[lg policy] Canada: A conversation about immigration

Sat May 5 13:32:43 UTC 2012

Q&A: Ratna Omidvar

A conversation about immigration

The Ottawa Citizen May 4, 2012

In the past several weeks and months, the Conservative government has
announced a flurry of changes to immigration policy, including plans
to expand the temporary foreign worker program, introduce stricter
language requirements for skilled workers and eliminate federal
health-care benefits for recognized refugees. Ratna Omidvar, president
of the private Maytree Foundation, a Toronto organization that funds
programs and research on equity, integration and leadership, believes
the “hurly-burly” of the latest policy announcements mask profound
changes in the way Canada handles immigration. Louisa Taylor spoke to
Omidvar in Ottawa this week at a forum on immigration sponsored by the
Institute for Research on Public Policy. Here are some excerpts from
their conversation.

Q. Immigration policy announcements are coming thick and fast these
days. What do you make of the changes as a whole?

A. There is no doubt some of the changes need to be made. I do
congratulate this government on being muscular on long-standing
problems — the backlog for applicants, for example, and language
requirements. When things are not working, it’s a great time to do
business differently. But we all need to be engaged in this
conversation, and these changes have not had the benefit of a full
public consultation.

The big question is, why do we have immigration? Because we want to
raise the standard of living for Canadians? Because we want to address
declining population rates? To meet short-term labour market needs?
For reputational needs, as the best-functioning multicultural society
in the world? What role do our humanitarian and compassionate
commitments play, and our historic commitment to family reunification?
By focusing almost exclusively on the skilled immigrant, we are
leaching away support for the other classes and I worry about that.

As a nation, let’s have a discussion and agree on why we have
immigration. Then we can agree on how we should conduct the business
of immigration, and be sure we meet our short-term and long-term goals
and achieve a balance between the two. We need to get it right.

I am also a little bit concerned about the discourse that seems to be
emanating from these changes. There’s this dichotomy between the
so-called good immigrant and the bad immigrant and I think we need to
be concerned about that.

Q. Who is the “good” immigrant and who is the “bad” immigrant?

A. Right now the good immigrant is the one who has the language, the
education, the skills and the job offer. The not-so-good immigrant is
the sponsored grandparent who is not going to contribute to the
economy, or the refugee claimant.

There’s very little understanding that refugee flows work differently
than the other immigration streams. People have this perception that
the real refugees are those in the camps and the ones who come to our
borders claiming protection are fraudulent and jumping the queue.
Refugees have found different ways of seeking protection and we are
signatories of international agreements that require us to extend
protection to refugees, whether they stand in a queue in Canada or in
a camp overseas. Saying the real refugees are the ones in camps
oversimplifies the reality.

Q. What are the short-term and long-term priorities in immigration,
and how are they in conflict?

A. An example of a short-term outcome would be the hospitality
industry is desperately short of service workers, so we bring in
temporary workers. Temporary workers by definition will not stay. But
our history shows that people who stay will work hard and later on
their children will succeed. An over-concentration on short-term
labour market widgets removes our focus from creating long-term
citizens. In one approach, we are working as headhunters and in the
other we are seeking to build a nation.

Also, if you’re thinking in the long term, you need to be bringing in
people who will be able to settle themselves, fit into the community,
and shift and move with the vagaries of the employment market.
Research has shown us that it’s unwise to bring in individuals whose
skills have a tight fit to a specific market. We brought in huge
numbers of IT professionals and then the market for them went bust.

The human capital approach is the one that works best over a longer
time frame — people who have education, who speak the language, who
are able to adapt with the changes in the environment. They are the
people who will do well. And because they have a high value for
education, their children will succeed. The children of immigrants are
overall better educated than Canadian-born. They are the lawyers and
doctors of the future.

Q. How does immigration policy impact the prospects of the second generation?

A. Children are so susceptible to the reality of their parents. If
they see their parents being accepted and being integrated, they too
feel a greater sense of attachment to the country. There’s a study
that says visible minority children seem less attached to Canada’s
institutions partly because they feel the rejection of their parents
by institutions of employment and political participation very
strongly. So the more we include the parents, the better head start we
give the children, and the more the children become instruments of
integration for their parents. My best environmental education was not
from books or newspapers, it was from my kids who came home and told
me I should recycle in this way. Children become incredible
ambassadors for Canadian values.

Q. Many studies show that economic success for immigrants is closely
connected to language ability, and it seems to be common sense to
require that newcomers be able to speak one of the official languages.
But you’re concerned about some of the practical implications of
increasing language requirements.

A. Language is such an indicator of success that we have to make it a
priority, but there will be implications and I wonder if the people of
Canada are aware of these choices. If you look at Australia’s example,
raising the bar on language changed the source countries of immigrants
for them. I believe it will also change the mix of countries Canada
will be bringing immigrants from. We’ll take in more from the United
States, the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa. We’ll take fewer
from China, from Brazil and Russia, possible fewer from India.

Just when these countries are raising their heads to be leaders in the
global economy, we will be shutting the doors to immigrants who can be
ambassadors for Canada. Secondly, we will be less multicultural and
less diverse. Multiculturalism is one of the winning brands that
Canada has. This is a conversation we have not had as a country.

I have proposed to the government that they have some flexibility in
the language category so that people who may not speak exactly the
level required but who have demonstrated a capacity to learn and that
they are working on it, that we have some flexibility for them. Part
of the issue is we’re going down the road of more and more rigid and
codified requirements. If you go back in history, the people who
succeeded often came here with nothing but the value of hard work and
the drive to succeed.

Q. Do you have any theories about the lack of public debate on immigration?

A. I’m not quite sure why it is, except that the government is in a
hurry. How it can be changed is when institutions like the Institute
for Research on Public Policy, or newspapers like yours and others,
ask people to participate in this conversation, and when people make
sure their parliamentarians hear about it.

ltaylor at ottawacitizen.com

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ratna+Omidvar/6567482/story.html#ixzz1u0B9oCzf

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list