CRRF Webinar: Multiculturalism and The Power of Words

2015/10/08 1 Comment

 Short summary and links to the presentations by David Matas and myself:

words letterpress photo
The first Directions webinar was held on October 6th at 11 am EST.

The webinar featured members of our journal’s Editorial Advisory Panel, Andrew Griffith and David Matas. Andrew and David spoke about their research as it relates to The Power of Words, with a specific focus on multiculturalism in Canada. Their presentations and questions from participants are posted below.

The webinar was moderated by Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux.

The Winter 2015 issue, The Power of Words responds to the question, “Is our lexicon a positive force or part of the problem?”

Published in print and online January 2016, The Power of Words speaks to the importance of reviewing and evolving science terminology in response to changing demographics and settlement trends. The concept of hyphenated Canadians, terms such as ‘visible minorities’ and ‘newcomers,’ and even the idea of ‘race relations’ require ongoing reassessment, and are being challenged and re-examined in the context of our changing society. How do language and lexicon in policy, in the media, and in daily interactions influence our experiences, identities, attitudes, and relationships? How can discourse create and perpetuate unbalanced power relations, marginalizing certain groups and individuals? How can we use language to promote positive race relations in a harmonious Canada?

Presentations

Andrew Griffith’s presentation >

David Mata’s presentation >

Audio

Did you miss the webinar, or would you like to listen to the discussion again? Check out the audio recording of the webinar here.

Source: Articles and Announcements – Webinar: Multiculturalism and The Power of Words

For a slightly expanded version of my presentation (an additional slide contrasting the words of Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau):

CRRF Power of Words – My Deck

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Fifty years in Canada, and now I feel like a second-class citizen: Sheema Khan

2015/10/08 1 Comment

Speaks for itself:

“Too broken to write,” I told my editor, after the onslaught of Conservative announcements. The niqab was condemned. Citizenship was revoked for convicted terrorists with dual citizenship. Canadians were reminded of “barbaric cultural practices,” and the federal government’s preference for mainly non-Muslim Syrian refugees was reiterated. Make no mistake: This divisive strategy is meant to prey upon fear and prejudice.

Last May, I wrote that Canadian Muslims “are the low-hanging fruit in the politics of fear. Omar Khadr is exhibit A; Zunera Ishaq is exhibit B. With an October election, it won’t be surprising to see political machinations at our expense.” Yet the sheer brazenness of the Conservatives leaves one speechless; a 2.0 version of Quebec’s “charter of values” is being used to win votes on the backs of a vulnerable minority. The government’s open hostility has given licence to bigots to vent xenophobia. A pregnant Muslim woman is assaulted in Montreal. A niqab-wearing woman is attacked while shopping with her daughters in Toronto. Mosques are taking precautions. Identifiable Muslim women feel a little less safe, and Muslim youth face difficult questions about identity and acceptance.

Don’t expect Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to call for calm; this cynical strategy seems to be working. What does this say about us, and our commitment to a just society?

December will mark 50 years since I arrived from India as a toddler. In Montreal, I experienced the fear of terrorism during the 1970 FLQ crisis and horror after the massacre of 14 women one dark December evening in 1989. My first voting experience was momentous, for I helped to keep the country together in the 1980 Quebec referendum. I did the same during the nail-biter of 1995. Along the way, I never felt any discrimination, any sense of being second-class.

Quebec and Canada allowed me to thrive. I remember the pride I felt when my Harvard University professors told me that Canadian graduate students were the best-prepared – a testament to our excellent undergraduate institutions. And the love I felt for my compatriots during the massive 1995 pro-Canada rally in Montreal. It reminded me of the hajj – a sea of individuals from near and far, united in their love for a noble ideal. Differences melted into a shared vision of the future.

However, the mood changed in Quebec after then-premier Jacques Parizeau’s “money and the ethnic vote” comment the night of the 1995 referendum. For the first time, I was told to “go back home,” while walking my eight-month-old daughter in a stroller. When I moved to Ottawa, a man, proudly brandishing his Canadian Legion jacket, told me the same. Then came the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Although there were a few more incidents, I never feared for myself or my children. On the contrary – friends, neighbours and complete strangers renewed my faith in the basic decency of Canadians.

Now, things feel different. I never imagined that the federal government would use its hefty weight to vilify Muslims. Never in 50 years have I felt so vulnerable. For the first time, I wonder if my children will have the opportunity to thrive as I did. One is a budding environmental scientist; one has entrepreneurial goals; the youngest dreams of playing soccer alongside Kadeisha Buchanan. But the Conservative message is: You are Muslim, you are the “other,” you can’t be trusted and you will never belong.

Thankfully, other political leaders have stepped up; Justin Trudeau, Tom Mulcair, Elizabeth May, the Quebec legislature, among others, have denounced the politics of fear, and reiterated the Canadian value of inclusion. We need more people to stand together against all forms of bigotry, whether it’s against Muslims today, or aboriginals every day.

By all means, let’s respectfully discuss our differences, while weaving a tapestry of shared experiences toward a more inclusive country. Our hearts, like the land, are wide enough to mend broken spirits. As the late NDP leader Jack Layton reminded us so eloquently: “My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.”

Source: Fifty years in Canada, and now I feel like a second-class citizen – The Globe and Mail

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Muslim women sound off on ‘stupid’ niqab debate

2015/10/08 1 Comment

CCMW does good work in research, engagement and participation:

The Canadian Council of Muslim Women held an event Sunday in Toronto to hand out awards and discuss concerns in their communities. There was also an opportunity for debate between political parties on where they stand on issues affecting Muslim women in Canada.

But the debate continued to focus on wedge issues rather than major themes affecting all Canadians. That did not sit well with some Muslim women, who say the topic is “just a way to gain votes” ahead of the Oct. 19 election.

“Right now, the federal government is talking about women and [the] niqab, which is not an issue, even for Muslims,” said Zarqa Nawaz, the creator of Little Mosque on the Prairie.

“We’re in a recession, what is the plan to go forward? Those are the things I want to talk about. Not about women in [the] niqab and why she can’t sing the national anthem with her face covered. That’s just stupid.”

Shaheen Ashraf says there’s a negative stigma associated with Muslim garb, which hinders employment opportunities for Muslim women. (CBC)

Maryam Dadabyoy, community relations officer for the National Council on Canadian Muslims, appeared annoyed with the niqab conversation. She says the federal government should be inclusive of all Canadians.

“It’s an issue that won’t go away and it’s not even that important,” Dadabyoy said.

“We need to see a government that just makes us feel more a part of the community and not being ostracized,” she continued. “Not very many women do wear [the] niqab, but it’s being thrown in everyone’s face.”

Muslim women say they feel ‘demonized’

Shaheen Ashraf sits on the national board of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, which hosted the event. She lives in Montreal and says the hotly-debated topic is being heard in her province even though it doesn’t affect her community.

“The whole niqab issue is not an issue for us,” Ashraf said. Instead, she’d like candidates to focus on how Muslim dress affects their ability to move forward in society.

“If you are wearing a scarf, or, for instance, the niqab, you’re not going to get a job. Your credentials don’t count. [Employers] think that if you have a scarf, you don’t have a brain.”

Ashraf states firmly that Muslim women have the right to choose how they dress, just as any other Canadian.

“[Muslim women] feel like they’re being demonized,” Nawaz said.

The upcoming election should be an opportunity for Muslim women to have their real issues heard, the women say.

Source: Muslim women sound off on ‘stupid’ niqab debate – Toronto – CBC News

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

The Problem With Religious Tolerance

2015/10/07 Leave a comment

Good thoughtful discussion on the limits of tolerance, but re-emphasizing the need to be respectful by Alan Levinovitz:

The potential coexistence of all religions is a seductive fantasy. In its service, popular authors and academics have preached the comforting delusion that religions are essentially the same, and therefore fundamentally compatible. As Boston University’s Stephen Prothero puts it in God Is Not One, “This is a lovely sentiment, but it is dangerous, disrespectful, and untrue.” Thankfully, the vast majority of modern scholars now side with Prothero, and the American Academy of Religion’s curriculum guidelinesfor public schools ensure that teachers at all levels will not irresponsibly homogenize the world’s religious traditions.

But the academy’s guidelines leave a crucial question unanswered: If religious people (and secular people) disagree on basic aspects of history, science, and ethics, how is it possible to maintain the truth of one’s own position while “tolerating” others? Educators like me can respond in two ways. By far the most common response is to teach that there are multiple religious perspectives, all of which are equally valid and deserving of respect. This not only feels good, it also feels legal. Wouldn’t I violate the Establishment Clause, thinks the terrified public-school teacher, if I implied that some religions are superior to others?

The result, however, is disastrous. Suddenly we are in the land of bumper-sticker postmodernism, where truths are perspectival and no one can be objectively wrong. Like the unity of all religions, the validity of all religions is a lovely sentiment (Coexist!), but it is dangerous, disrespectful, and untrue. Dangerous, because it means people will be less likely to fight against injustices and falsehoods that are underwritten by religion. Disrespectful, because authentic respect involves caring when others’ beliefs go wrong, not just letting them believe whatever they want. And untrue, because basic logic tells us that “God condones slavery” and “God forbids slavery” cannot be equally valid claims.

The other possible response, then, is to teach that there are multiple religious perspectives, which are not all equally valid and deserving of respect. If this sounds crazy or extreme, start by thinking in terms of historical claims: There are multiple perspectives on the age of the earth that aren’t equally valid and deserving of respect. Or maybe think about it in terms of ethics: There are multiple perspectives on child abuse that aren’t equally valid and deserving of respect. Now the next step: Acknowledge that religious beliefs include historical and ethical claims. No extremism here, just common sense — the same common sense that allows religious traditions to correct mistaken positions on the age of the earth, or whether God wants black people to be priests.

Some may fear that emphasizing the fallibility of religious beliefs will work against the possibility of interfaith dialogue. In fact, the opposite is true. Intellectually honest people, religious or not, care deeply about truth. They want to make sure their own beliefs are worth holding, and they think others are better off doing the same.

Interfaith dialogue is an opportunity not only to learn about other people’s beliefs, but also to challenge the basis of those beliefs and allow other people to challenge one’s own. Otherwise, interfaith dialogue becomes a middle-school art show, where people ooh and aah and praise the work without passing judgment on its quality, lest they hurt someone’s feelings. This version of dialogue cheapens religion by reducing it to taste, and disrespects the participants by treating them like children.

Which brings us back to Maryam Namazie and the right of Muslim students — or students of any religious persuasion — to be free from intolerance and discrimination. No doubt the question of how to engage with people whose beliefs we deem wrong is important and complicated. Tolerance can help. It calls on us to listen generously and seek, in dialogue, our own inevitable mistakes and blind spots. When beliefs we do not accept are part of someone’s religious worldview, the virtue of tolerance tells us to proceed with caution. It warns against making snap judgments about the quality of the person who holds those beliefs, which is the right way to be respectful.

But tolerance doesn’t tell us that just because the belief is religious, there’s no way to pronounce on its truth. It doesn’t forbid us to criticize falsehoods if religion is used to justify those falsehoods. And it doesn’t mean that people who challenge deeply held beliefs represent a threat. That’s complacence, not tolerance, and it’s time to start recognizing the difference.

It’s encouraging to see that Warwick’s student union reversed its decision this week following a public outcry, which included a petition in support of inviting Namazie that was signed by more than 5,000 people. But if students — and teachers — continue to conflate criticism and intolerance, similar issues are certain to arise in the future. Let’s do our best to make sure they don’t.

Source: The Problem With Religious Tolerance – The Chronicle of Higher Education

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

Why Are Immigrants More Likely to Concentrate in Certain Industries? – The Atlantic

2015/10/07 Leave a comment

Interesting case studies of the importance and impact of bonding capital within immigrant communities (enclaves) and link to occupations:

In the U.S. one might notice a curious concentration when it comes to jobs—certain ethnicities dominate certain industries. Greek immigrants are more likely to run restaurants than immigrants from other countries, and Koreans more likely to run dry-cleaning shops. Yemeni immigrants are 75 times more likely than immigrants of other ethnicities to own grocery stores, and Gujarati-speaking Indians are 108 times more likely to run motels.

Specialization among ethnic minorities, immigrant or not, isn’t new: It’s happened with Jewish merchants during Medieval times and with the Chinese in the laundry industry in 1920s California. Why does it happen so often? A recent report from the National Bureau of Economic Research attempts to explain this phenomenon.

William R. Kerr and Martin Mandorff, the paper’s authors, found that the social insulation of immigrant communities plays a big role in creating business pipelines into industries where previous generations have already found success. The trend is most common among groups that have tight-knit networks and in industries that lend themselves to self-employment. A variable that decreases the likelihood of ethnic concentration is when an job requires extensive licensing, certification, or education within the U.S, since many immigrants will have difficulty getting those bonafides.

The authors find that the way that immigrants socialize is especially relevant to the heavy concentration of immigrant-owned businesses in very specific industries. Immigrants often cluster, both geographically and socially, with those who are similar to them. Many arrive and stay with family or friends, and still others choose to move to a community with familiar customs and language. Staying within the same communities—and marrying within them—is most common among groups that are small and less assimilated.

This proximity can have important ramifications when it comes to how and where these groups find employment. Socializing—everything from religious to recreational activities—involves hanging out with people from a similar country or region. This can result in a transfer of jobs and skills to new immigrants that make them more likely to continue working in a certain industry, be it driving a taxi or cooking in a restaurant.

And the effects of that can multiply when played off the predisposition toward entrepreneurship that exists among specific immigrant groups. For instance, 45 percent of Korean men are self-employed compared to 15 percent of the male immigrant population overall. This tendency toward self-employment means that not only are owners are willing and able to hire fellow immigrants for their businesses, but also that there’s the ability to create an intergenerational trajectory, where owners are able to pass their business down to their children and grandchildren, continuing the job-clustering effect.

These same social connections can provide a sort of informal mentorship. In their research, the economists found that in 17 out of 25 case studies of immigrant groups, the industries where ethnic groups displayed the greatest concentration of entrepreneurship were also the industries where they displayed the greatest concentration of overall employment. That’s because the clustering around specific industries isn’t just helpful for finding work—it’s helpful for learning how to buy and run your own business as well. The relationships forged in these tight knit communities are especially helpful for existing and aspiring entrepreneurs, who can pick up important tips on starting and maintaining a business from those in the community who have navigated challenges like taxes, startup capital, and inspections. And when it comes to self employment, such advice and support is critical, and may give some groups a huge advantage.

Source: Why Are Immigrants More Likely to Concentrate in Certain Industries? – The Atlantic

Filed under Integration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Citizenship leads immigrants to integrate, not the other way around: Swiss Study

2015/10/07 Leave a comment

Interesting analysis of Swiss citizenship and the link to political integration:

When they surveyed these immigrants a decade later, they found that those whose applications were only just approved had significantly higher political integration than those who had only just failed. These people had increased political knowledge, were more likely to feel that they had a political voice, and were more likely to participate in politics through actions like voting, contacting politicians, or donating to political parties. This was consistent even for immigrants from different countries.

Because the survey was conducted in 2011-2014, which was a decade or more since the last citizenship votes in Switzerland, the researchers suggest that the results are picking up on genuine, long-term changes. It’s possible that immigrants might have a spike in their political participation after a successful application, but a temporary change is unlikely to have continued for a decade or more, they argue.

One important question to consider is whether the process in Switzerland has some characteristics that are likely to be different from other countries. For instance, perhaps something about gaining citizenship as a result of a vote by other citizens is really the catalyst for political participation rather than the citizenship itself. It’s possible that an immigrant who receives a positive vote on such a personally important matter might place more trust in the system and engage with it more than an immigrant who receives a negative vote.

Another potential objection to this study is that the researchers are wrong to assume that borderline cases are really all that similar. For the experiment to work, it has to be assumed that immigrants whose applications just failed by a hair’s breadth, and those who just passed, are the same in all important respects. When the researchers looked at characteristics like education levels, country of origin, or how long they’d lived in Switzerland, they did look the same. However, it could be the case that there were important details the researchers missed that actually made all the difference in political integration.

Given that social and political integration of immigrants is often something that policies explicitly aim to encourage, this is important information. Although a natural experiment like this would be difficult to find in other countries, future research will need to confirm whether the same effect seems to be consistent in different countries with different immigration procedures.

Source: Citizenship leads immigrants to integrate, not the other way around | Ars Technica

Filed under Citizenship, Integration Tagged with

The barbaric cultural practice of election pronouncements: Neil MacDonald

2015/10/07 Leave a comment

Another good summary of the play on identity politics:

Instead of economic issues and the timeless election slogan of jobs, jobs, jobs, the drumbeat today seems to be Muslims, Muslims, Muslims.

It’s not quite that explicit, of course. Using that sort of language wouldn’t be “politically correct,” to borrow a Conservative attack phrase.

Rather, the language is more suggestive.

Just last week, we were reminded by the immigration minister, standing beside the minister responsible for the status of women, that Canada now has something called the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, and that if re-elected, the government would establish an RCMP task force, and a “tip line” for Canadians who wish to call the Mounties to denounce someone, a neighbour, it was suggested, for engaging in a barbaric cultural practice.

This fearsomely titled law is actually just a few amendments to the Immigration Act and Criminal code that outlaw a few things that are mostly already against the law in Canada — polygamy, forcing children into arranged marriages, and so-called honour killings, otherwise known as murder.

But the phrase “barbaric cultural practices” invokes so much more, especially as “barbaric” is not a legal descriptor, it’s an emotive.

The mind of the beholder

Barbarism, of course, is in the mind of the beholder.

To some people, it is barbaric to pierce a baby’s ears or slice off the skin on the end of an infant’s penis, or even what the Christian ritual of communion symbolizes.

Almost certainly, though, the title of this new law was designed to invoke other, more foreign horrors: female genital mutilation, or all the stoning, flogging, amputating and executing contained in the ferociously harsh interpretations of religious law now associated in the public mind with Islam.

What’s more, at the same time as the government was reminding Canadians of its new barbarity law, it was also stripping citizenship from people convicted of extremism. All, so far, have been Muslims.

The government says stripping of citizenship will be restricted to “terrorists and traitors.” But then both those words are just as pliable as “barbaric.”

There have been no reports that the government is considering stripping citizenship from the Sikh bomb-maker convicted in the 1985 Air India bombing — the worst act of political violence in Canadian history — or any of the surviving FLQ members convicted after the October Crisis.

None of the above is a Muslim.

Even when the government has responded to public pressure to allow in more of the miserable wretches streaming out of Syria, Stephen Harper has repeatedly emphasized that they are coming from a “terrorist war zone,” and that Canada must select “the most vulnerable” refugees, which has widely been taken as code for “Christians.”

Then of course there are the two Muslim women who, alone in all of modern Canadian history, insisted on taking a citizenship oath while wearing a niqab (a word most Canadians had probably never heard of before this election).

The Federal Court of Appeals says they were within their rights. And yet, in the nativist ether of this particular election, Canadians are effectively being asked to decide if they are a threat to our way of life.

Muslim, Muslim, Muslim …

‘Canadian values’

A corollary to all this is the suggestion that there are two sorts of Canadians: those who stand consistently and unswervingly with Israel, and those who stand against the Jewish state, most probably with its (Muslim) enemies.

Harper has suggested that criticism of Israel is a mask for anti-Semitism.

And just last week, a Conservative candidate in Winnipeg, Joyce Bateman, chose to answer a question on the economy by listing Liberal candidates whose support for Israel she deemed insufficient.

She ticked off names, arriving finally at Andew Leslie, a decorated former Canadian lieutenant-general who commanded the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan

She was booed, but remained unapologetic for rhyming off her party’s talking points.

“It is a choice between standing up for Canadian values in a dangerous world, or returning to the days of going along to get along,” she said.

Political journalists, working under the stricter dictates of moral equivalence imposed during election campaigns, refer to this kind of talk as “identity politics.”

Being under the same strictures myself, I can’t really go much further. But it does sound an awful lot like the Barack-Obama-is-a-Muslim-who-hates-Israel stuff I heard so much when I covered American campaigns.

Just out of curiosity, I called the RCMP’s media relations department to ask about this new task force and what sort of barbaric cultural practices would merit a call to the Mounties.

The officer who answered said that if, say, an honour killing is taking place next door, it’d be best to dial 911 and tell the local police.

Otherwise, the force said in an email about 20 minutes later: “It would be inappropriate for the RCMP to comment on a political announcement.”

“A political announcement.” What a dry, refreshing description.

Source: The barbaric cultural practice of election pronouncements – Politics – CBC News

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Zunera Ishaq cleared by court to take citizenship oath wearing niqab

2015/10/07 Leave a comment

Pretty clear that a large part of the motivation for the appeal is political and to keep issue prominent, given the weak legal case (lack of Ministerial authority to implement administratively):

Regulations have banned wearing of face veils at citizenship ceremonies, but Ishaq challenged the rule and won in Federal Court. On Sept. 18, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld that decision in a quick ruling from the bench. The federal government had sought a stay of the ruling and said it intended to appeal to the Supreme Court.

“I am pleased that the courts have reaffirmed my right to citizenship and to vote,” said Ishaq in a written statement issued to CBC News through the law firm of Waldman & Associates.

“I am disappointed with the government’s focus on my individual case when there is so much more that merits the attention of Canadians at this time,” Ishaq said. “I’m also disappointed that Mr. Harper continually twists the facts of my case for his gain.

“I wish to confirm that I will be identified without my veil for the purposes of the ceremony. This has nothing to do with identity and everything to do with my right  — and the right of all Canadians — to think, believe and dress without government interference,” she said.

Before reciting the oath, would-be Canadians are required to provide multiple proofs of identity. Those who wear face coverings must remove them before the ceremony in private before a citizenship official.

Ishaq is one of two women who have refused to unveil before taking the citizenship oath since the Conservatives introduced the policy directive in 2011.

Conservatives ‘disappointed’

Conservative Party spokesman Chris McCluskey told CBC News in an email, “We are disappointed in the court’s decision, especially as we were waiting on the Supreme Court to hear our appeal.

“We have committed to rectifying this matter going forward by introducing legislation that will require one to show their face while swearing the oath of citizenship. Legislation will be introduced within the first 100 days of a re-elected Conservative government.”

“At this point, the Federal Court of Appeal has made a clear statement that there’s no basis to grant them a stay, that they upheld their previous ruling that this case has nothing to do with the niqab,” said Lorne Waldman, Ishaq’s lawyer, in a telephone interview with CBC News.

“It’s an issue from the rule of law, and the minister acted illegally in creating a policy that went contrary to the legislation, and that’s what this case is about.”

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration must formally invite Ishaq to attend a ceremony. Several are scheduled in Ontario between now and the Oct. 19 election.

Source: Zunera Ishaq cleared by court to take citizenship oath wearing niqab – Politics – CBC News

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Citizenship: getting the balance right | hilltimes.com

2015/10/06 Leave a comment

My piece in The Hill Times regarding transition advice should there be a change in government (entire article given paywall):

With a federal election upon us and a possible change of government, what are the policy changes an incoming government may wish to consider, and which policies may it wish to keep?

The Conservative Government made “citizenship harder to get and easier to lose.” Residency, knowledge and language were all tightened (with reduced administrative discretion to waive language requirements and an exhaustive residency questionnaire introduced), fees more than quintupled, credit for pre-Permanent Resident time was ended, and citizenship revocation was made easier.

Some of these changes were overdue and needed. Any new government should maintain the tougher residency requirements (particularly the requirement to be physically present). Similarly, administrative measures to ensure integrity (rotating test questions, more consistent language assessment, filing Canadian tax returns) or improving efficiency (abandoning incomplete applications, simplified one-stop decision-making model) are sound and enhance the meaningfulness of Canadian citizenship.

However, a new government would likely seek to overturn other changes, based upon testimony during the 2014 Citizenship Act hearings and campaign commitments.

An early symbolic signal would be to reduce the $530 fee back to $300 (the $100 fee of almost 20 years ago being unrealistic), with consideration for hardship cases (e.g., refugees). A second change would be to abandon any current revocation cases for dual nationals before the courts, and announce the government’s intent not to launch any further cases.

The writing of a new citizenship guide that offers a more balanced interpretation of Canadian history, society and government could be achieved administratively. Ideally, this would build upon some of the strong points of Discover Canada (e.g., emphasis on history, role of the Crown and democratic institutions, military, rights and responsibilities, Quebec context), balanced with greater emphasis on social history, rights of women, Charter equality rights, arts and culture, and a reduced Monarchist flavour, along with more inclusive language. This should be accompanied by revising material handed out during citizenship ceremonies, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, other changes could only be achieved through legislation. These include abolishing the “intent to reside” provision (requiring applicants to declare that they will continue to reside in Canada) given possible ambiguities in interpretation, restoring pre-Permanent Resident time credit towards citizenship residency requirements for some groups (e.g., international students), abolish testing 14-17 year-olds for knowledge and language given they would have been in the school system, restoring the Governor-in-Council role for revocation in cases of fraud or misrepresentation rather than only the Minister (or at least provide for oral hearings), and removing the revocation provision for dual nationals convicted of terror or treason, given that it creates two classes of citizenship and is likely unconstitutional.

In addition, any incoming government (and the public servants advising them) need to reflect on the government machinery and organizational weaknesses of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. While CIC is organized to deliver stable levels of new immigrants (about 250,000 annually), the citizenship program has been subject to recurring backlogs (over 300,000 in 2013), delays and uneven delivery (the number of new citizens has fluctuated between 113,000 and 263,000). While some reflects political direction, some is intrinsic to citizenship being a secondary priority, with less resources and management attention.

An external review of CIC’s management structure (shift from a functional to business-line model?) and governance needs to be done to ensure stronger management and oversight of citizenship.

Service standards of one-year for citizenship acquisition with regular public reporting are needed.

Apart from the question of whether an incoming government will appoint a strong minister (history suggests that Minister Kenney was an exception), there is also the question of whether citizenship will be a priority in relation to immigration and refugee policy.

Whatever changes a new government chooses to pursue, comprehensive public consultations and a willingness to entertain opposition suggestions (and in the case of legislation, amendments) should be an essential part of building consensus and ongoing support for whatever approach an incoming government pursues.

Previous governments made citizenship too easy to get and too hard to lose. The Conservative government redressed that imbalance. Hopefully, a new government will be able to achieve a new balance, maintaining the increased integrity bequeathed to them, but making needed adjustments to reinforce a more inclusive and welcoming approach to citizenship.

Source: Citizenship: getting the balance right | hilltimes.com (behind paywall)

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

PS fighting for respect in election, not sick leave

2015/10/06 Leave a comment

Reaction by public sector unions to PM Harper’s letter (Stephen Harper writes open letter to Canada’s ‘world-class public service’ in order to correct ‘misinformation’), appropriately focusing on the higher level issues of the relationship and trust:

Canada’s public servants won’t buy Conservative leader Stephen Harper’s last-minute love letter to them because respect and the ability to do their jobs — not sick leave benefits and pensions — are what they are fighting for in this election.

Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, said Harper’s recent open letter to public servants, patting them on the back and offering assurances that sick leave reform will be fair and pensions untouched, totally missed the mark of what public servants and their unions are campaigning for.

“We aren’t active in this election because of sick leave and pensions … These aren’t public servants’ issues and I don’t think our members will be fooled by it,” said Daviau.

“What it comes down to is that we don’t believe that Canada’s public service can survive another Harper government mandate.”

Harper’s letter zeros in on sick leave and pensions — the terms and conditions of public service employment that have been under attack by the Conservatives. Sick leave is the big hot-button issue in the ongoing round of collective bargaining with federal unions.

But Daviau said those are “Harper’s issues” and the letter is a “trap” — a last-minute effort to woo the public service vote in Ottawa while portraying public servants for Canadians as “petty” and only concerned with pay and benefits.

Federal unions have been very active in this campaign, their focus on eroding public services caused by budget cuts and the deteriorating relationship between public servants and the government. For many public servants, the big concerns revolve around the culture of fear and erosion of the traditional role of the public service.

The Liberals and NDP have both announced public service platforms aimed at rebuilding the relationship and restoring trust.

Source: PS fighting for respect in election, not sick leave | Ottawa Citizen

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →