A digitally modernized immigration ecosystem in Canada: Reflecting on the roundtable, Strengthening Canada’s Immigration Ecosystem

2021/07/02 Leave a comment

Summary of roundtable discussions based upon a Deloitte study on immigration modernization (I was one of the external experts consulted in their study, not yet posted on their website):

On June 18th, 2021, the Public Policy Forum brought together over 30 experts and practitioners in the immigration space in Canada. The roundtable, Strengthening Canada’s Immigration Ecosystem, focused on a digitally enabled modernized immigration system. The consensus was clear: A modernized immigration system is necessary, and any such modernizations must be inclusive, immigrant centred, and must not perpetuate biases within the system. Katie Davey, Policy Lead at Public Policy Forum and Fatemah Ebrahim, Policy Associate at Public Policy Forum reflect on the roundtable conversation: 

For a system to work, it must work for everyone using it. Technology is not a one size fits all approach to solutions; however, modernization efforts have the potential to leverage technology and digital solutions for the benefit of all. Implemented with the right considerations, a digitally modernized immigration system has the potential to significantly reduce pain points and become more responsive, and immigrant centred while also freeing up human resources to support the most challenging case work. While a digitally enabled system is part of the solution, it is not a panacea. Digital for the sake of digital risks leaving people out in the cold, and perpetuating issues and biases that exist.  

The Government of Canada recognized the importance of immigration in post-pandemic recovery and GDP growth in Budget 2021. The budget included reforms to the Express Entry Program, enhancements to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, and extensions to the Racialized Newcomer Women Pilot initiative. It committed to accelerating pathways for permanent residency as well as enabling Statistics Canada to address the lack of data needed to support evidence-based decision making on social and racial inequities. Budget 2021 also included $430 million to modernize information technology infrastructure to allow for improved application processing, better security, and higher levels of future foreign national arrivals. These commitments create the opportunity for much needed transformation.  

COVID-19 has accelerated the case for transformation and has propelled many governments to expedite their digital and technology capabilities to respond effectively during this crisis. As it stands, Canada’s immigration system operates on outdated technology and remains largely paper based; although the pandemic resulted in some short-term technology enabled solutions creating a good foundation to build on. At the same time, these COVID capabilities also demonstrated that flexibility within the system will be needed to avoid an unintentional rigidness that leaves people out. The competition for global talent is only increasing as mature economies grapple with stalling birth rates and labour force demands.  

Although Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) continues to set ambitious immigration targets, most metrics are highly unpredictable, including number of newcomers who become citizens each year. Focus has been placed on the supply side of immigration while labour force demands continue to be unmet. Conversations like foreign credential recognition have been on the agenda for years — especially in the healthcare sector; however little movement has been made. Digital modernization may provide new opportunities to address these persisting policy challenges by providing information and transparency. These brief examples are only two of many that provide a foundation for the case of modernization within the immigration sector. 

The focus of a modernized system should be a process that moves towards settlement supports and pathways to citizenship. At a fundamental level, digital modernization is a mindset shift and should offer an accessible, safe, and informative tool to enhance how a newcomer moves through the system.  

Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) sets out three classes of migrants: those entering for economic immigration, for family reunification, and as refugees. There is a prioritization of the economic class over the family or refugee class which is one example of the underlying and at times, explicit bias built into Canada’s immigration system. Bias also exists within the technology and tools often used to enhance modernization. Further, data protection remains a concern in most areas of technology, and some may have serious and founded concerns about the potential surveillance that could be empowered by a tool holding all their immigration data in one place. These realities are risks of digital modernization. 

Another risk present in the digital government literature is the 80-20 principle often inherent in technology and policy development. It would suggest that a technology build out may serve just one part of the immigration ecosystem and leave those with more complex paths outside of the modernization journey. Consideration should be given to inclusive and equitable modernization that builds for the margins. The most common use case should be replaced with the most complex use case – if the system builds for that, it will naturally also serve the most common case. At the same time, digital modernization presents the opportunity to reorient resources to supporting those with a higher level of need. 

Attracting, welcoming, and retaining immigrants are vital if Canada is to remain competitive on the world stage. Digital modernization is a key element of a broader policy modernization landscape. Canada’s immigration system focuses heavily on the economic class, and any steps toward digital modernization has a risk of building for that class alone. A modernized system must address biases present and reinforced through technology. More needs to be done to build an anti-racist immigration ecosystem; one that supports all categories of migrants and provides equitable access and support through the application and naturalization processes. There is a tremendous opportunity for Canada’s immigration system to continue being the envy of the world. Although the Canadian immigration conversation often centres economic growth and competitiveness, newcomers to Canada are people and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect – technology is a tool to help move us toward a system that prioritizes newcomers.  

Source: https://ppforum.ca/policy-speaking/a-digitally-modernized-immigration-ecosystem-in-canada/

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Perception and reality across Canada’s urban-rural divide

2021/02/15 Leave a comment

This divide also maps neatly with age, percentage of immigrants and visible minorities, and political leanings:

Canadian policy-makers and citizens must be more attuned to the potential for rising political polarization in our democracy. It would be wrong to assume that the country is immune to the forces that are fracturing politics in the United States and elsewhere.

One potential fault line in Canadian society is our urban-rural divide. Voting patterns increasingly point to divergent political preferences along these place-based lines. In the 2019 federal election, the median population density for the 157 Liberal ridings was more than 38 times higher than that of the 121 Conservative ridings.

Yet, notwithstanding these different political outcomes, we don’t know much about the extent to which urban and rural Canadians actually think differently about politics, public policy, the country’s economic prospects or broader social trends. There’s little polling or other forms of empirical analysis to help us understand these questions.

Two new reports from the Public Policy Forum (Perceptions and Polarization and Fault Lines and Common Ground) aim to establish such an evidence base for understanding the urban-rural divide in Canada. The reports use survey data to (1) see how urban, suburban and rural Canadians perceive one another’s circumstances, experiences and perspectives and (2) determine whether there are actual differences in their economic, cultural and political viewpoints.

This exercise in measuring and comparing perception versus reality is highly relevant because research shows that distorted perceptions not only fuel polarization, but that polarization can in turn lead to even more distorted perceptions. The result is a vicious cycle that can contribute to rising political polarization and further social attenuation.

Let’s start with Canadians’ perceptions. Our research used a sliding-scale methodology to produce a “perception score” across 11 specific topics (such as unemployment, immigration and the prevalence of conservative social values). Respondents were presented with a scale ranging from 0 to 100, where 0 was “a lot less than the Canadian average,” 50 was “average,” and 100 was “a lot more than the Canadian average.” Scores of more than 50 indicate that respondents think Canadians in some places are above the average on a particular measure, while scores below 50 indicate that they believe Canadians in some places are below the average.

What did we find? Canadians perceive significant place-based differences in these economic, cultural and political issues.

Take economic growth, for instance. Respondents held broadly similar perceptions that cities have experienced much-higher-than-average economic growth, suburbs have had higher-than-average economic growth, and rural communities are far-below-average growth. The average “perception score” was 63.1 for cities, 57.5 for suburbs, and 44.2 for rural communities. This is 19-point gap conveys that Canadians perceive significant differences in the economic conditions between big cities and small towns.

These perceptions of significant place-based differences are something that policy-makers ought to be cognizant of. The risk is that these perceived differences contribute over time to a lack of common experiences and perspectives, and in turn a diminished sense of cohesion and unity.

What’s interesting, however, is that while respondents perceived significant place-based variations among urban, suburban and rural places, these perceptions were widely held across places. That is to say our perceptions don’t seem affected by where we live. Urban, suburban and rural perceptions of one another’s experiences and perspectives tend to cluster in a narrow range. The economic growth example works here as well. Respondents from all three types of places – urban (66.0), suburban (63.9) and rural (62.3) – perceive economic growth is highest in urban cities. We share a broadly similar understanding of how our fellow citizens think, live, work and vote.

As we observe in the paper, these differences fall broadly along a continuum between optimism and anxiety, openness and closedness, and modernism and tradition.

What about urban and rural Canadians’ actual circumstances, experiences and perspectives?

Our analysis, which draws on data from the Canadian Election Study, finds considerable common ground between urban and rural Canadians on a number of cultural, economic and political issues. Most place-based disagreements on matters of policy and politics are best measured by degree rather than fundamental principle.

Yet there are a handful of issues – including the state of the economy; environmental policy;  immigration and diversity; values and tradition; and trust in government – where consistent and significant place-based differences are evident.

As we observe in the paper, these differences fall broadly along a continuum between optimism and anxiety, openness and closedness, and modernism and tradition. They no doubt reflect to some degree a combination of differing economic circumstances and psychological dispositions rooted in urban and rural experiences and perspectives. The process of self-selection inherent in migration patterns invariably reinforces these differences. The basic idea here is that people with similar backgrounds, interests and economic prospects tend to cluster in the same places. American writer Will Wilkinson has described this tendency and its sociopolitical consequences as the “density divide.” It’s quite possible therefore that we’ll continue to see divergence along these continuums in the future.

There are two reasonable ways to interpret these data: positive and negative.

The positive interpretation is that although Canadians perceive significant place-based differences on matters of economics, culture and politics, these perceptions are commonly held and are generally unaffected by where one lives. More importantly, the evidence suggests that these perceptions may be overstated. Urban and rural views are broadly similar across a wide range of policy and political issues from assisted death to free trade.

The upshot: The evidence tells us that there is more that connects us than separates us — no matter whether we live in a big city or a small town.

The negative interpretation is that Canadians’ perceptions of significant place-based differences on matters of economics, culture and politics are reflected in differing views on key issues including the state of the economy; climate policy; immigration and diversity; values and tradition; and trust in government. These differences are important because (1) they manifest themselves in polarized voting patterns and (2) they represent issues that are associated with the rise of populism and polarization elsewhere.

The risk, of course, is that we experience a growing urban-rural divide driven by a complex relationship between perception and reality on these key hot-button issues. The consequence could be a significant place-based polarization that fractures the country along urban-rural lines.

It’s too early to know which interpretation will ultimately be correct. That answer will depend on whether Canada’s political parties, our policy-makers and citizens are prepared to build bridges across these divides and cultivate a politics of empathy, unity and respect.

The first step is understanding perception and reality across Canada’s urban-rural divide. We hope that these new reports are a useful contribution to such an ongoing effort.

Source: Perception and reality across Canada’s urban-rural divide

Filed under Polling Tagged with , , ,