Statistics Canada: Patterns and Determinants of Immigrants’ Sense of Belonging to Canada and Their Source Country

statscan-gss-belongingImportant study by Statistics Canada and John Berry from the General Social Survey confirming high levels of belonging to Canada:

The results show that 93% of immigrants had a very strong or a strong sense of belonging to Canada. Furthermore, a strong sense of belonging to the receiving country is not necessarily incompatible with a sense of belonging to the source country. About 69% of all immigrants had strong sense of belonging to both Canada and their source country (the integrated belonging profile). Another 24% of immigrants had a strong sense of belonging to Canada and a weak sense of belonging to their source country (the national belonging profile). In comparison, very few (3%) had a strong sense of belonging to their source country but a weak sense of belonging to Canada (the source-country belonging profile); and very few (4%) had a weak sense of belonging to both Canada and their source country (the weak belonging profile).

Compared with immigrants in the integrated belonging profile, those in the national belonging profile were characterized by lower levels of civil liberty and life satisfaction in their source countries and by more exposure to Canadian society. Younger age at immigration, more years of residence in Canada, and speaking English or French at home are all significant predictors of the national belonging profile.

The source-country belonging profile was characterized by a high average level of life satisfaction in the source country, older age at immigration, shorter stay in Canada, and perceived discrimination. The weak belonging profile was relatively more prevalent among spouses and dependants of economic principal applicants, or immigrants who came to join their relatives in Canada, and among those who were unemployed, never married, or had very low income.

Overall, this study finds that the overwhelming majority of immigrants had a strong sense of belonging to Canada, with or without a strong sense of belonging to their source country. Source-country attributes were as important as immigration entry status and post-migration experience in affecting immigrants’ sense of belonging to Canada and their source country.

Source: Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series: Patterns and Determinants of Immigrants’ Sense of Belonging to Canada and Their Source Country

Ottawa to ease path to permanent residency for skilled workers, students

express-entry-draws-2015-001Significant changes (the above chart shows the number of invitations and minimum score for all draws to date before the changes announced this week):

The federal government is changing its electronic immigration-selection system to improve the chances of international students and some high-skilled foreign workers to become permanent residents.

The changes to the Express Entry system, which scores and ranks applicants based on factors such as age, language ability, education and work experience and then matches them with Canadian employers, will take effect on Nov. 19. The changes announced in a news release on Monday will make it easier for some highly skilled workers already in the country and international students who completed their postsecondary education in Canada to get an invitation to apply for permanent residence.

“This is a re-balancing of the points for permanent residency,” said Danielle Lovell, a Vancouver-based immigration consultant. “I think the re-balancing … is an effort to continue to have Express Entry be about high-skilled workers.”

Under the Express Entry system introduced by the previous Conservative government, employers who offer jobs to foreigners must get government approval through a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA), which requires them to prove they could not find a Canadian to do the job. While the LMIA was meant to target abusers of the low-skill temporary foreign worker program, Canadian tech firms had to go through the same time-consuming process even when the only people with the required skills were outside Canada.

The upcoming changes to Express Entry reduce the importance of obtaining an LMIA for high-skilled workers. Some workers already in Canada on a temporary LMIA-exempt work permit and who want to stay permanently will no longer need a LMIA to get job-offer points in the Express Entry system. This includes people working in Canada under the terms of the North American free-trade agreement and workers in Canada temporarily under an intra-company transfer. Applicants must have been working in Canada for at least a year to apply.

These workers will also be in a better position to compete against Express Entry applicants who are still required to obtain an LMIA, as the number of points given for the assessment will be reduced. Previously, job offers supported by an LMIA were worth 600 points; as of Nov. 19, the same offers will be worth either 200 points for senior manager positions or 50 points for all other jobs.

The changes are aimed at making it easier for highly skilled foreign workers to become permanent residents.

…The Canadian tech sector has pressed Mr. McCallum to help it obtain much-needed foreign talent. Allen Lau, CEO and co-founder of the online publishing platform Wattpad, said that while the sector is investing in and training local talent, the demand outpaces the Canadian supply.

“Canada’s innovation economy competes on a global scale for top talent. [The] announcement by Minister McCallum makes it easier for high-growth companies like Wattpad to attract skilled workers and remain competitive,” Mr. Lau said. “Minister McCallum heard our concerns and took action.”

Major changes are also on the way for international students hoping to become permanent residents through the Express Entry system. Applicants who obtained a postsecondary degree, diploma or certificate in Canada will be awarded up to 30 additional points. Under the previous system, no points were awarded for this.

“In a competitive system, 30 points can be the difference between being selected and not,” said Noah Turner, a Montreal-based legal adviser.

Finally, applicants will have 90 days to complete their permanent-residence application if they get an invitation from the government, up from 60 days under the previous requirements.

Source: Ottawa to ease path to permanent residency for skilled workers, students – The Globe and Mail

As demographics change, food banks struggle to meet users’ tastes

Interesting – another aspect of our diverse society:

As food banks across Canada struggle to meet an ever-increasing need – up 28 per cent from eight years ago, according to a new report from Food Banks Canada – they also struggle to meet the demands of a user base that is changing demographically, and requesting different and healthier foods.

According to Food Banks Canada’s HungerCount report, 13 per cent of people who used food banks in the past year were immigrants or refugees. As in the case of the Mississauga Muslim Community Centre, many of them were part of the wave of refugees from Syria who settled in Canada in the past year.

These families do receive government support – about $2,500 each month for a family of four, according to Mr. Syed. But in urban areas where housing costs are especially high, such as Toronto, Vancouver and their respective suburbs, much of that winds up going toward rent. The Surrey Food Bank, about an hour outside of Vancouver, saw a 17-per-cent increase in use last year due in large part to Syrian refugees. And the food bank Mr. Syed runs was created in February specifically to address Syrian refugees, who make up about 95 per cent of the user base.

Still, the food Mr. Syed receives from organizations such as the Mississauga Food Bank, which distributes food through dozens of food banks and meal programs across the city, often does not reflect this changing need.

“People have in their heads what they want to donate,” said Jon Davey, the manager of food programs and distribution for the Mississauga Food Bank. The organization receives food not only from members of the public, but also from corporate donors. For Food Banks Canada, which supports a network of over 500 food banks across the country, its major supporters include companies such as Campbell’s, General Mills, PepsiCo and Mondelez International.

“We can ask for rice and lentils and tuna until we’re blue in the face – it works to a degree,” Mr. Davey said. “But pasta, soup and snacks are three things that are constantly filling up.”

Ethnicity and culture are not the only types of change that food banks face. Increasingly, Mr. Davey said, food banks such as his are dealing with the effects of an aging population, as well as an increase in young people receiving food assistance. More and more universities and colleges have begun offering food-bank services on their campuses.

Another major shift Mr. Davey said he’s seen is an increased demand for healthier, fresher options – mirroring the concerns of the general public about healthier eating.

Over the past year, he said the organization has worked with dietitians to better track its food supply to ensure items cover all four food groups.

He also said that he regularly refuses large quantities of unhealthy donations from both private and corporate donors. Others have done the same. An Ottawa food bank made headlines in 2014 after refusing to accept donations of items such as Kraft Dinner and Dunkaroos. That announcement sparked some criticism, with some questioning whether the Ottawa organization was being overly picky.

Mr. Davey acknowledged these concerns, but emphasized the difficult position his organization and others like it are in. “I’m not trying to disparage the donations we get, because we’re extremely happy people think about us at all,” he said.

Still, he added, “just because people are lower income and need to use the services doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to eat healthy, and doesn’t mean they don’t want to eat healthy.”

Source: As demographics change, food banks struggle to meet users’ tastes – The Globe and Mail

Catching up

The main story over the past few weeks has of course been the US presidential election and Trump winning the presidency. Far too much commentary both before and after to follow, with the full consequences to be seen once Trump selects his Cabinet and other senior appointments, and his initial acts in office (the appointment of Steve Bannon of Breitbart as chief strategist is hardly encouraging).

As chance would have it, we were visiting the Dachau concentration camp near Munich on voting day. While my knowledge of the Holocaust is generally quite good from books, film and Holocaust centres, along with my time as Canadian head of delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, nothing can bring the horror and scale of horror than visiting an actual site.

In the film Denial (well worth seeing), about Deborah Lipstadt’s legal battle against Holocaust denier David Irving, her lawyer takes time during his visit to Auschwitz to pace the  the camp, as he needs to come to grips with its scale  as part of his preparation of his strategy for the case.

But one of the more interesting moments in the current context was our guide’s discussion of the rise of Hitler and how both the political leadership and institutions failed to prevent his rise. While always aware of the perils of Godwin’s Law, there are some uncomfortable parallels with the rise of Trump, reinforced with Republican control of both houses of congress, and the related authoritarian and undemocratic tendencies among some.

Of course, one of the stories making the rounds is the degree to which Americans vowing to move to Canada will actually do so. Some articles that provide a good selection of immigration experts and lawyers essentially say unlikely (Don’t expect to just pack up and move to Canada, Americans told, Americans eye move to Canada, but immigration not so easy, and in the New York Times, As Americans Look North to Flee Donald Trump, Canada Peers Back in Worry, where I am quoted).

Other news items that I have been following include:

Immigration levels for 2017: Interesting, in contrast to the expectations of much higher immigration levels based on comments by the Minister and the recommendations of the Barton committee of 450,000 per year, the end result was more modest: a new baseline of 300,000, and increase of about 15 percent compared to the previous government. Moreover, there is some rebalancing towards the economic stream (58 percent compared to 54 percent in 2016, but still lower than the 63 percent under the Conservatives).

citizenship-data-slides-033There have been a number of articles pro or against a “big Canada” of 100 million by 2100. I am more convinced by the critical pieces, particularly those by Munir Sheikh, How can immigration improve our standard of living? and Tony Keller A supersized Canada is so 20th century.

Diversity of appointments: With the 41 judicial appointments and 28 Senate appointments in 2016, we can see that the government is largely living up to its commitment to improve diversity (56.1 percent women, 4.9 percent visibility minorities, 7.3 percent Indigenous with respect to judges; 57.1 percent women, 21.4 percent visibility minorities, 7.1 Indigenous with respect to Senators), with the government committing to diversity reporting.

Citizenship judge appointments: It appears that, along with other GiC appointments, there have been delays in appointing citizenship judges, with the result that the number of judges available has dropped to 13 from 26 in place September 2015. As C-24 largely reduced the role of judges to presiding over citizenship ceremonies, this likely has less impact than stated in the article, Waiting to become Canadian: Citizenship ceremonies delayed by judge shortage,
compared to the fee increase and other changes  I have flagged (The impact of citizenship fees on naturalization – Policy Options).

Support for immigration and multiculturalism: A series of somewhat contradictory polls and interpretations, starting with Angus Reid, CBC-Angus Reid Institute poll: Canadians want minorities to do more to ‘fit in’, where roughly two-thirds of Canadians believe immigrants should adopt Canadian values while a similar two-thirds believe immigration levels are just about right. Environics Institute’s Focus Canada – Fall 2016 Canadian public opinion about immigration and citizenship 20 year tracking of support for immigration shows little recent change:

Environics Focus Canada 2016

Environics Focus Canada 2016

Nick Nanos’s survey of What makes Canadians proud of their country? has the following results:

“Asked an open-ended question about what made them proud to be Canadians, the top unprompted response was our commitment to equality/equity/social justice (25.2 per cent), followed by our reputation as peacekeepers (19.4 per cent), multiculturalism (12.0 per cent) and respect for others (11.3 per cent).”

All of which helps explain the divergence of positions among Conservative leadership candidates, ranging from those openly playing identity politics (Blaney, Leitch) to those with inclusive approaches (Chong, Obrai, Raitt).

Candice Malcolm continued her obsessive coverage of Minister Monsef (see Jason Ling’s Some Folks Really Want to Deport Maryam Monsef) and the question of birthplace and possible misrepresentation by her mother in her immigration and citizenship applications. Malcolm legitimately asks whether the government is treating her case differently than other such cases, given a number of revocations in what appear to be comparable cases (Lawyers lose battle for moratorium on contentious part of citizenship law).

However, unless I have missed it, Malcolm has remained silent on whether she supports the C-24 changes that removed the previous right to recourse to the Federal Court, without providing any right to a hearing, unlike Farzana Hassan, who objects to the “unfairness of the law” while still questioning Monsef’s story (Monsef shouldn’t be above the law).

Kellie Leitch misses the point about immigration: Vic Satzewich

Worth reading in its entirety. Point regarding some of weaknesses of standardized language testing also relevant to citizenship:

It is gratifying to know that Kellie Leitch has read my book Points of Entry: How Canada’s Visa Officers Decide Who Gets In, holding it up and referring to it in Wednesday night’s Conservative leadership debate and featuring it on her website. She focuses on two of several findings from my research: that visa officers conduct very few face-to-face interviews and that they are under pressure to meet processing targets. But she missed the broader point of the book, which is pro-immigration.

Her interest in creating policy to screen immigrants for Canadian values sounds like a return to a time when visa officers assigned points for what was then called “personal suitability.” But there was little consistency in how immigration officers assigned such points.

Not surprisingly, applicants and their immigration lawyers and consultants appealed refusals because they felt those points were inappropriately assigned and, during the 1980s and 90s, the Federal Court was clogged with hundreds of appeals.

By 2002, the difficulty of defending those appeals was so high that judgments about personal suitability were taken out of the assessment. Senior officials within the immigration department were also uncomfortable with the lack of consistency and transparency by which those points were applied. There is little reason to believe that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada will be better positioned to standardize what they look for when it comes to screening for conformity with “Canadian values.”

Even if it were practical to screen for “Canadian values,” coming up with a universal set of our nation’s values would be impossible.

The French had considerable difficulty doing this in 2009 when Nicholas Sarkozy launched a “national identity” debate. After three months of divisive debate that involved more than 100 townhall-style meetings, no consensus emerged. The only concrete policy recommendation that resulted from the debate was that the French flag ought to be flown in schools.

Likewise, interviewing every applicant for a visa would bring our immigration system to a grinding halt because interviews take time and resources. The immigration processing system is already slow, and to interview the 1.3 million people who apply every year for a visa to test for Canadian values would be a logistical nightmare.

Do I think we need more and better screening of immigrants and should we do more interviews with visa applicants?

In my research I did find it surprising that we do not interview many visa applicants any more. In some cases, more interviews would be useful, but not as a blanket policy, and not as a way to screen for Canadian values.

One place where interviews might be useful is with language assessment. The immigration department has yet to find the perfect mechanism to assess language skills. Today, it uses standardized language tests administered by third parties. Whether a passing grade on such a test gives a true indication of English or French language abilities is of some debate. Language skills make an obvious difference in terms of how successfully individuals make out in the job market and in school. Can interviews with applicants be used to help inform decisions about an individual’s language abilities? Perhaps, but even that has its pitfalls when it comes to transparency and consistency of decision-making.

One thing that the immigration department does not do very well, however, is to prepare newcomers for life in Canada, particularly in terms of how difficult the first few years will be.

We select immigrants for high levels of education and training and they come already prepared to work hard to achieve their dreams, but we do a woefully bad job telling them how difficult it will be to get a job that they are trained to do once in Canada.

Interviews with skilled worker applicants could have value if those interviews focused on giving detailed and practical advice and directions about how to negotiate the credential recognition process and the vagaries of the Canadian job market.

What Ms. Leitch is proposing is a solution in search of a problem. I would encourage her to read more academic research by social scientists, and even “commit sociology.” If she does, she will find that there is considerable evidence that immigrants do actually integrate into Canadian society.

Source: Kellie Leitch misses the point about immigration – The Globe and Mail

And a good interview with Satzewich in iPolitics:

Author cited by Leitch torpedoes her pitch for immigrant ‘values’ screening

Canadian officials preparing for potential flood of Mexican migrants after Trump wins presidency – Politics – CBC News

Appropriate analysis and preparations, along with the note by Lorne Waldman of the need to see exactly what policies a Trump administration enacts (assume this kind of policy work is a focus across government these days):

The federal government is preparing for a potential surge in Mexican migrants coming to Canada after Donald Trump’s election victory, CBC News has learned.

Sources confirm high level meetings took place this week with officials at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and in other departments.

The news comes as Canada prepares to loosen rules for Mexicans to enter the country by lifting a visa requirement on Dec. 1. That restriction has been in place since 2009.

Talks on a plan to cope with a possible spike in asylum-seekers have been ongoing for some time, but were accelerated this week after Trump’s surprise win.

Trump campaigned on promises to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and to swiftly deport undocumented workers and illegal residents.

Lawyer predicts ‘significant impact’

Toronto-based immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman expects an increase in refugee claims from Mexicans once the visa requirement is lifted. He also predicts a “significant impact” from Trump’s election.

“The government was very concerned about the potential for a large number of new claims coming from Mexico, and that’s why they hesitated for so long before announcing that they were going to remove the visa,” he said.

“And that announcement was made before anyone knew that Donald Trump, with his very different immigration policies from those of the current administration, won the election.”

But Waldman cautioned it’s too early to tell exactly how the situation may unfold, saying it will depend on whether Trump follows through on his campaign pledges.

Source: Canadian officials preparing for potential flood of Mexican migrants after Trump wins presidency – Politics – CBC News

Douglas Todd: Canada’s public guardians have failed Vancouver [investor immigration and housing]

Good long read by Todd on some of the major policy and operational failures that have contributed to housing prices in Vancouver:

The main dereliction of duty by Immigration Canada has been its refusal, until it was too late, to properly assess the Business Immigrant Program (BIP).

Started in the mid-1980s, the BIP has arguably been the most crucial factor driving up Metro housing prices. UBC geographer David Ley estimates it has brought more than 400,000 well-off immigrants to Metro.

The first problem with the BIP, say Ley and others, is that it had extremely low standards.

It began by requiring an immigrant entrepreneur to invest only $150,000 in a business and hire one Canadian. The U.S., at the same time, was demanding business immigrants invest at least four times more money and hire at least 10 Americans.

One of the few high-level government officials to sound a warning about BIP applicants, whose first choice is to pour money into “safe” real estate, was David Mulroney, Canada’s former ambassador to China.

Asia-Pacific-trade boosters like Yuen Pau Woo, recently named a senator, have long said Canada should do everything it can to attract rich immigrants, calling them “the best and brightest.”

But Mulroney counters that liberally handing out passports “devalues the importance of Canadian citizenship.” And Justin Fung, with HALT (Housing Action for Local Taxpayers), concurs: “We’re practically giving away passports for free, and little benefit.”

In the meantime, Immigration Canada officials have not properly monitored the BIP. Their lax approach went on for decades as wealthy trans-nationals avoided being tested for compliance with even the BIP’s low standards.

A forensic auditor for the World Bank ended up called Canada’s BIP “a massive sham.”

The Conservatives finally killed it in 2014, which Fung called “years too late.”

Fung also worries a form of the BIP lives on in Quebec’s stand-alone immigrant-investor plan, which each year brings thousands more moneyed arrivals to Vancouver.

In addition, the federal Liberals are considering reviving a pilot program similar to the BIP.

Canada Revenue Agency

It gets worse.

While Canadian passports were being sold at bargain-basement prices, the Canada Revenue Agency has been ignoring another red flag — that many BIP newcomers and other owners of Metro mansions have been reporting strangely low incomes.

Even though the tax department had been warned, the politicians responsible did not want to face the reality that thousands of BIP investors and others were hiding most of their assets, which should have been taxed.

Officials have not wanted to admit to the widespread phenomenon of “astronaut” fathers who leave wives and student children in expensive homes in Metro to return to their homelands to do business — without declaring their offshore assets to Canadian tax officials.

An early attempt to bring in a national law requiring residents of Canada to disclose their foreign assets was opposed and not only by centre-right politicians, says Ley. B.C.’s centre-left NDP government of the 1990s also expressed concern such a law would be “culturally insensitive” and decrease B.C.’s attractiveness as a place for migrants to invest.

And even when a national foreign-assets disclosure tax law was finally brought into effect, it has often gone unenforced.

In the midst of Vancouver’s escalating housing crisis, in 2014, former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper chopped 262 experienced tax auditors.

One of the first people to publicly expose ongoing tax avoidance by the trans-national elite was former Richmond Mayor Greg Halsey-Brandt.

In 2015 Halsey-Brandt directed Postmedia to data showing residents of one of Richmond’s most expensive neighbourhoods, where most of the population is foreign-born, were reporting poverty-level incomes — and thus putting themselves in position to pay virtually no taxes.

Another revelation came in the fall of 2015 when statistician Jens von Bergmann and UBC geographer Dan Hiebert independently unveiled census statistics showing high portions of mansion owners in ritzy Vancouver neighbourhoods were declaring almost no income.

The figures from von Bergmann and Hiebert showed several neighbourhoods, in which houses were selling in the $5-million to $7-million range, that were generally populated by immigrants, particularly ethnic Chinese.

In 2016, South China Morning Post journalist Ian Young broke open the tax department’s failures. The Hong-Kong-based newspaper revealed Canada Revenue Agency officials had been aware for decades of such tax-avoidance schemes.

CRA officials had admitted, in internal documents, they were not willing to devote auditors to catching these “highly sophisticated” tax-avoiding schemes by Metro Vancouver mansion owners and others.

‘They were scared,” the source said, “of being labelled racist.’”

In addition, a common real-estate scam has gone largely undetected as a direct result of the failure of Canada’s tax and immigration departments to share their information.

Because of the absence of cooperation, many Metro house owners have been avoiding paying capital gains taxes. They have been falsely claiming they are residents of Canada for tax and immigration purposes when they are actually mostly living outside the country and not disclosing their foreign income.

Unfortunately, it turns out that Canada’s immigration and tax departments have not been the only ones turning a blind eye to such unfairness and cheating in Vancouver’s exploding housing market.

Source: Douglas Todd: Canada’s public guardians have failed Vancouver | Vancouver Sun

Advisory group’s economic blueprint calls for dramatic increase in immigration, foreign investment, infrastructure bank

The focus on immigration of note. 450,000 would be about 1.3 percent (current level for 2016 is 305,000).

The upcoming immigration levels plan, expected next month, will provide an indication whether or not the government will support this recommendation and if so, to what extent, as there appears to be a lively debate within the government.

Equally significant will be the mix of economic, family and refugee classes. The report’s recommendation essentially means that any increase should be with respect to the economic class of immigrants, not family or refugee class:

A group of external advisers to Finance Minister Bill Morneau will call on the government this week to dramatically increase the level of immigration and foreign investment coming in to Canada to stimulate a sluggish economy in future years.

Their recommendations include increasing immigration by 50 per cent to 450,000 people annually over five years while easing the process for high-skilled and entrepreneurial foreigners to come here; building a new department to entice foreign direct investment into Canada; and creating an arm’s length infrastructure bank. The recommendations were confirmed by several senior sources who spoke with The Globe and Mail.

…The 14-member Advisory Council on Economic Growth, chaired by Dominic Barton, global managing director of the consultancy McKinsey & Co., will deliver its first three recommendations to Mr. Morneau in Ottawa on Thursday. The council, which includes venture capitalists, institutional investors, business executives and academics, plans to present up to 20 ideas in the coming months intended to help Canada boost economic growth beyond forecast levels of less than 2 per cent annually through 2030.

The minister is expected to announce plans to act on at least one of the recommendations in his fall fiscal update, sources said. “My sense is [the government is] keen to receive these recommendations as soon as possible,” said one source close to the council. “That probably tells you they want to do something.”

…Expanding and improving the immigration process would address a key concern raised by fast-growing Canadian tech companies. Many say visa approval times for foreigners with high-level executive experience or in-demand skills can drag on for up to a year, and that coveted recruits who would otherwise move to Canada are not willing to put their lives on hold for so long when they have multiple opportunities. As a result, many tech firms say they have either lost out on key hires, or been forced to have such people work for them outside Canada.

“The current immigration process is overwhelmingly convoluted – even Kafkaesque,” said Tobi Lutke, CEO of Ottawa-based retail software firm Shopify, Inc., which is hiring hundreds of people this year and has lost recruits because of immigration delays. “The people we need to bring to Canada are not building widgets that Canadians otherwise would. The people we are recruiting … are the teachers that help us scale [up]. If we want to build the best companies in the world here, we need to allow the best people in the world to move here.”

Such thinking has guided panel members, who believe that increasing immigration and making it easier for skilled foreigners to move to Canada can increase the pool of people with the training, ambition and drive to create substantial economic value and help support Canada’s aging population. For example, a recent study by the National Foundation for American Policy said more than half of Silicon Valley startups valued at $1-billion (U.S.) or more were founded by immigrants.

The panel is calling for employers in technology and other expanding sectors to be exempt from the time-consuming process of proving no Canadian could do a job they want to offer to foreigners for senior positions or specialized roles, such as data science or digital marketing. Foreign students who have studied in Canada should have an easier time immigrating, the council also believes.

….The council and government officials are anticipating some resistance to the recommendations.

Immigration Minister John McCallum and Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains say they support more immigration, but acknowledge facing some opposition from within the government. Several recent polls – including one conducted for Mr. McCallum’s department – found little support for increased immigration.

Mr. McCallum said in an interview on Tuesday that he is not prepared to go as high as 450,000. But he suggested the number will rise from current levels of 300,000 when the government releases its 2017 immigration targets by Nov. 1. “This is a somewhat controversial issue, especially when you talk about numbers that high,” he said. The minister said no final decisions have been made.

Source: Advisory group’s economic blueprint calls for dramatic increase in immigration, foreign investment, infrastructure bank – The Globe and Mail

A Japanese multicultural society still far off | East Asia Forum

Interesting article on Japan, which remains relatively homogenous and closed to immigration:

Earlier this year I was asked by a group of non-Japanese global business leaders to talk about Japan’s immigration situation. The participants were remarkably well informed about Japan’s ‘dire’ demographic state of affairs — its declining and ageing population — and were interested in how Japan was planning to handle a labour shortfall. They were incredulous when I explained that Japan has no plans to open its doors to migrants any time soon. For them this was economic suicide made possible only through some kind of cognitive dissonance. For a long-term resident of Japan, the interesting thing about this conversation was the disconnection between the sense of crisis felt by outsiders and the lack of action in Japan itself.

Indonesian nurses study Japanese culture in Jakarta before leaving to work in Japan. Nursing is included in a bilateral economic partnership agreement. (Photo: Crack Palinggi/Reuters).

That is not to say that there has been no discussion in Japan about immigration reform. Political committees and media commentators seem to be engaged in never-ending kentō (consideration) over whether or not to open the door to migrants, especially foreign manual workers.

A similar debate at the end of the 1980s resulted in Brazilians and others of Japanese descent gaining working rights in 1990. In 1993, Japan also extended the length of time that technical trainees were allowed to stay. These two groups continue to make up the largest source of ‘backdoor’ labour — ‘backdoor’ because even today Japan does not, in principle, accept blue-collar workers.

Japan’s ‘no immigration principle’ can be seen as an institutionalisation of the ‘homogeneous people’ conception of the Japanese nation that continues to play a key role in structuring its identity. The term ‘migrant’ tends to be studiously avoided or replaced by euphemisms such as ‘entrants’ or ‘foreign workers’. The implication is that foreigners should not stay long or settle down.

While some more revolutionary immigration reform proposals have emerged recently, such as establishing a guest worker program, the steps that have been taken are very much within the conventional framework. For example, the inclusion of health workers — nurses and caregivers — in economic partnership agreements with Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam attempted to address critical labour shortages in particular areas. But, again, the need to maintain the ‘no immigration principle’ saw strict conditions attached that resulted in many of these workers returning home after just a few years in Japan.

Other recent reforms — such as accepting foreign housekeepers in special zones, a ‘point system’ to attract highly skilled foreign professionals and further extension of the trainee system period to fill the construction worker gap in the run up to the 2020 Tokyo Olympics — merely highlight the fact that the word ‘migrant’ remains taboo.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe himself has taken pains to avoid the ‘m’ word. In a joint meeting of the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy and the Industrial Competitiveness in 2014, Abe stressed that ‘we should be careful not to mistake the “utilisation” of foreign workers in nursing care and house-keeping as immigration policies’.

Political caution reflects public sentiment. Two out of three Japanese are against accepting more foreign workers, let alone manual workers. Underlying this is what is known as the ‘foreign crime’ debate, the fear that allowing in greater numbers of foreigners will harm public safety. These fears have only been heightened in recent years by terrorist atrocities in Europe and other countries with high migration levels.

The continuing reluctance to open the door to migrants challenges the ‘multicultural Japan’ idea that is popular among some academics. The numbers suggest that Japan is neither becoming more ethnically diverse nor more ‘multicultural’. For example, 2009 saw the first fall in the foreign resident population since 1961, and even that was from a very low base of only 1.7 per cent of the total population. This figure also includes third- and fourth-generation Korean residents born and raised in Japan.

International marriage, another key marker of diversification, peaked in 2006 at 41,000 and is only slightly more than half that figure today. Japan continues to accept only a handful of refugees (27 in 2015) and this is likely to decline further after work restrictions were introduced in a recent revision of the refugee recognition system.

On the surface, these numbers would seem to contradict the growing visibility of Japanese-style multiculturalism known as tabunka kyōsei (multicultural coexistence). Tabunka kyōsei emerged in the mid-1990s when it began to be widely used by local governments and NGOs to refer to Japanese and foreigners living harmoniously together. In 2001, 13 municipalities formed the Committee for Localities with a Concentrated Foreign Population and called on the government to develop a coordinated and coherent integration policy. While the central government has been slow to respond, it has published a number of reports since 2006 and established committees to discuss tabunka kyōsei issues.

The main criticism of tabunka kyōsei is that it defines boundaries that reaffirm foreigners’ non-membership in Japanese society. By reinforcing cultural differences in the name of multiculturalism, the privileged position of the Japanese majority is maintained. ANU Professor Tessa Morris-Suzuki calls this ‘cosmetic multiculturalism’, which celebrates diversity ‘but only under certain tightly prescribed conditions’.

Tabunka kyōsei is more concerned with social cohesion — converting foreigners into ‘law-abiding, locally-functioning well-adjusted residents’ — than empowerment Tomoko Nakamatsu suggests. Kikuko Nagayoshi finds that those with a strong ethno-national identity also tended to support Japanese-style multiculturalism. This suggests that tabunka kyōsei is not in opposition to, but rather is compatible with the belief in a unique and homogeneous ethnic national identity. Interpreting the popularity of tabunka kyōsei as evidence that Japan is becoming more multicultural is risky.

In sum, however unfathomable it may be to outside observers, Japan is not likely to become multicultural anytime soon. Despite some support for opening up, especially in business circles, many if not most Japanese seem resigned to a smaller economy if that is the price that has to be paid for maintaining social cohesion and public safety.

Source: A Japanese multicultural society still far off | East Asia Forum

Chris Alexander announces Tory leadership bid, wants Canada to boost immigration to 400,000 a year

Field is getting crowded and not sure the base will welcome such a large increase in immigration – or whether, given his record as former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, he will have much credibility beyond:

Former immigration minister Chris Alexander has confirmed he plans to run for the Conservative leadership and that a key plank of his campaign will be a proposal to sharply increase the intake of immigrants to 400,000 every year, including 40,000 refugees, because “this is a core value for me and for Canada.”

Although not yet officially a candidate, the McGill and Oxford graduate said the paperwork would be completed within the next week or two. After that he intends to undertake a cross-country journey by car to the West Coast, “stopping in every place we can where we have an invitation, to speak with groups, large and small, of Conservatives and potential Conservatives.”

Alexander expressed concern about leadership hopeful Kelly Leitch’s controversial proposal to vet prospective immigrants and reject them if they did not share “Canadian values.”

“My question is,” Alexander said, “how does she propose to screen immigrants for Canadian values before they get here in a way that, A, we are not already doing, B, that is cost-effective and C, does not lead to more fraud and abuse? I don’t think any of those questions have been answered.”

The best way to safeguard the integrity of the system — which is expected to process about 300,000 immigrants this year — is to maintain the reforms undertaken by the Harper government, he said. They produced what he called “the best in class immigration system in the world. We are getting the most educated, the most proficient in English and French, and in terms of skills, the best immigrants we have ever gotten because we select on the basis of merit.”

Alexander and Leitch were both criticized during the 2015 election campaign for their part in announcing the creation of a barbaric practices tipline, widely denounced as an indication of intolerance in the Conservative party.

Alexander has since called the announcement “the wrong one for that time.” But he rejects the idea that the party is anti-immigrant.

“I think we are still a very pro-immigration party.” He reasoned that Canada needs more immigrants to replace retiring baby boomers and because immigrants are essential if the economy is to grow.

The Tories need to recapture “the middle ground” from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to regain power, Alexander said during an interview from his home in Ajax, Ont.

Source: Chris Alexander announces Tory leadership bid, wants Canada to boost immigration to 400,000 a year