I had planned a happy New Year message, filled with good thoughts and wishes for the many of us who are advocates for a just and equitable Ontario and Canada. And while I'm sending those wishes that everything that is good and positive will come our way; that the lives of those who are in distress will be made easier and that the hearts and minds of those who make decisions that have impact on our lives will be guided by fairness and good conscience, my focus in this message has changed due to two emails that I received in the dying days of 2013 and the opening days of 2014.
The first email was from a group I may have spoken of previously in this space. And I hate to give press and profile to anti-immigrant, xenophobic folks especially those who masquerade as thoughtful, pro-Canada types. But I believe it is important to expose thinking that undermines the limited progressive movement forward on social justice projects.
This group - Immigration Watch Canada - has been peppering my colleagues and I at OCASI (and we assume others who are advocates on immigration, immigrants and refugee issues) with regular rants against immigration and other social justice issues that have to do with immigrants, refugees, racialized communities, etc. This time around they've decided to take on the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) newish policy interpretation on employers practice of requiring “Canadian Experience” as a condition of employment. The group has characterised this policy and the research that is its foundation as "amateurish" and posits it as an attack on "Canadian workers".
This divisive read of a policy that is meant to remove unnecessary barriers to employment for immigrant workers is steeped in xenophobic and racist assumptions. The group not surprisingly continuously conflates the "Canadian mainstream" with "whiteness". They imply that the many studies showing that immigrants are not doing well economically regardless of education levels is due to the faulty immigration policies that bring in folks who shouldn't be here in the first place. Let us not forget that these “wrong immigrants” are primarily from the global south- folks of colour; folks who are racialized.
We must respond to these ideas that are put out by these groups. We must speak out about the systemic barriers that continue to inhibit immigrants, women, racialized folks, youth, and indigenous peoples from reaching their economic, social and political potential. The OHRC's policy interpretation on Canadian Experience is one step in addressing these systemic barriers. It is a good policy and those of us concern with equity and fairness must speak out in support of the work of the Commission in this area.
The second email that came across my vacation surfing was the news that our new minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada was turning his attention to overhauling our Citizenship Act. Pray it isn't true was my first thought. But a quick check of my telephone messages quickly confirmed that it was so, as media was calling to seek my (OCASI) response to the reopening of the citizenship acquisition debate.
We have gone on public record with our concerns about the difficulty of the new tests. We have supported member agencies working with the Deaf and Hard of Hearing; with refugees (especially those who have experienced torture) and with others who have literacy challenges, to find ways around writing the citizenship test. We have flagged the difficulties the random requirement for proof of residency covering up to a decade is having on many. The significant reduction in targets reached (those who were granted citizenship) vs planned targets speak to the legitimacy of our concerns.
We are cautiously hopeful that we'll see some movement in finding ways to accommodate those who are not able to write the test.
This renewed focus on making it more difficult to achieve Canadian citizenship is premised on the false belief that there is significant fraud in the system. The coining of the phrases “passport babies” or “tourist babies” adds to this hyper concern that somehow we are selling our citizenship short. I am not naïve so I know there are those few who apply for Canadian citizenship while living elsewhere. But I strongly believe, and I'm betting that research will bear this out, that the vast majority of the over 85% of immigrants who eventually become citizens are legitimate and genuine in their love of this country and values we espouse. And have chosen Canada as home.
Of all the policy balloons floated the most egregious is the removal of automatic citizenship based on birth. Let me state this clearly: All children born in Canada are Canadians. Children born outside of Canada of Canadian parents are Canadians. This should be sacrosanct. It should never be up to debate. While we may argue whether we should move back to five years out of six before naturalization can take place or what ways we can fix the problem we created by ignoring babies of war brides and Canadian servicemen in our last overhaul of the Act, we must not touch or even raise as a possibility, changing this inalienable birthright.
There is an opportunity for us to get in at the beginning of this conversation. I want to hear from you; tell me what you think. What changes if any are needed to our Citizenship Act? Given that the government seems gung-ho about moving forward on this what are the areas of concern that we should be flagging as a sector? As the Council prepares its discussion paper on this topic, what should we highlight? What makes a Canadian a Canadian? Share your thoughts. Email me, Debbie Douglas, or connect with us on Twitter. Be part of this important national conversation. Happy New Year.