Political Parties Respond to OCASI Questions for General Election 2015

OCASI [Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants] surveyed the major parties regarding immigration-related issues. The following excerpts their responses to the question below on citizenship. The Conservative Party did not submit a response given that it has largely implemented its policies:

“3. Citizenship

Only 26 per cent of permanent residents who settled in Canada in 2008 acquired Canadian citizenship, compared with 44 per cent for immigrant who arrived in 2007 and 79 percent for those who arrived in 2000. These are the findings of research on citizenship acquisition released earlier this year. Access to citizenship has become more restricted, and naturalized citizens and those with dual citizenship are treated differently under the law.

Question: How will you ensure access to citizenship and exercise of citizenship is equitable?”

NDP:  Under Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, it has become harder and harder for immigrants to come to Canada and succeed. They’ve created huge backlogs, increased fees, politicized the citizenship test, made children and seniors pass language tests, and created new categories of citizenship rights. An NDP government will work with stakeholders to restore fairness and transparency to our citizenship and immigration system and to undo harmful Conservative changes. We will repeal Conservative legislation that treats naturalized and dual citizens differently from other citizens. We will review the citizenship test. And we will remove the requirement for 14-17 year olds and 55-64 year olds to pass a language test in order to receive citizenship.

Liberal:

Citizenship application wait times have ballooned during Mr. Harper’s time in office. Not content to quadruple fees and double processing times, the Conservatives have unnecessarily erected new barriers for aspiring citizens. We are witnessing ever more difficult language testing imposed on older potential Canadians, and the scrapping of the credit for time spent in Canada, which was previously extended to international students. In all of these areas, a combination of Conservative cynicism and budget cutbacks have abandoned those people who find themselves in the immigration system.

Over and over during the Harper decade we have heard how Canadians cannot get access to the services they need in a timely manner. A Liberal government will create new performance standards for services offered by the federal government, including streamlining applications, reducing wait times, and money- back guarantees. Performance will be independently assessed and publicly reported, including immigration processing. After years of cuts, all of these services take too long and do not provide the service that Canadians deserve.

Liberals believe that leading this country should mean bringing Canadians together, not dividing them against one another. We will repeal the parts of Bill C-24 that introduce unnecessary barriers and hardships for people to become Canadians. With C-24, the Conservative government has created a second class of citizen—dual nationals whose Canadian citizenship can revoked by the government without due process. Liberals believe in a Canada that is united and strong not in spite of its differences, but precisely because of them. These values have been abandoned under Stephen Harper, who wants us to believe that some of us are less Canadian than others.

Liberals believe that citizenship is a fundamental building block of Canada. No elected official should have the exclusive power to grant or revoke this most basic status. This bill devalues Canadians citizenship and undermines Canada’s economic well-being by making it harder to attract international talent and expertise to Canada.

Green:

The research clearly demonstrates that access to citizenship is rapidly becoming an unrealizable pursuit for many immigrants to Canada. Our immigration and refugee protection system is not prepared for 21st­century realities or challenges. A system with more than 50 entry streams that by 2010 had produced a backlog of one million applications ­ many of which languished in the queue for up to five or six years ­ is a dysfunctional nightmare at best. It is an embarrassment to a country like Canada that increasingly depends on interconnectedness with the rest of the world.

Immigration is first and foremost about citizenship. The Green Party is the only federal party to have concluded that the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) is irredeemably flawed and must be scrapped. Weak mechanisms for assessing labour shortages have allowed the TFWP to undermine wage and labour standards. At the same time, the program exploits foreign workers.

Any reforms to Canada’s immigration system must strengthen our social fabric and be consistent with our fundamental values of the rule of law, equality, and fairness. The Green Party will initiate a comprehensive overhaul of Canada’s immigration and refugee protection system. Our reforms will ensure an efficient and predictable path to citizenship for all immigrants and their families. In addition to the policies discussed in depth here, we will establish pathways to citizenship for temporary foreign workers and the families of new Canadians. Greens will work with municipalities and provinces to improve the integration of new Canadians. We will also repeal Bill C­24 which allows the minister of citizenship to revoke citizenship. Citizenship is a category that cannot have classes.

New Democratic Party response to OCASI – Election 2015 [PDF]

Liberal Party response to OCASI – Election 2015 [PDF]

Green Party response to OCASI – Election 2015 [PDF]

Visible minority communities and the Election: More interesting articles from New Canadian Media

Round-up of some interesting stories on the ‘ethnic vote’ in New Canadian Media.

No surprise that Tory Candidates Make Joint Pitch to Chinese Voters, given that Chris Cochrane’s analysis shows considerable support for the CPC (see Immigrants are not a monolithic voting block). Of note is the diversity within the Conservative candidates:

The seven candidates who participated were Bin Chang representing for Scarborough-Agincourt; Joe Daniel, for Don Valley North; Jobson Easow for Markham-Thornhill; Maureen Harquail for Don Valley East; Chungsen Leung for Willowdale; Michael Parsa for Richmond Hill; and Bob Saroya for Markham-Unionville.

Ranjit Bhaskar, in Courting the “Ethnic Vote” notes, among other observations, that:

However, in a blog post on the refugee issue, Andrés Machalski, president of MIREMS, a media monitoring and research firm, observed that many of the stories in the ethnic media reflected those in the mainstream.

But harsher tones could also be seen and heard. A radio host on a Punjabi show said Canada has already admitted enough refugee, adding that settling them costs an enormous amount of money. A former refugee claimant suggested in Sing Tao Toronto that only 5,000 refugees should be let in a year as otherwise Canadian residents might have to pay more taxes.

Silke in The Niqab – Competing Traditions Clash Over Women’s Clothing, captures the diversity of opinion within different ethnic groups, and concludes, erroneously that:

In Canada, the call to allow niqabs at citizenship ceremonies is mostly based on cultural relativism – a call for tolerance of diverse customs – notably a value not practiced by any fundamentalist religion, including the Islamists it is trying to accommodate. The Conservatives’ call to ban it is based on an appeal to traditional Canadian values of having one’s face uncovered when making a commitment – looking people in the eye, so to speak. Others have called for a ban on the niqab not just at citizenship ceremonies, but more widely, as a matter of women’s rights.  However, looking at the question from a gender equality perspective, one wonders why Islamist men should be allowed to swear the oath of allegiance to Canada in their traditional attire, but not their wives and daughters.

It has actually been framed as a Charter human rights issue, given the Supreme Court has ruled that the test for a religious practice is not theological but rather whether it is sincerely held.

US: Obesity Maps Put Racial Differences On Stark Display

Obesity_Maps_Put_Racial_Differences_On_Stark_Display___Shots_-_Health_News___NPRCorrelation between race, socio-economic status and obesity:

Take a look at the latest obesity data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and you can see that the country’s obesity epidemic is far from over.

Even in Colorado, the state with the lowest rate, 21.3 percent of its population is obese. Arkansas tops the list with 35.9 percent.

“It is the largest epidemic of a chronic disease that we’ve ever seen in human history,” says Dr. Donald Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

Click on the CDC’s obesity prevalence maps and you’ll see something even more startling — the disparity among different ethnic groups. It’s not new that the obesity epidemic is hitting African-Americans the hardest, followed by Hispanics, but the maps highlight this worrying trend.

For African-Americans for example, there are 33 states with an obesity rate of at least 35 percent, whereas for white Americans only 1 state reports that rate. Nine states estimate the Hispanic obesity rate at 35 percent or higher.

“It is not about one group doing something wrong,” says Lloyd-Jones, who was not involved in creating the CDC maps. “It is about the environment that we have built that sets people up to fail.”

Race and ethnicity are often a surrogate for low socioeconomic status, he says.

“Our neighborhoods, workplaces and schools expose people, especially poor people, to less choices of healthy foods,” Lloyd-Jones says. There are also fewer places outside to be safe and burn off calories.

This has huge implications for the health of individuals and for health costs in the future, because obesity causes significant downstream health problems like diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

Source: Obesity Maps Put Racial Differences On Stark Display : Shots – Health News : NPR

Is ‘they all look alike to me’ pure racism or is there a scientific reason for mistaken identity?

Another aspect of how our brains work and the implications in terms of how we see others:

Scientists, pointing to decades of research, believe something else was at work. They call it the “other-race effect,” a cognitive phenomenon that makes it harder for people of one race to readily recognize or identify individuals of another.

It is not bias or bigotry, the researchers say, that makes it difficult for people to distinguish between people of another race. It is the lack of early and meaningful exposure to other groups that often makes it easier for us to quickly identify and remember people of our own ethnicity or race while we often struggle to do the same for others.

That racially loaded phrase “they all look alike to me,” turns out to be largely scientifically accurate, according to Roy S. Malpass, a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Texas at El Paso who has studied the subject since the 1960s. “It has a lot of validity,” he said.

Looking for examples? There is no shortage — in the workplace, at schools and universities, and, of course, on the public stage.

Lucy Liu, the actress, has been mistaken for Lisa Ling, the journalist. “It’s like saying Hillary Clinton looks like Janet Reno,” Liu told USA Today.

Samuel L. Jackson, the actor, took umbrage last year when an entertainment reporter confused him with the actor Laurence Fishburne during a live television interview.

“Really? Really?” Jackson said, chiding the interviewer. “There’s more than one black guy doing a commercial. I’m the ‘What’s in your wallet?’ black guy. He’s the car black guy. Morgan Freeman is the other credit card black guy.”

And as a Washington correspondent, I managed a strained smile every time white officials and others remarked on my striking resemblance to Condoleezza Rice, then the secretary of state in the Bush administration. (No, we do not look alike.)

Psychologists say that starting when they are infants and young children, people become attuned to the key facial features and characteristics of the those around them. Whites often become accustomed to focusing on differences in hair color and eye color. African-Americans grow more familiar with subtle shadings of skin color.

“It’s a product of our perceptual experience,” said Christian A. Meissner, a professor of psychology at Iowa State University, “the extent to which we spend time with, the extent to which we have close friends of another race or ethnicity.”

(Minorities tend to be better at cross-race identification than whites, Meissner said, in part because they have more extensive and meaningful exposure to whites than the other way around.)

Distinguishing between two people of a race different from your own is certainly not impossible, cognitive experts say, but it can be difficult, even for those who are keenly aware of their limitations.

Alice O’Toole, a face-recognition expert and professor of behavioral and brain sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas, admits that she often confuses two of her Chinese graduate students, despite her expertise.

“It’s embarrassing, really embarrassing,” O’Toole, director of the university’s Face Perception Research Lab, said. “I think almost everyone has experienced it.”

But as Blake’s case has demonstrated, the other-race effect can have serious consequences, particularly in policing and the criminal justice system. …

If you sometimes mix up people of different races, it might not be racism but an effect of psychological development, researchers say.

Malpass, who has trained police officers and border patrol agents, urges law enforcement agencies to make sure black or Hispanic officers are involved when creating lineups of black and Hispanic suspects. And he warns of the dangers of relying on cross-racial identifications from eyewitnesses, who can be fallible.

The good news is that we can improve our cross-racial perceptions, researchers say, particularly if there is a strong need to do so. A white woman relocating to Accra, Ghana, for instance, would heighten her ability to distinguish between black faces, just as a black man living in Shanghai would enhance his ability to recognize Asians. (Malpass believes that people who need to identify those of other races — in the workplace or elsewhere — are more likely to be successful than people who simply have meaningful experiences with members of other racial groups.)

Source: Is ‘they all look alike to me’ pure racism or is there a scientific reason for mistaken identity?

Excluding expats from voting process is wrong. We’re global citizens: Loat and McArthur

One of the clearest, if most inadvertent, identification of the segment most interested in having indefinite expatriate voting: internationally mobile professionals, or in popular parlance, the “elites”:

Our nation’s challenge is to develop a new conception of citizenship, one that celebrates professionals aspiring to work around the world while maintaining ties to their home country. We cannot afford to be the old “General Motors” of citizenship, presuming a single life-long job in a single location. Many people still have that benefit, but in the increasing Uber-ization of the world economy, a growing share of Canadians will juggle many professional roles over a lifetime of mixed geographies.

There could be countless creative ways to engage Canadians living abroad, ranging from an expatriate voting tax, to professional councils targeting specific communities and skills, to parliamentary representation for citizens abroad. At the deepest level, we need to find every way we can to tell these Canadians that their homeland wants their contributions, rather than pushing them away.

It’s an old trope to say the “the world needs more Canada.” This may well be true. But as a colleague of ours recently put it, “Canada needs more world.” A new conception of global citizenship is a pivotal building block for getting there.

I still don’t see how long-term expatriates, whatever their substantial contribution to Canada, are connected enough to the day-to-day issues that our elections are about. Self-interest – nothing wrong with that – leads them to pursue opportunities abroad.
For those who missed it, an earlier post showed a very small number of Canadian expat voters (Reframing the debate over expat voting: Russell and Sevi, Globe editorial).

Canadians of all stripes oppose face coverings at citizenship ceremonies: Vote Compass – Politics – CBC News

While CBC’s Vote Compass does not have the same rigour as a formal poll, it is likely accurate in reflecting overall public opinion regarding the niqab(E.g. this recent Angus-Reid poll, Religion and faith in Canada today: strong belief, ambivalence and rejection define our views, captures a similar picture):

The findings from Vote Compass largely bolster this claim. When broken down along party lines, the results show that Bloc Québécois and Conservative supporters were most opposed to the idea of allowing people to cover their faces during citizenship ceremonies — 96 per cent and 92 per cent, respectively.

NDP, Liberal and Green supporters were less opposed, with 62, 57 and 51 per cent, respectively, saying face coverings shouldn’t be allowed during this type of ceremony.

On the other hand, 31 per cent of Green supporters, 29 per cent of NDP supporters and 28 per cent of Liberal supporters agree that it should be allowed.

The issue is often “framed as religious freedom, but it’s also an issue about cultural norms, and right across the spectrum you’re seeing that Canadians are very uncomfortable with people covering their face for whatever reason,” says Kyle Matthews, senior deputy director for the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies at Concordia University.

….The issue is most heated in Quebec, where the notion of reasonable accommodation was a major issue during the 2014 provincial election. While many commentators believe the Parti Québécois’ pursuit of a so-called charter of values was a prime reason for its defeat, religious accommodation remains contentious in Quebec.

According to the Vote Compass results, Quebecers are most opposed to facial coverings in citizenship ceremonies (90 per cent), followed by people in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba (72 per cent), the Atlantic provinces (68 per cent), Ontario (66 per cent) and B.C. (58 per cent).

Christopher Cochrane, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto, says this is “a textbook wedge issue, and also one of the few roads into Quebec for the Conservative party.”

The Conservatives and the Bloc have been vocally opposed to facial coverings in public ceremonies. While the Liberals and NDP have suggested a more inclusive stance, their positions have been tougher to pin down, says Cochrane.

For those parties, weighing in on the niqab issue is a tricky proposition, especially in Quebec.

“If Mulcair or Trudeau were to express support for a ban or a restriction, they’d alienate a pretty reasonable chunk of their support base,” says Cochrane.

At the same time, “if the Conservatives can make any inroads in [Quebec], then that’s a way of undercutting support precisely where the Liberals and New Democrats are far and away in the lead.”

Source: Canadians of all stripes oppose face coverings at citizenship ceremonies: Vote Compass – Politics – CBC News

Canadian passports exposed to security risks under new processing system

Normal teething pains or more serious problems?

At least 1,500 Canadian passports have been produced under a flawed new system that has opened the door to fraud and tampering, according to documents obtained by CBC/Radio-Canada.

Internal records from Citizenship and Immigration Canada reveal the processing program was rushed into operation on May 9, 2015, despite dire warnings from senior officials that it was not ready and could present new security risks.

One government source told CBC/Radio-Canada there are concerns that passports produced under the new system could wind up in the wrong hands.

Internal reports warn these problems endanger the security of the Canadian passport.

Since the launch of the new system, officials have been scrambling to fix hundreds of glitches and seal security gaps. Weeks after the new process was brought on line, there were calls to stop production.

Those recommendations were ignored, and the passports continue to be issued in the first phase of production under the new system, designed to enhance security and integrate with other global programs.

Numerous reports show that during a period of several weeks, it was possible for Citizenship and Immigration employees to alter the photo on a passport after it had been approved. And there are numerous reports of discrepancies between information contained in the database and what actually appeared on a passport.

In some cases, information disappeared from the system, making it difficult to verify if the applicant had used questionable guarantors or had made repeated claims of lost or stolen passports in the past.

That information acts as a safeguard to flag potential problems with applications.

Responding to the CBC report during a campaign event in Etobicoke, Ont., today, Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson said ensuring the Canadian passport is secure is a top priority.

“Any mistake, any problems are quickly looked into and remedied,” he said. “The system that we have in this country is as good as any in the world, and I’m confident that will continue.”

Source: Canadian passports exposed to security risks under new processing system – Politics – CBC News

Australia: Returning multiculturalism to the ministry

Marking a move back to the centre:

Overlooked so far in coverage of Prime Minister Turnbull’s remaking of the Australian government has been one intriguing change — the return of a Minister for Multiculturalism. Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells’ promotion from Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services to Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs has gone largely unreported.

The possible significance is not in the nomenclature, as the new Prime Minister remarked when announcing his ministry, parliamentary secretaries are in fact assistant ministers and should be referred to as such.

The senator’s new title means that multicultural affairs are once again acknowledged formally in the ministerial line-up. This small change has leaders in the culturally and linguistically diverse sector wondering whether it signals any change in priorities.

Australia is a migrant nation, with almost half of us coming from overseas or having at least one parent born overseas. While most newcomers identify as proud Aussies, they often maintain their links with countries of origin and sustain legacy languages.

Neither side of politics owns their votes, but this powerful constituency has been recognised and courted by successive governments over decades.

While the demographics have evolved with time and prosperity, migrant communities have often settled in marginal seats such as those in western Sydney which are regarded as likely to decide the outcome of the next election.

Some, reportedly, were worried when the Abbott Government did not include a minister for ethnic or multicultural affairs on coming to power. There were concerns the previous administration did not see this sector as important.

As the Turnbull government signals a move back to the centre of Australian politics, there are hopes in community organisations that this political recognition means that Australian multiculturalism is again valued.

Source: Returning multiculturalism to the ministry | Business Spectator

Pentagon’s take on ISIS fight nothing like Canada’s campaign rhetoric

Contrast between measured and political language, the latter used to install fear and division:

The leaders of the Liberal and New Democratic parties, Stephen Harper tells his election rallies, are such a couple of timorous wet smacks that they can’t possibly be trusted to shield Canadians from the evil that constantly bears down upon us all.

“Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair are so wrapped up in some form of twisted form of political correctness that they won’t even call jihadist terrorism what it is,” Harper told cheering supporters in Sault Ste. Marie this month.

“If you cannot even bring yourself to call jihadist terrorism what it is, then you cannot be trusted to confront it, and you cannot be trusted to keep Canadians safe from it.”

So, to summarize, and I’m using the words of the prime minister here, ISIS is a barbaric, fanatic, radically violent bunch of jihadist terrorist murderers. And they threaten Canadians every single day. And fighting them begins with calling them all those things, and if you can’t call them those things, you aren’t a fighter.

Now, here are the words of Christine Wormuth, the under-secretary of defence at the Pentagon, in testimony to Congress last week:

“While not 10 feet tall,” she told the Senate armed services committee last week, ISIS “remains a thinking enemy that adapts to evolving conditions on the battlefield.”

Wormuth, of course, is not running for office, and it is her job to take a clear-eyed view of her adversary.

She is tasked by President Barack Obama to help lead the military offensive in which Canada has been a proud participant, to use Stephen Harper’s words again.

Wormuth and the two top American generals who flanked her in the hearings tried to focus on the coalition’s meagre gains, but couldn’t obscure the utterly bleak reality that has emerged in the year since Obama announced the offensive.

Just a few days earlier, the outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs, Gen. Martin Dempsey, described the situation as “tactically stalemated.”

Senator John McCain, former naval commander, chairman of the armed forces committee and easily the Republican party’s reigning expert on war, used more pungent language.

“It seems impossible to assert that ISIL is losing and that we are winning. And if you’re not winning in this kind of warfare, you are losing. . . It’s an abject failure.”

McCain, like Wormuth and the generals, didn’t bother with any of the jihadist-murderer-terrorist-barbaric-fanatic-radical references Stephen Harper says a leader must make in order to protect the nation.

Source: Pentagon’s take on ISIS fight nothing like Canada’s campaign rhetoric – Politics – CBC News

Documents reveal government’s scramble to enact niqab requirements: Risks clearly flagged

Sounds all too familiar from my time in government and working on citizenship and multiculturalism files as detailed in my book, Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism. The official cited was part of my team and I think he read the situation clearly: once the Department had provided appropriate legal and policy advice, and the Ministerial direction was clear, further signal checks would simply aggravate relations without changing the views of the Minister.

The question remains is whether these concerns remained at the Director/Director General level (unlikely) and the degree to which the risks were raised during regular Ministerial briefings or by the Deputy Minister (and whether the opportunity to flag again the legal risk was acted upon):

The documents show that Mr. Kenney’s office asked departmental officials in the late summer of 2011 for “advice on … rules requiring that when people take the oath, their face must be uncovered.”

Senior staff in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration sent a memo to Mr. Kenney headed, all in capital letters, “OPTIONS TO ACCOMMODATE PERSONS WITH RELIGIOUS/CULTURAL GARMENTS WHILE TAKING OATH.” The federal government, in disputes over religious freedom, normally opts for accommodating minorities, they said.

“While there has (sic) been mixed approaches to dealing with religious accommodation in Canada and … abroad, in general, the federal-level response to recent high-profile incidents has been to accommodate religious beliefs when no security reasons exist (see Annex B),” officials told the minister.

Before changes are made, it said, the department needs to consider “the impact on the clients’ rights and beliefs, operational factors and how the requirements of the Citizenship Act and Regulations can be met.” The Citizenship Act contains regulations that individual religious beliefs are to be accorded “the greatest possible freedom.” The act also says changes involving the oath or the duties of a citizenship judge need to be approved by cabinet.

Within weeks, the tone changed. Mr. Kenney had gotten his message across: Niqab-wearers would need to unveil publicly. Mondher BenHassine, the director of policy and knowledge development in the department’s citizenship and multiculturalism branch, told other officials in a memo on Nov. 8 that there was no need to go back to Mr. Kenney for a “signal check.”

“In looking over the hand written comments from the Minister, it is pretty clear that he would like changes to the procedure to ‘require’ citizenship candidates to show their face and that these changes be made as soon as possible. Therefore, I don’t think it would serve us well to go back up for a signal check, it would likely only be seen as foot dragging by bureaucrats. My interpretation is that the Minister would like this done, regardless of whether there is a legislative base and that he will use his prerogative to make policy change.”

Mr. BenHassine went on to ask whether officials would be able to repeat an earlier warning to the minister’s office, dubbed MINO. “Is there the opportunity to flag the legal risk to MINO (it would be good to re-iterate, but not sure if this will make a difference).”

The documents do not make clear what the answer was. Several pages have been redacted from the court record, on the grounds of solicitor-client privilege.

But the documents spell out repeatedly that the policy is “mandatory” or “required.” The word is used in briefing notes to the minister for Question Period, and for officials taking media calls. And the policy itself says that citizenship “candidates are required to remove their face coverings for the oath taking portion of the ceremony.” Mr. Kenney called the wearing of a face-veil while taking the oath “ridiculous” in a CBC interview.

Source: Documents reveal government’s scramble to enact niqab requirements – The Globe and Mail