Toronto / November
The last week has been a whirlwind of meetings in Ottawa with colleagues from across the country, and the federal funder of our sector; with a side trip to our appointed House of sober second thought, as a witness to the Senate Committee on National Finance. They are studying housing, including the newly formed Build Canada Homes entity charged with building affordable rental housing.
My one hour, with Senators representing the breadth of our country, was refreshing. There was a sense that they were genuinely interested in what I had to say about the housing experiences of refugees, asylum-seekers/refugee claimants and new immigrants. They asked thoughtful and probing questions, and listened to understand and act, and not to attack. This appearance at the Senate Committee happened the day after the release of the much anticipated federal budget and the first time in my memory, with the immigration levels plan embedded within the budget document. No room for doubt that the economy will drive immigration decisions as opposed to the immigration driving economic outcomes.
The budget didn’t surprise - which was disappointing in itself. The week before we joined national and local organizations for women, gender-diverse, and 2SLGBTQI+ communities in celebrating a major federal investment. The Department of Women and Gender Equality would be allocated over $600 million over five years with permanent funding to support its work for women, gender-diverse, and 2SLGBTQI+ people.
The Department, only a few months ago faced uncertainty as the new Prime Minister had failed to name a Minister to this portfolio. The outcry from feminist organizations were immediate, loud and consistent. The post-election cabinet included a new full minister position, to which Rechie Valdez was appointed.Our advocacy for financial resources for the communities named above continued with letter-writing campaigns and face to face meetings with Minister Valdez. She listened, and in turn lobbied her colleagues, finance, and the PM to ensure ongoing support for the women’s sector in Canada.
Given the warnings from the government itself about the budget being one of austerity, we braced for the worst. In addition to funding for WAGE, we pay particular attention at OCASI to funding Canada’s commitments to antiracism - the Antiracism Strategy 2025-2028 and the Federal Antiracism Secretariat. We were deeply disappointed that this commitment seems to be coming to an end. No new funds were announced beyond March 31, 2026. This is shocking. There is uncertainty and little information about the future of the Secretariat and its work. Cuts to International Development were also an unpleasant surprise, especially in light of the significant chaos and harm resulting in many deaths of the world’s most vulnerable, brought about by the discontinuation of USAID by the US government. At a time when Canada is much needed in the global social and policy investment space, our government chose to redirect those much-needed resources to NATO and militarism.
Of course, immigrant and refugee (re)settlement and integration services funding is our primary interest in the budget. Our sector's funding flows from permanent immigration levels, not a dedicated budget line. This is because funding is tied to the number of permanent residents, including convention refugees. Quebec is the exception, as it has a separate agreement with the federal government.The funding formula (Settlement Allocation Model) is loosely based on two to three years back, current year and one to two years forward in terms of actual and projected arrivals. It’s an imperfect model, but one the sector has worked with over the years, informally knowing that there could be flexibility, including for regional realities.
The sector experienced an unforeseen reduction in funding this year when immigration levels were unexpectedly reduced at the end of last fiscal year. We were bracing for additional cuts resulting from the cross-government, per-Department spending reductions of up to fifteen percent by 2028. And held our breath as we anticipated further cuts to immigration levels for permanent residents and convention refugees. With permanent immigration being held at three hundred and eighty thousand over the next three years there should not be any additional cuts to the already harmful ones noted above.
The levels plan itself was vexing. Reductions in humanitarian numbers at a time when the world is on fire is unconscionable. And while we welcomed the news that there will be a two-year initiative to expedite the granting of permanent residence to approximately 115,000 protected persons - an advocacy win for our national organization the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR) - we are unclear what it means for humanitarian initiatives like the ones for people in Sudan and Gaza.
Similarly, while we welcome the proposal to grant permanent residence to thirty three thousand work permit holders, it is only a drop in the bucket given the hundreds of thousands of work permit holders waiting for a pathway to permanent status. The government had an opportunity to expand this into a broad regularization program. These people are already here, already housed and in most cases already working. Regularizing their status makes economic sense.
But we are celebrating the small wins, knowing what it means for the individuals and families who have been living in limbo for too long.
From the discussions that followed between the federal funder and the sector on the future of federally funded settlement and integration programs and services, there appears to have been a values-shift (one mid-level bureaucrat called it ideological) within the decision-making ranks of IRCC. This is at the program and services level, as far as I know, since the political side of the department has and continues to be quite opaque. There is no line of sight into what the new Minister thinks, or wants to achieve with the settlement and integration program.
The day before federal budget 2025 was released, the sector was informed of the six or so thematic areas the Department is reviewing in light of expected funding cuts.
I was taken aback to see service eligibility as one of the areas where change would occur. Service eligibility is already restrictive at the federal level with access based on immigration status. Only permanent residents and convention refugees qualify. For years as a sector, we pushed back against this. We argued that since up to seventy percent of refugee claimants were successful and eventually became permanent residents, it didn’t make any sense to delay their settlement and integration journey by denying them federally funded services. We made similar arguments when pathways to PR were opened up for international students and some temporary workers.
We stressed that early access to services led to better social and economic outcomes for new Canadians and as such, services should be provided based on needs not immigration status. And certainly not length of stay in Canada, a measure that ignores the unique realities of different people, and particularly factors of bigotry like racism, xenophobia and faithism that create barriers to full participation for many.
We are no longer seeing the flexibility we once had from IRCC. We initially had broad agreement with them, and while their limited budgets have always meant some status-based restrictions, they have made exceptions in the past ((like for Ukrainians). It appears that is no longer the case.
We assumed that our meetings in Ottawa were to reach agreement on how the program will absorb the planned cuts. So while we thought we could argue against further eligibility restrictions, It clearly was a done deal since it appeared in the budget. This pertains to the paragraph below as well. I felt blind sided by the Department.
Imagine my shock to see this in the budget. I (we) were led to believe that our program review as a national sector with the funder was to determine how best to maintain our settlement and integration ecosystem – a system built over decades – under a new reality of reduced funding.
When I asked the Deputy Minister of IRCC about the unexpected inclusion of service eligibility restrictions for economic immigrants, he talked about building in fairness in the implementation of this policy change. The question I had then and do now is how? But importantly, why and fairness for whom?
I am writing this as a heads up to the Ontario sector (and hope my colleagues across the country will take heed as well). Basing access to service on immigration stream and now length of time in the country is a slippery slope. It has the potential to further marginalize those who are not English speaking, male, cis-gender, white and able.
We must push back against this tightening of eligibility for services while we work provincially to secure additional funding for those already excluded from the federal program and to protect our shared value of access to service based on need.
We are entering a period of reduced funding and must find ways to live and work within this new reality. But it cannot start with top-down decisions and the pretence of consultation and inclusion of the sector’s thoughts and ideas.
We want to hear from you. In this new funding reality, how do we continue to provide quality services to all who show up at our doors? OCASI will be hosting a Members Town Hall on November 13th at 2pm EST. Come share your thoughts on our way forward.
In Solidarity!
dd