Maytree Conversations

(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:

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?

By Naomi Alboim, Maytree Senior Fellow and Adjunct Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University

When I wrote Adjusting the Balance: Fixing Canada’s Economic Immigration Program, published by Maytree, I argued that the federal government was making incremental changes to immigration policy, which together represented a radical negative shift in immigration policy, without debate, without consultation and without the benefit of a national framework.

Two years later – things are worse, not better.

When we wrote the paper in 2009, the federal government had limited the Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) Program to applicants with experience in 38 occupations or a job offer. We argued that Canada’s dynamic, knowledge-based economy needs a much broader range of occupations and skills. The federal government’s own evaluation of the FSW Program in 2010 (PDF) found that, historically, those immigrants chosen for their human capital have higher incomes than those selected because of their occupation.

Yet, this month the government announced that it would continue to limit applicants to those with job offers or on a list of occupations (now a shorter list of 29). A maximum of 10,000 applications will be considered for processing until July 2012. Within this 10,000 cap, each of the 29 occupations is also capped at 500 applications.

Instead of increasing the number of FSWs, the government has continued to give priority processing to Provincial Nominees and Temporary Foreign Workers, at the expense of the Federal Skilled Worker Program.

In other words, they are continuing to place limits on those selected under the FSW Program despite the fact that they have the highest incomes and best long-term job prospects of all immigrants to Canada.

To its credit, the federal government is reviewing the current point system for Principal Applicants within the FSW Program. They appear to be taking into account the findings of their evaluation, to improve labour market outcomes for these immigrants even further. This could include allotting more points for demonstrated language capacity, youth and experience in the skilled trades, as we recommended in 2009. However, these changes will be for naught if the numbers and proportion of new applicants continue to be reduced and restricted to 29 specific occupations.

As well, there are ongoing concerns with a system that continues to prioritize temporary foreign worker applications.

Most temporary foreign workers arriving to Canada are highly skilled. But, among other concerns, our 2009 report highlighted the problematic growth in the Pilot Project for Occupations Requiring Lower Levels of Formal Training, suggesting that it should be abolished. These workers are filling jobs that aren’t necessarily “temporary” but rather harder to fill, for example in meat packing plants and in hotel janitorial services. Rather than improving the wages and working conditions for these jobs, reaching out to unemployed and under-represented groups already in Canada, or bringing in more family class members and refugees to fill those jobs on a permanent basis, the government has chosen to continue bringing in significant numbers of temporary foreign workers under this “pilot” program.

While they have the right to most of the same protections as other Canadians and permanent residents under provincial employment legislation, temporary foreign workers filling low or unskilled jobs are more vulnerable to abuse because of language barriers, lack of knowledge about their rights, limited access to agencies that can help them (especially when they are working in remote parts of Canada), and inadequate enforcement of employment legislation. Further, temporary foreign workers are not eligible for federally funded settlement services.

Regulatory changes effective April 2011 introduced penalties for employers who exploit temporary foreign workers but they still do not address the root problems of this program. Instead, they rely on vulnerable workers themselves to initiate complaints who are unaware of their rights and fear loss of employment or deportation. The four-year time limit for temporary foreign workers to legally remain in Canada serves to penalize them further. It also serves to keep them in limbo for a long period of time, with no access to services or permanent residency, and the additional rights and protections that come with that status.

A dramatic sea change in Canada’s immigration system, policies and priorities is under way, including:

• a significant reduction in the number of sponsored parents and grandparents to be admitted to Canada;
• a delay in the awarding of permanent resident status to sponsored spouses with a concomitant withholding of rights and access to services, resulting in increased vulnerability;
• recently re-tabled legislation proposing that refugee claimants be placed in detention for one year if they arrive by “irregular” methods to Canada;
• the legislation also proposes the draconian treatment of claimants who are determined to be bona fide refugees despite their “irregular” arrival (including delayed access to travel documents, permanent residence status, and family reunification); and
• a reduction in federal funding for settlement programming.

All of this suggests 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.

Related links:

• Read Adjusting the Balance
• Read the Discussion Paper Series

Naomi Alboim – a Senior Fellow at Maytree and adjunct professor and chair of the Policy Forum at the School of Policy Studies at Queen’s University.

Maytree’s yearly Policy Insights document presents policy proposals prepared by Maytree, its partners and grantees. These recommendations make up the three important “I”s of public policy: ideas, instruments, and investments. They each identify a powerful idea to improve the life of Canadians, the instruments which will be effective in creating that improvement, and the investments that must be made to operationalize the instruments. These recommendations build on the power and potential of public services, and the resiliency of Canadians. You can read a summary of recommendations and download the complete collection of Policy Insights in PDF format. Please share and distribute to your networks.

Immigrants come to Canada in one of three streams: economic, family reunification and humanitarian. The majority arrive through the economic stream. This stream includes those selected as federal skilled workers, as provincial nominees, as members of the business class or as part of the Canadian Experience Class.

In the past, most economic immigrants coming to Canada were part of the Federal Skilled Worker Program, which requires that all principal applicants be assessed for admission on the basis of a points system. But since 2002, the number of skilled worker principal applicants has declined relative to other economic classes, despite the fact that those selected under the Federal Skilled Worker Program continue to have the highest incomes and best long-term job prospects of all immigrants to Canada.

Rather than expanding the Federal Skilled Worker Program, the federal government has encouraged the growth of other programs, particularly provincial nominee programs and the Temporary Foreign Worker Program – essentially delegating the responsibility of selection to provinces and employers.

Selecting immigrants who will become future citizens of Canada is arguably one of the most important roles that a national government can play. The federal government should rethink its strategy and refocus its efforts on the proven and successful Federal Skilled Worker Program.

Eliminate the “Low Skill Pilot Project” for temporary foreign workers

Temporary foreign workers who are recruited to fill low-skilled jobs are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, particularly if they are not provided with the rights and services available to permanent residents. The “Low Skill Pilot Project” allows temporary workers to remain in Canada for up to four years with no access to federal services, significant limitations to their rights, and few avenues to permanent residence.

The “Low Skill Pilot Project” runs the risk of becoming Canada’s version of the European Guest Workers’ program with all its difficulties. Therefore, the “Low Skill Pilot Project” for temporary foreign workers should be eliminated as soon as possible.

To increase the pool of workers to fill low-skilled jobs on an ongoing basis, employers should make these jobs more attractive to people already in Canada, whether immigrants or Canadian-born. In addition, Citizenship and Immigration Canada should increase family class and refugee admissions to provide more labour force participants who, as permanent residents, have rights and access to services. Increasing points in the Federal Skilled Worker Program for tradespeople, and those with validated job offers, will also broaden the pool of workers.

Until the “Low Skill Pilot Project” is eliminated, those temporary workers in Canada who arrived under the pilot should be granted permanent residence to avoid the growth of an undocumented population living on the margins of society, facing increased risks of exploitation, and unable to fully participate in all aspects of Canadian life.

Further reading:

• Policy in Focus, Issue 10: Abolish the Low-skilled Temporary Foreign Worker Program
• Discussion Paper – The “Pilot” for recruiting temporary foreign workers for low-skilled jobs should be abolished

Naomi Alboim – a Senior Fellow at Maytree and adjunct professor and chair of the Policy Forum at the School of Policy Studies at Queen’s University.

Maytree’s yearly Policy Insights document presents policy proposals prepared by Maytree, its partners and grantees. These recommendations make up the three important “I”s of public policy: ideas, instruments, and investments. They each identify a powerful idea to improve the life of Canadians, the instruments which will be effective in creating that improvement, and the investments that must be made to operationalize the instruments. These recommendations build on the power and potential of public services, and the resiliency of Canadians. You can download the complete collection of Policy Insights in PDF format. Please share and distribute to your networks.

Since February 27, 2008, only those immigrants with job offers, or with experience in a limited number of identified occupations determined to be in demand (now 29 occupations) are eligible to apply for permanent residence under the Federal Skilled Worker Program. This may have been done to limit the number of new applications to be processed, but it is counter-productive to the longer-term success of the immigration program and the need to select individuals who can adapt to changing labour market conditions.

A recent evaluation of the Federal Skilled Worker Program found that the occupational selection criteria in place before the introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) were not effective, and that the longer-term incomes of principal applicants are higher when they are selected on the basis of their human capital (i.e., language skills, education levels, age, etc.). Therefore the restrictive occupation list in the Federal Skilled Worker Program should be eliminated.

Adjust the point system in the skilled worker class.

Although the human-capital points system is more effective than previous occupation-based models, there are some additional ways that it could be enhanced.

Give more points for knowledge of one of Canada’s official languages
Knowledge of English or French is the single biggest predictor of labour market success and should be recognized as such by increasing the number of points allocated for language knowledge, as determined by standardized tests administered overseas.

Give fewer points for work experience
Although work experience is a key component of human capital, studies have shown that work experience achieved abroad is discounted by a factor of 70 percent in the Canadian labour market. In this context, it does not make sense to continue to give high marks for work experience outside Canada.

Give more points for younger applicants
Canada has an aging population and faces current and future skill and labour market shortages. While immigration will not solve all of the problems associated with population aging, selecting younger immigrants could result in immigrants who contribute to the labour force for
longer periods.

Award more points to those applicants trained as tradespeople
The current emphasis on education is important because it is expected that most of Canada’s future jobs will require some form of postsecondary training. However, the current point system undervalues those with training in the trades even though job opportunities for skilled trade workers abound.

Further reading:

• Summary of recent evaluation- Results Are in: Federal Skilled Worker Program Works
• Discussion Paper 1 – Six Ways to Improve the Federal Skilled Worker Program
• Adjusting the balance 2009
  • Full report summary, video interviews with Naomi Alboim
  • Webinar recording from 2009

Naomi discusses her 2009 report

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).