help new immigrants who arrive. But whether they’ll help newcomers who are already here is a very different question, and it’s far less clear what will happen.

“As you give more authority, more power to employers, it could be that that increases competition between people who are already here and people who are arriving, especially on the temporary foreign worker side. And it could well be that there is some bidding down of wages for people existing in Canada by competition from new immigrants and from temporary foreign workers.

“Of course, for people who have been here for a long time, or people who were born in Canada, that competition is minimal. The main people who seem to experience competition from new immigrants are the people one or two steps ahead of them in the queue. That is to say, people most similar to them.

“So, it’s not entirely clear that if you give employers new powers that it will be positive for everybody. It might well be for some people in society, people, to use a technical term, who are ‘complements in production’ to the new immigrants, they’re going to benefit. But the people who are ‘substitutes in production’ for the new immigrants, they might well feel some negative consequences.

“We don’t know if that’s going to happen or not, but it might.”

His answer echoes Ratna’s recent Globe and Mail OpEd: “While we look forward to a new immigrant tomorrow, we must keep in mind the immigrant of today.”

Related links:

• Top 10 Canadian Immigration Stories of 2011
• Naomi Alboim – What does the future hold? Recent changes in Canadian immigration
• A reflection on immigration policy: two years after Adjusting the Balance

With files from Bonnie Mah, part of Maytree’s Policy team

Immigration policy in Canada is complex and is driven by both federal and provincial interests. At the 2011 ALLIES Mentoring Conference, Naomi Alboim, a leading expert in the field and Maytree Fellow, shed light on current trends in Canadian immigration, shared insights on foreign qualification recognition, and suggested potential new directions for mentoring.

According to Naomi, a dramatic sea change in Canada’s immigration system, policies and priorities is under way. There is a need for real public debate about what kind of country we want to be and what kind of immigration policy best leads us there.

Presentation

Find out more about the conference on the ALLIES site.

Related links:

• A reflection on immigration policy: two years after Adjusting the Balance
• Read Adjusting the Balance
• Read the Discussion Paper Series

Canada’s new refugee system, to be implemented on December 1, 2011, will require all refugee claimants to attend a disclosure interview before an officer of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) within 15 days of making their claim.

Critiques of the system suggest that refugee claimants will not have time to receive legal advice to prepare for their first interview. “Asking refugee claimants detailed questions about their claim without legal advice or representation is fundamentally a bad idea. Claimants do not understand the refugee definition or refugee procedures,” explains Peter Showler, Director of the Refugee Forum at the University of Ottawa.

The Access to Justice Fund of the Law Foundation of Ontario has given a grant of $350,000 to the University of Ottawa and the Refugee Forum to undertake a project that will help provide refugee claimants with information about a newly created disclosure interview.

The project

Four professors at the University of Ottawa Law School, in conjunction with the Human Rights Research and Education Centre and the Refugee Forum, will:

• draft written information materials on the disclosure interview (that will be evaluated for effectiveness);
• develop workshops for refugee support workers across Canada; and
• develop a website.

Outreach and community engagement will be done through Maytree and other refugee-serving networks, groups, communities and leaders.

Claimants will receive the information about the interview in pamphlet form as well as directly from community refugee support workers who are most likely to engage claimants in that 15-day period before the interview.

The entire project, including contributions from refugee experts and refugee support agencies, is valued at more than a million dollars.

“Although the challenges of the new refugee system are formidable, we are seeing a lot of different agencies and advocates step up to address those challenges,” says Peter. “We are hopeful that the Refugee Assistance project will help to organize and galvanize effective responses to some of the deficiencies in the new refugee system. It is not a complete solution but it is a good start. We are grateful to the Law Foundation for its support.”

Maytree has a long history of working closely with Peter and the Refugee Forum, including direct support towards its establishment, and we’re very pleased to hear of this grant. Most recently, Peter wrote the Maytree report Fast, Fair and Final: Reforming Canada’s Refugee System. He is also a regular and respected commentator on Canada’s immigration and refugee system.

Related links:

• Refugee Forum
• Fast, Fair and Final: Reforming Canada’s Refugee System
• A fast and fair refugee system: a slogan or a reality?

In an article in the July-August 2010 issue of Policy Options, Maytree President Ratna Omidvar asks how the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who arrive each year in Canada fare in the immigration process. She examines the extent to which Canada’s immigration policy succeeds in the short, medium and long terms for both Canada and the immigrants.

Perhaps the best indication of how well Canada does in the medium term is how immigrants themselves describe their feelings of belonging. According to the General Social Survey, 84 percent of immigrants who arrived between 1990 and 2003 reported strong or somewhat strong feelings of belonging in Canada, compared with 85 percent of all Canadians.

Using a number of economic, social and political indicators, she finds that Canada is doing well in the medium and long terms, but must do better in the short term: “Canada’s score on this front is abysmal,” she says. She makes several recommendations to increase the benefits of immigration in the first few years of arrival, notably by strengthening the federal Skilled Worker Program.

Read the article (PDF).