INCLUSION - Brotherhood of St. Laurencelibrary.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/626/1/Immigrant... ·...

Ratna OmidvarTed Richmond

W O R K I N G P A P E R S E R I E S

PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL INCLUSION

J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 3

ImmigrantSettlement andSocial Inclusion

in Canada

Ratna Omidvar is the Executive Director of The Maytree Foundation, a private foundation which invests in theacceleration of settlement for immigrants and refugees in Canada.

Ted Richmond is a researcher and community advocate with the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto.He was formerly Coordinator at the CERIS immigration research centre in Toronto and Research Coordinator

for the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)


Ratna OmidvarTed Richmond


in Canada

Copyright © 2003 The Laidlaw Foundation

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of theLaidlaw Foundation.

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Omidvar, Ratna, 1949-Immigrant settlement and social inclusion in Canada / Ratna Omidvar and Ted Richmond.

(Working paper series Perspectives on social inclusion)Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-9731957-0-3

1. Immigrants–Canada--Social conditions. 2. Immigrants–Services for–Canada. 3.Immigrants–Government policy–Canada. 4. Social integration–Canada. I. Richmond, Ted II.Laidlaw Foundation. III. Title. IV. Series: Perspectives on social inclusion working paper series.

FC104.O45 2003 362.84'00971 C2003-900455-4 F1035.A1O45 2003

The Laidlaw Foundation365 Bloor Street East, Suite 2000 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4W 3L4Tel.: (416) 964-3614 Fax: (416) 975-1428

PresidentPaul Zarnke

Executive DirectorNathan Gilbert

Editing and LayoutIs five Communications

This paper is part of the Laidlaw Foundation’s Working Paper Series, Perspectives on SocialInclusion. The full papers (in English only) and the summaries in French and English can be down-

loaded from the Laidlaw Foundation’s web site at www.laidlawfdn.org under Children’s Agenda/Working Paper Series on Social Inclusion or ordered from [email protected]: $11.00 full paper; $6.00 Summaries (Taxes do not apply and shipment included).


iii

Table of Contents

About the Laidlaw Foundation..................................................................v

Foreword..............................................................................................vii

Immigrant Settlement and Social Inclusion in Canada...................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................1

The Economic Status of Newcomers in Canada..............................................2

Other Groups of Newcomers......................................................................4

Immigrant and Refugee Children and Youth.................................................5

Settlement Services and the NGO Sector......................................................7

Urban Issues and Newcomer Settlement.....................................................9

The Social Inclusion Perspective..............................................................10

Social Inclusion and Canada’s Official Multiculturalism.................................12

Policy Perspectives within a Social Inclusion Framework...............................13

Conclusion...........................................................................................19

Acknowledgements................................................................................20

Appendix: Background on Origins of Canada's Immigration Policy...................22

References.........................................................................................23


v

About the Laidlaw Foundation

The Laidlaw Foundation is a private, public-interest foundation that uses its human and financialresources in innovative ways to strengthen civic engagement and social cohesion. The Foundationuses its capital to better the environments and fulfill the capacities of children and youth, to enhancethe opportunities for human development and creativity and to sustain healthy communities andecosystems.

The Foundation supports a diverse portfolio of innovative and often unconventional projects in threeprogram areas: in the arts, in the environment and improving the life prospects for children, youthand families.

Working for social inclusion is a theme that underlies much of the Foundation’s activities. The keywords in the Foundation’s mission — human development, sustainable communities and ecosystems— imply that achievement will rely on the enhancement of capacity and capability. Not only is socialinclusion being developed as an emerging funding stream, it is an embedded Laidlaw Foundationvalue, both structurally and programmatically.

Nathan GilbertExecutive Director

For more information about the Laidlaw Foundation please contact us at:

The Laidlaw FoundationTel: 416 964-3614Fax: 416 975-1428Email: [email protected]


vii

Foreword:

The context for social inclus ion

The Laidlaw Foundation’sPerspective on Social Inclusion

Children have risen to the top of gov-ernment agendas at various times overthe past decade, only to fall again

whenever there is an economic downturn, abudget deficit, a federal-provincial relationscrisis or, most recently, a concern over terror-ism and national security. While there havebeen important achievements in public policyin the past 5 to 10 years, there has not been asustained government commitment to childrennor a significant improvement in the well-being of children and families. In fact, inmany areas, children and families have lostground and social exclusion is emerging as amajor issue in Canada. Examples abound andinclude these facts.

• the over-representation of racial minorityfamilies and children among those livingin poverty in large cities, and the denialof access to many services by immigrantand refugee families;

• the 43% increase in the number of chil-dren in poverty in Canada since 1989,the 130% increase in the number of chil-dren in homeless shelters in Toronto, aswell as the persistence of one of the high-est youth incarceration rates amongCommonwealth countries;

• the exclusion of children with disabilitiesfrom public policy frameworks (e.g. theNational Children’s Agenda), from defi-nitions of ‘healthy’ child developmentand, all too often, from community life.

These situations provide the context forthe Laidlaw Foundation’s interest in socialinclusion. The Foundation’s Children’s Agendaprogram first began exploring social inclusionin 2000 as a way to re-focus child and familypolicy by:

• re-framing the debate about poverty, vul-nerability and the well-being of childrenin order to highlight the social dimen-sions of poverty (i.e. the inability to par-ticipate fully in the community)

• linking poverty and economic vulnerabil-ity with other sources of exclusion suchas racism, disability, rejection of differ-ence and historic oppression

• finding common ground among thoseconcerned about the well-being of fami-lies with children to help generate greaterpublic and political will to act.

The Foundation commissioned a series ofworking papers to examine social inclusionfrom a number of perspectives. Although theauthors approach the topic from differentstarting points and emphasize different aspectsof exclusion and inclusion, there are importantcommon threads and conclusions. The work-ing papers draw attention to the new realitiesand new understandings that must be broughtto bear on the development of social policyand the creation of a just and healthy society.

Foreword: The Laidlaw Foundation's Perspective

viii

These are:

• Whether the source of exclusion is pover-ty, racism, fear of differences or lack ofpolitical clout, the consequences are thesame: a lack of recognition and accept-ance; powerlessness and ‘voicelessness’;economic vulnerability; and, diminishedlife experiences and limited life prospects.For society as a whole, the social exclusionof individuals and groups can become amajor threat to social cohesion and eco-nomic prosperity.

• A rights-based approach is inadequate toaddress the personal and systemic exclu-sions experienced by children and adults.People with disabilities are leading the wayin calling for approaches based on socialinclusion and valued recognition to deliverwhat human rights claims alone cannot.

• Diversity and difference, whether on thebasis of race, disability, religion, culture orgender, must be recognized and valued.

The ‘one size fits all approach’ is no longeracceptable and has never been effective inadvancing the well-being of children andfamilies.

• Public policy must be more closely linkedto the lived experiences of children andfamilies, both in terms of the actual pro-grams and in terms of the process forarriving at those policies and programs.This is one of the reasons for the growingfocus on cities and communities, as placeswhere inclusion and exclusion happen.

• Universal programs and policies that serveall children and families generally providea stronger foundation for improving well-being than residual, targeted or segregatedapproaches. The research and anecdotalevidence for this claim is mounting fromthe education, child development andpopulation health sectors.

Understanding social inclus ion

Social exclusion emerged as an importantpolicy concept in Europe in the 1980s inresponse to the growing social divides

that resulted from new labour market condi-tions and the inadequacy of existing social wel-fare provisions to meet the changing needs ofmore diverse populations. Social inclusion isnot, however, just a response to exclusion.

Although many of the working papers usesocial exclusion as the starting point for theirdiscussions, they share with us the view thatsocial inclusion has value on its own as both aprocess and a goal. Social inclusion is aboutmaking sure that all children and adults areable to participate as valued, respected and

contributing members of society. It is, there-fore, a normative (value based) concept - a wayof raising the bar and understanding where wewant to be and how to get there.

Social inclusion reflects a proactive,human development approach to social well-being that calls for more than the removal ofbarriers or risks. It requires investments andaction to bring about the conditions for inclu-sion, as the population health and internation-al human development movements have taughtus.

Recognizing the importance of differenceand diversity has become central to new under-


ix

standings of identity at both a national andcommunity level. Social inclusion goes onestep further: it calls for a validation and recog-nition of diversity as well as a recognition ofthe commonality of lived experiences and theshared aspirations among people, particularlyevident among families with children.

This strongly suggests that social inclu-sion extends beyond bringing the ‘outsiders’in, or notions of the periphery versus the cen-tre. It is about closing physical, social andeconomic distances separating people, ratherthan only about eliminating boundaries orbarriers between us and them.

The cornerstones of social inclus ion

The working papers process revealed thatsocial inclusion is a complex and chal-lenging concept that cannot be reduced

to only one dimension or meaning. The work-ing papers, together with several other initia-tives the Foundation sponsored as part of itsexploration of social inclusion , have helped usto identify five critical dimensions, or corner-stones, of social inclusion:

Valued recognition– Conferring recognitionand respect on individuals and groups. Thisincludes recognizing the differences in chil-dren’s development and, therefore, not equat-ing disability with pathology; supporting com-munity schools that are sensitive to culturaland gender differences; and extending thenotion to recognizing common worth throughuniversal programs such as health care.

Human development – Nurturing the talents,skills, capacities and choices of children andadults to live a life they value and to make acontribution both they and others find worth-while. Examples include: learning and devel-opmental opportunities for all children andadults; community child care and recreationprograms for children that are growth-promot-ing and challenging rather than merelycustodial.

Involvement and engagement – Having theright and the necessary support to make/beinvolved in decisions affecting oneself, familyand community, and to be engaged in commu-nity life. Examples include: youth engagementand control of services for youth; parentalinput into school curriculum or placementdecisions affecting their child; citizen engage-ment in municipal policy decisions; and politi-cal participation.

Proximity – Sharing physical and socialspaces to provide opportunities for interac-tions, if desired, and to reduce social distancesbetween people. This includes shared publicspaces such as parks and libraries; mixedincome neighbourhoods and housing; andintegrated schools and classrooms.

Material well being – Having the materialresources to allow children and their parents toparticipate fully in community life. Thisincludes being safely and securely housed andhaving an adequate income.

Foreword: The Laidlaw Foundation's Perspective

x

Next s teps: Bui lding inclus ive c i t ies and communit ies

AcknowledgementsWe wish to thank the following for their contribution and commitment to the working papers serieson social inclusion: the authors, without whom there would be no working papers; Karen Swift,Frank Stark, Nancy Matthews, Jennifer Keck, Daniel Drache and the forty external reviewers ofpapers, all of whom provided critical feedback and expert advice at various stages during the editorialprocess; the members of the Advisory Committee, Children’s Agenda Program, Nathan Gilbert,Executive Director, and the Board of Directors, Laidlaw Foundation for their support, interest andcritical comments; and Larisa Farafontova, Eva-Marie Dolhai, and Richard Wazana, for theirperseverance and skillful assistance at critical stages in the process.

Over the next three years, the Children’sAgenda program of the LaidlawFoundation will focus on Building

inclusive cities and communities. The impor-tance of cities and communities is becomingincreasingly recognized because the well-beingof children and families is closely tied to wherethey live, the quality of their neighbourhoodsand cities, and the ‘social commons’ where peo-ple interact and share experiences.

The Laidlaw Foundation’s vision of asocially inclusive society is grounded in aninternational movement that aims to advancethe well-being of people by improving thehealth of cities and communities. Realizingthis vision is a long-term project to ensure thatall members of society participate as equallyvalued and respected citizens. It is an agendabased on the premise that for our society to bejust, healthy and secure, it requires the inclu-sion of all.

Christa FreilerChildren’s Agenda Program CoordinatorLaidlaw Foundation

Paul ZarnkePresident and Former Chair, Children’s Agenda Advisory Committee Laidlaw Foundation

This series is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Jennifer Keck who died on June 12, 2002

after a long battle with cancer.

Jennifer was a key member of the editorial committee,an insightful and passionate reviewer of the working papers,

and an unwavering advocate forsocial justice and the social inclusion of all people.


in Canada


1

Immigrant Settlement andSocial Inclusion in Canada

During the past two years, the LaidlawFoundation has been working todevelop the notion of social inclusion

as a framework for a more progressiveapproach to social policy questions in Canada.As well, the issue of immigrant settlement isevolving as one of the most important ques-tions of public policy in Canada. Canada isexperiencing serious and increasing difficultiesin making full use of the skills and talents ofour newcomers in both the economic sphereand in public life in general. Simultaneously,immigrant and refugee communities and theirspokespersons are expressing a growing sense offrustration, even despair, at the barriers theyencounter to full participation in all domainsof Canadian life.

This paper is an attempt to bring togeth-er these two important issues and to pose thefollowing questions. What does the conceptof social inclusion offer for a better under-standing and ultimately a better resolution ofthe problems of immigrant and refugee settle-ment in Canada today? More specifically, doesthe concept of social inclusion offer new per-spectives and help us formulate improved poli-cies in the vital area of immigrant settlement?

Social inclusion involves the basic notionsof belonging, acceptance and recognition. Forimmigrants and refugees, social inclusionwould be represented by the realization of fulland equal participation in the economic,

social, cultural and political dimensions of lifein their new country. In a simple but usefulsense, therefore, social inclusion for immi-grants and refugees can be seen as the disman-tling of barriers that lead to exclusion in allthese domains.

As many commentators have noted, thedefinition of “social inclusion” remains fluidand open to debate, and is ultimately shapedby political and ideological convictions.Within the framework of our own beliefs, wewill attempt to address different dimensions ofthe notion of inclusion: as a process, as an out-come and as a metaphor or means of reconcep-tualizing fundamental issues.

Recently there has been much discussionand debate with the goal of refining the con-cept of social inclusion, both inside and out-side the dialogue promoted by the LaidlawFoundation, and it is well beyond the scope ofthis paper to adequately address all the issuesthat have been raised. We are working in thispaper with a more practical focus, which is totest the potential of social inclusion as a policyframework against what we know of the realityof immigrant and refugee settlement inCanada today.

Introduct ion

2

Immigrant Settlement and Social Inclusion in Canada

During the last two decades there hasbeen a dramatic downward shift in theeconomic status of newcomers to

Canada. The groups of immigrants andrefugees who have arrived in the last 20 years—overwhelmingly non-European visible minori-ties—are experiencing severe difficulties in theCanadian labour market and associated prob-lems of individual and family poverty.

During roughly the first 40 years after theSecond World War, newcomers to Canada,with some initial settlement support and over aperiod of time, generally were successful in theCanadian labour market. Their employmentparticipation rates were as high or higher thanthe Canadian-born, and their wages andsalaries rose gradually to the level of theCanadian-born. However, recent research indi-cates persistent and growing difficulties in thelabour market integration of immigrants, espe-cially recent immigrants. Rates of unemploy-ment and underemployment are increasing forindividual immigrants, as are rates of povertyfor immigrant families. As well, there is a sub-stantial body of evidence indicating incomediscrimination against visible minority workers(both immigrant and Canadian-born) as well asgender-based wage discrimination for femaleimmigrants. The general trend is summarizedby J. Shields:

The great difficulty is that since the 1980simmigrant performance in the Canadianlabour market has deteriorated precipitously,dampening the possibilities of economicintegration and expanding the dimensionsof immigrant social exclusion (2002:21).

These general trends have been docu-mented in numerous studies includingDevoretz (1995), Harvey and Siu (2001),Galabuzi (2001), Kazemipur and Halli (1997;

2000), Lo et al. (2000), Mwarigha M.S.(2002), Ornstein (2000), Pendakur (2000),Reitz (1998; 2001), and Shields (2002). Someof the main trends were summarized in themuch-cited HRDC bulletin (2001) whichrevealed that immigrants to Canada in the1990s have not fared as well as previouscohorts of immigrants in terms of earnings andemployment outcomes, in spite of the fact thatthese recent immigrants are more highly-edu-cated and skilled than previous cohorts. Thebulletin noted that this is contrary to historicaltrends, in which the pattern has been thatimmigrants earn less on arrival but theirincomes rise rapidly and catch up or surpassthe Canadian employment earnings averageafter 10 to 14 years. In previous periods eco-nomic principal applicants selected on the basisof education and skill have had earnings higherthan the average of the native-born morequickly, starting one year after arrival.However recent immigrants have lower rates ofemployment and they declined markedlybetween 1986 and 1996. The result is thatCanada’s immigrants exhibit a higher incidenceof poverty and greater dependence on socialassistance than their predecessors, in spite ofthe fact that the rate of university graduates ishigher among all categories of immigrantsincluding family class and refugees as well aseconomic immigrants than it is for theCanadian-born.

These trends are accompanied by a gener-al increase in poverty for immigrants, particu-larly recent non-European immigrants, whichimpacts on families as well as individuals. Forexample, Harvey and Siu (2001) found thatpoverty levels for all immigrants have increasedbetween 1991 and 1996, with visible minori-ties in Toronto showing the largest increasefrom 20.9 per cent to 32.5 per cent. The study

The Economic Status of Newcomers in Canada


3

also shows that visible minorities are muchmore at risk of experiencing persistent povertyfor 35 years than immigrants who are not visi-ble minorities. It confirms earlier findings byOrnstein (2000), based on 1996 Census data,of increased unemployment, underemploy-ment, and individual and family poverty forrecent immigrants and visible minorities inToronto, the destination of about one-half ofCanada’s newcomers. The Ornstein researchrevealed that non-European groups in Torontoare burdened with family poverty rates at twicethe levels of families of European andCanadian origin, and that for some groupssuch as Latin Americans, Africans Blacks andCaribbeans, and Arabs and West Asians therate is more than 40 per cent, or roughly threetimes higher. This academic research is con-firmed by accounts in the popular press, whichreveal a dramatic increase in the use of foodbanks by highly-educated newcomers (Quinn2002).

A significant factor in these trends is theunderutilization of immigrant skills within theCanadian labour market. Reitz (2001) haslooked at the quantitative significance of thisissue using a human-capital earnings analysiswhich identified immigrant earnings deficits asarising from three possible sources: lowerimmigrant skill quality, or underutilization ofimmigrant skills, or pay inequities for immi-grants doing the same work as native-bornCanadians. He concluded that in 1996 dol-lars, the total annual immigrant earningsdeficit from all three sources in Canada was$15.0 billion, of which $2.4 billion was relatedto skill underutilization, and $12.6 billion wasrelated to pay inequity. He observed as wellthat employers give little credence to foreigneducation and none to foreign work experi-ence, that discrimination specific to country oforigin or visible minority status is mainly relat-ed to pay equity rather than skills utilization,and that the economic impact of visible minor-

ity status and immigrant status is very similarfor both men and women. In addition, Reitznoted that race appears to be a more reliablepredictor of how foreign education will beevaluated in Canada than the specific locationof the origin of the immigrant from outsideEurope.

These trends must be considered in rela-tion to structural changes in the internationaleconomy and Canadian labour market in thepast several decades, specifically the trendstowards globalization of markets and liberaliza-tion of world trade making both labour andcapital more internationally mobile and domes-tic (Canadian) employment less secure.Historically, during the first decades after theSecond World War, the majority of immigrantsgained employment in relatively high-wage,low-skill industrial jobs. Now in Canada as inother advanced economies, the service sector isreplacing industrial production as the mainsource of employment, and immigrant employ-ment is more concentrated in the relativelyhigh-wage and high-skill (public) service sectoras well as in low-wage, low-skill (private, retail)services.

For example, Shields (2002) concludesthat during the 1950s and 1960s male immi-grant labour market success was mainly a prod-uct of the wide availability of jobs and relative-ly high wages in the manufacturing and con-struction sectors, which did not demand highlevels of formal schooling. With the decline ofthis sector and the rise of the service sector, thelabour market is much more challenging forrecent immigrants. As well, Lo et al. (2000)note in a study of Toronto that while immi-grants are still over-represented in manufactur-ing, they are concentrated in unstable, lowerwaged and disappearing sectors.

Pendakur (2000) provides a comprehen-sive historical analysis of these trends, coveringthe period from the end of the Second World

4


War to the 1990s, during which the source ofimmigration shifted to predominantly non-European countries and the work done byimmigrants in Canada moved from factoriesand construction sites to retail stores, hospitalsand classrooms. Historically, this period exam-ined includes two very different immigrationpaths, one emphasizing family reunificationand the other stressing labour force require-ments as well as family reunification. It wasalso a period of major transformation from amanufacturing-based economy to a largelyservice-based one.

For Pendakur, changes in skill and educa-tion requirements meant that immigrants werelikely to perform labour force roles differentthan either the Canadian-born or previousimmigrants, but their options were also deter-mined by prevailing labour market conditionswithin a relatively rigid Canadian labour mar-

ket. As the relatively high-wage and low-skilljobs in manufacturing disappeared, new immi-grants were recruited into both high-wage andhigh-skill positions in social services and busi-ness, and low-wage jobs in the retail sector.Differences in the occupations of the newimmigrants were also related to whether theywere employed for wages or self-employed, andwhether they were male or female. It appearsthat male immigrants are more subject tolabour market discrimination as visible minori-ties, while female immigrants experience morediscrimination both as immigrants and aswomen. Pendakur’s study also confirms thepenalties in income and occupational statuspaid by immigrants whose education has beenacquired outside of Canada, as well as the exis-tence of substantial income penalties in theCanadian labour market rooted in ethnicityand colour.

While the economic analysis summa-rized in the preceding sectionreveals many of the barriers to

social inclusion for Canada’s newcomers, wemust also take account of a number of othergroups facing both economic and social exclu-sion. Attention to these groups is particularlyimportant because for various reasons theyoften do not receive as much attention in offi-cial statistics and current research.

Among the temporary immigrants admit-ted to Canada, for example, there are agricul-tural workers imported on a seasonal basis tolabour under harsh conditions with minimallegal rights. Historically, domestic workers,while enjoying the right to an eventual claimto Canadian citizenship, have also enduredboth economic exploitation and workplace andsexual harassment to earn this privilege. As

well, in Canada there are small but growingnumbers of female temporary immigrantsrecruited for the illicit sex trade, and victims ofinternational immigrant smuggling schemesabandoned without any legal status.

At the present time, there are also a num-ber of undocumented immigrants such asfailed refugee claimants or visitors who havestayed beyond their permitted time in Canada.The exact numbers are not known; the reportscome from social service and health agencieswho provide emergency supports to these peo-ple without provision for funding for theseservices. These people make silent contribu-tions to our economy, often through exploitedlabour, while being denied basic social andhealth services for lack of documentation.Many are parents, including parents ofCanadian-born children, whose children may

Other Groups of Newcomers


5

be denied the right to schooling and access tohealth care. All of these vulnerable groups ofnewcomers are excluded in various ways fromaccess to basic legal protection and economicjustice.

To understand the multiple dimensions ofboth economic and social exclusion forCanada’s newcomers we must also consider thegendered experiences of immigrant and refugeewomen (Chard et al. 2000; James et al. 1999;Mohab 1999; Preston and Man 1999). To alarge degree, newcomer women in Canada con-tinue to be streamed into lower-wage jobs inthe growing service sector as well as in thedeclining manufacturing sector. At the sametime, due to factors related both to their condi-tions of arrival in Canada and to the socio-cul-tural traditions of their country of origin, new-comer women carry very heavy burdens ofdomestic responsibility in terms of housework,family maintenance and socialization of chil-dren.

Finally, from the perspective of newcomersocial inclusion, one of the most importantissues in Canada is the extended period duringwhich thousands of refugee claimants remainin a “legal limbo.” Although Canada’s inlandrefugee determination system and the quasi-judicial nature of the Immigration and RefugeeBoard (IRB) are seen as progressive by the restof the world, there are serious problems within

the system. The determination of the status ofrefugee claimants is legally and administrativelycomplex and can create significant backlogs(delays). For refugee claimants this can meanan extended period during which they face sig-nificant barriers in access to social services andthe labour market, as well as a postponementin potentially acquiring rights such as sponsor-ship of family members and eventual citizen-ship. They can’t get a bank loan, or vote, orwork in certain professions (e.g. education andhealth care); they can’t travel internationally,even to the USA; and they can’t get loans forpost-secondary education. Currently, it is com-mon for this situation to last five years, ormore.

The situation of refugee claimants in legallimbo is creating a new underclass of personswithout status composed of those who mostneed our help, those who left their own coun-tries under conditions of great stress and withtremendous hopes for their new life in Canada(Mohamed 2002). It has a tremendously nega-tive impact not only on the individuals con-cerned but also on their family and friends, andthis negative impact is occurring during thefirst few years of their life in Canada—theyears most important to successful settlement.And during those years, Canada is losing theopportunity to benefit from the education andskills these people have brought to their newcountry.

Immigrant and Refugee Chi ldren and Youth

One of the more comprehensive studiesof newcomer youth is that by Kilbrideet al. (2000), which integrates a num-

ber of research projects involving communitycollaboration focused on diverse groups of ado-lescent newcomers in different cities ofOntario. The researchers found that the chal-lenges of adolescence were greatly compounded

by the stresses of settlement. They found aswell that immigrant and refugee youth feltpulled in opposite directions, between whatseemed to be irreconcilable values or cultures,and a desire to adapt and fit in to their newhomeland. The tensions between parents andyouth associated with the challenges of settle-ment were very important. Feelings of isola-

6


tion and alienation were linked to perceptionsof cultural differences and experiences of dis-crimination and racism. Support from friends,family and institutions was key to overcomingthe challenges of settlement.

One of the particular findings from thisstudy was that lack of (Canadian English) lan-guage facility creates barriers for newcomeryouth in education, employment and generalsocial adaptation, including for those (forexample from the Caribbean) who speakEnglish with a dialect. The study also foundthat newcomer youth who arrived whileyounger had a less difficult process of adapta-tion than those who arrived as older adoles-cents, because they had a longer period of timeto adapt to the education system and adjust toCanadian social and cultural values.

This study also revealed that the stressesof the settlement process experienced by theirparents had a great impact on the newcomeryouth. Parents who had to work longer hoursfor lower pay had less time for involvement infamily activities, and youth were often obligedto take up correspondingly greater obligationssuch as staying home alone, caring for siblings,doing grocery shopping and cooking, findingpaid employment and translating and inter-preting for their parents.

Other reports and research studiesemphasize the particular experiences of refugeeyouth and children. Omidvar (2002) empha-sizes the fact that immigrants and refugees havedifferent experiences, while supporting theobservations of Kilbride et al. that racism anddiscrimination are real factors, and complicatedby intergenerational issues. She notes as wellthat there are special issues for female newcom-er youth. For Kaprielian-Churchill andChurchill (1994) one of the main points froma study of Ontario schools is that refugee chil-dren have special needs and that teachers andschools have not developed the training and

programs of intervention to deal with theseneeds.

Sadoway (2002) emphasizes that childrenare at risk around the world, particularly whenthey are separated from their parents and fami-lies due to war, poverty and oppression, andalso when their caregivers have become theiroppressors. Sadoway asserts that the commu-nity and the state have often been reluctant tointervene to protect children because of deeplyingrained paternalistic notions of children asproperty, as chattels or extensions of their par-ents, rather than persons in their own right.Children lack power in our society and there-fore are dependent on adults to recognize theirneeds and ensure their care and development aswell as safety and protection. The issue ofwhat constitutes “persecution” of children, interms of the UN Convention for the determi-nation of refugee status, continues to challengeadjudicators. Issues like forced conscription,sexual exploitation and female genital mutila-tion are beginning to be recognized, but othermore commonplace issues such as domesticservice in private homes receive less recogni-tion.

Montgomery (2002) in discussing the sta-tus of unaccompanied minors in Canada statesthat in principle the Charter of Rights andFreedoms grants equal rights to all personsresiding in Canadian territory, but in practiceall residents are not treated equally. Minorityand immigrant communities experience formsof exclusion related to the immigration process,access to services and discrimination.Unaccompanied minors (youth under the ageof 18 who have been separated from parentsand who arrive in Canada unaccompanied by alegal guardian) are particularly vulnerable dueto their dual status as minors and as refugeeclaimants. In Canada in 2000 the number ofunaccompanied minors was estimated ataround 1,000, most going to Ontario, Quebec


7

and British Columbia. However, non-govern-mental organizations (NGOs) report thatnumbers are rising, probably because parents inconflict zones try to get their children out first,or may only have the resources to get theirchildren out.

Montgomery’s analysis reveals that unac-companied minors, particularly older youth,experience settlement problems similar to thoseof immigrants in general and refugees in par-ticular. For example, in the labour marketemployers often refuse to hire persons withouta regularized immigration status. As well,refugee claimants are excluded from most gov-ernment-sponsored employment and trainingprograms because of their immigration status,and although they have a right to languagetraining, in practice it is difficult for them toaccess this service. As well, there is discrimina-tion in obtaining housing, such as the require-ment of supplementary proof of identity oradditional proof of capacity to pay rent.Access to health services is also a problem, asthe Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP)provides only “essential” services and not rou-

tine medical, dental or mental health services.Montgomery emphasizes as well that theprocess and lengthy period of resolving statuscreates great mental stress.

A social inclusion perspective on new-comer integration therefore must include suffi-cient attention to the particular and complexneeds of immigrant and refugee youth. Recentfindings as outlined above suggest that the set-tlement challenges of newcomer youth arecompounded by the barriers of social exclusionfaced by their parents, and indeed are oftenessentially the same. We must note as wellthat newcomer youth not only face particularchallenges as immigrants and refugees, but alsoconfront the general barriers of youth intoday’s Canadian society with respect to chang-ing socio-economic conditions and opportuni-ties. Tyyska (2001) for example demonstratesconvincingly that the age status of the youngin Canada has become a factor of disadvantage(or risk, or marginalization, or social exclusion)along with related factors such as gender,poverty and visible minority status.

Sett lement Services and the NGO Sector

Many immigrants and refugees requiresettlement services when they firstarrive, as well as linguistically- and

culturally-appropriate health and social servicesthroughout their years of adaptation. The pro-vision of these services is essential both toensuring the effective settlement of newcomers,and maintaining public support for the contin-uing high levels of immigration required forour labour force. Indeed Reitz (1998) hasshown in a comparative study of differentcountries that the level of public support forsettlement is vital to immigrants’ economicsuccess and socio-political inclusion.

Currently most funded settlement servic-es are devoted to initial support for newcom-ers, including language training, assistance withlabour market integration, individual and fam-ily counselling, translation and interpretingand referrals to health and social services. Thefunds for these services come from a variety ofsources including the federal government,provincial governments, municipalities andcommunity charities and private foundations.However, the delivery of these services (inOntario and across Canada) is provided mainlyby non-governmental organizations—commu-nity-based immigrant service agencies or ISA’s.

8


One of the most serious problems of thecurrent system lies in the fact that settlementfunding and programming is focused on theinitial stages of adaptation, in spite of the factthat the process of settlement continuesthroughout the life of the newcomer.Mwarigha M.S. (2002) notes that after the ini-tial or first stage of adaptation, in the middleor intermediate stage newcomers require assis-tance with access to various Canadian systemsand institutions including municipal services,with their principal needs usually centeredaround timely and equitable access to thelabour market. Other important needs in theintermediate stage include access to housing,health services, legal assistance and advancedor employment-specific language instruction.In the long term or final stage of settlement,immigrants and refugees strive to becomeequal participants in Canada’s economic, cul-tural, social and political life. It is no exagger-ation to state that settlement policy in Canadais currently in a state of crisis, due largely tothe lack of a pan-Canadian and long-term per-spective that takes into account all three stagesof settlement.

A second grave problem, directly relatedto the first, is that the NGO sector deliveringsettlement services is in a precarious state dueto a combination of funding cutbacks andimposed restructuring. The situation of theISAs in Ontario including Toronto has beendocumented in numerous studies includingOwen (1999), Richmond, T. (1996), Shields(2002) and Simich (2000). The effect hasbeen that many community-based providers ofsettlement services, particularly the smaller“ethno-specific” agencies, have been forced tocurtail their services drastically or even to closetheir doors. Those that are still functioningare operating under conditions of extremestress due to a combination of overloaded serv-ice demand and limited funding.

This situation, however, derives not just

from inadequate funding but as much or evenmore from a restructuring of the conditions ofgovernment funding. The transition for mostgovernment funders from “core” to program-specific funding favours the larger agencieswith more administrative resources for themanagement of programs delivered on a con-tractual basis, and leaves all remaining ISAswith extremely limited resources for communi-ty education, needs assessment, program plan-ning and advocacy. This kind of imposedrestructuring as noted by Evans and Shields(2002) is part of a general trend towards neo-liberal restructuring of the relationshipbetween government and the non-profit orthird sector. These authors point out that theexpansion of the welfare state has been basednot only on a growth in government socialsupport services, but also on the growing roleof the third sector, and that this symbiotic rela-tionship is threatened by restructuring whichcompromises the basic mission of third sectororganizations and therefore their ability tocontribute to social inclusion.

One of the essential mechanisms of thisrestructuring is the imposition on the ISAs, aspart of the new contractual terms of service, ofso-called “evaluation” schemes which are reallynothing more than administrative mechanismsto maintain state control of third-party (andthird-sector) service providers (Chambon andRichmond, T. 2001). While this issue mayappear to be purely administrative, in reality itis political because our frameworks for evalua-tion are directly linked to our visions ofaccountability in a democratic and pluralistsociety (Hanberger 2001). This type ofrestructuring has particularly serious and nega-tive implications for the ISAs, which historical-ly have used their legitimate autonomy as com-munity agencies to play a leading role in thedevelopment of an anti-discriminatory andanti-racist framework for human services(Richmond, T. 1996).


9

To understand the dynamics and chal-lenges of newcomer settlement inCanada today from a social inclusion

perspective, it is essential to recognize thatimmigration is principally, indeed overwhelm-ingly, an urban phenomenon. Currently about70 per cent of immigrants to Canada settle inthe our three largest cities of Toronto,Vancouver and Montreal with about half ofthem eventually arriving in Toronto alone.

For the past five decades immigration hasbecome a primary force not only in broad eco-nomic and demographic terms, but also inshaping the Canadian urban environment,impacting on residential housing development,neighbourhood and street life, the delivery ofmunicipal services, urban politics and culturallife (Troper 2000). Siemiatycki and Isin(1997) point out as well that transnationalmigration has generated new claims to urbancitizenship in Toronto. Newcomers have dis-persed their residences and developed andtransformed their neighbourhoods, layingclaim to public space, challenging cultural tra-ditions, creating organizations and gettinginvolved in civic politics.

Unfortunately, one of the most disturbingand indeed dangerous trends associated withthe urbanization of immigration is the growingrisk of the racialization of urban poverty. Forexample, Shields (2002) observes that there is astrong correlation between recent immigrantstatus and elevated levels of family poverty, andnotes the real danger that a process of racializa-tion of poverty is underway. As well, Galabuzi(2001) confirms the development within ourmajor urban centres of an underclass of visibleminorities, many of whom are recent immi-grants, concentrated in racial enclaves of pover-ty. Kazemipur and Halli (2000) found thatlarger urban centres—Montreal, Winnipeg,

Quebec City, Toronto, Saskatoon, Regina andVancouver—had large concentrations of visibleminority immigrants in neighbourhoods with apoverty rate of 40 per cent and higher. The lat-ter study also revealed that in Toronto, immi-grants are more likely than non-immigrants tolive in neighbourhoods with high rates ofpoverty. Mwarigha M.S. (2002) suggests thatone of the most disturbing consequences of thecurrent settlement service system is that it isineffective in combating the accelerated emer-gence of an immigrant underclass, concentrat-ed primarily in the poorer neighbourhoods ofToronto.

It must be emphasized however that theissue here is not simply the fact of the concen-tration of ethnoracial groups within particularneighbourhoods. Qadeer (forthcoming) hasconcluded that the concentration of an ethnicgroup in a particular urban neighbourhood canfacilitate the development of religious, culturaland community institutions. According to hisstudies, once a community has formed, it tendsto persist and evolve, as on the basis of a seg-mented housing market, as a socio-ecologicalgrouping. These “ethnic enclaves” are largelyexpressions of preferences, common interests,social networks and common cultural and/orreligious needs of their residents. They can beespecially helpful to women, children and sen-iors, especially those not fluent in English andwho are accustomed to the supportive presenceof friends and relatives. For Qadeer there is arisk however that ethnoracial residential con-centrations can act as a barrier to the residentsmeeting and networking in the mainstreamsociety and economy, and the risk is particular-ly high if the segregation coincides with lowincomes, poverty and poor housing.Nevertheless, Qadeer suggests that this processgives a new meaning to social integration: con-

Urban Issues and Newcomer Sett lement

10


structing a ‘common ground’ of institutionsand services for civic engagement of diversecommunities. Residential space then, alongwith schools, workplaces, recreation and sportsand political participation, is one of the manysites for social inclusion.

The issue then is the degree to whichconcentration in neighbourhoods of povertyacts as a barrier to social and economic inte-gration of new immigrants and their children.Living in areas of concentrated poverty has

adverse impacts on a whole range of life expe-riences, and in the case of new immigrants itleads to family conflicts, loss of self-esteem,and a sense of despair about future prospectsin the new country of settlement. Youngimmigrants who grow up in such conditionscan develop a culture of alienation both fromtheir parents and their community of origin,and from that of the host society (MwarighaM.S. 2002).

The Social Inclus ion Perspect ive

The notion of social inclusion originatedin Europe in response to the crisis inthe health and welfare programs in

Europe in the 1970s and 1980s. In the periodfrom the Second World War to the mid-1970s,most European governments developed com-prehensive health and social insurance pro-grams to protect their citizens (Guidford2000). This was followed by a period of fiscalrestraint and cutbacks in the United States,Canada and most European governments,which not only proved to be unpopular, butalso in many ways aggravated the problem ofpoverty among the most disadvantaged groups.The increasing number of people experiencinglong-term poverty became a big problem forthe welfare system, especially in Europe. Initialmeasures to limit benefits through increasedmeans-testing only meant that more and morepeople ended up living outside the system, job-less and homeless.

Social inclusion was initially started bythe French to effectively reintegrate the largenumbers of ex-industrial workers and a grow-ing number of young people who right fromthe start did not have the opportunity to jointhe new economy labour force of the 1980sand 1990s. As the concept gained credence in

the rest of Europe, it incorporated non-tradi-tional target groups such as racial minorities,the elderly, youth and people with disabilitiesas sections of the population in need of delib-erate social inclusion programs.

The social crisis caused by the unfetteredgrowth of the new economy in the 1980s and1990s provided an opportunity for govern-ments to not only revisit the traditional notionof universal welfare, but also to add in new val-ues of inclusion_ “characterized by a society’swidely shared experience and active participa-tion, by a broad equality of opportunities andlife chances for individuals and by the achieve-ment of basic level of well-being for all citi-zens” (Sen 2001). In essence, social inclusionbecame a vehicle to enhance access and equityin the field of social policy and programming.

The notion of social inclusion also gainedacceptance in countries that did not proceed asradically towards the dismantling of their post-war social welfare system. In Sweden, forexample, whose welfare system remained rela-tively intact in the new economy age of the1980s and 1990s, there was recognition that“...the system had not fully succeeded in guar-anteeing the welfare of young people, immi-


11

grants and single parent providers. Thesegroups were hit particularly by the employ-ment crisis at the beginning of the 1990s. Andas a result they also suffered most as regardsother aspects of welfare. At the same time therewere groups in the 1990s, as before with signif-icant problems such as substance misuse andhomelessness” (Government of Sweden 2001).

At a broad policy level, the goals of socialinclusion are pursued on the basis of the fol-lowing key principles: 1) structuring policyinterventions around a life cycle approach,where necessary to meet individual need; 2)tackling failing communities and the needs ofother excluded groups of people; 3) mobilizingall relevant actors in a joint multi-agencyresponse; 4) tackling discrimination in itsforms, wherever it occurs; and 5) ensuring allpolicy formulation is evidence-based. Theseprinciples enable a multidimensional approachto confronting the problems of social exclusionand promoting social inclusion.

Evidently, the notion of social inclusion isthe antithesis of social exclusion. Social exclu-sion is a way of understanding the impact ofexisting social economic systems on marginal-ized groups, while social inclusion is aboutfinding out what works and mobilizingresources to resolve the problems broughtabout through social exclusion.

Within this general framework, however,the notion of social inclusion can be developedin different directions. One focus can be theincorporation of access and equity principlesinto a traditional agenda of national (universal)social inclusion, based on a universal socialsecurity system for children and families, anduniversal human development such as earlylearning for all. Such an approach would see

the problems of social exclusion as beingresolved by returning to the traditional post-war welfare state that was dismantled by neo-conservative governments in Europe in the lastthree decades and more recently in Canada. Asecond focus, typical of the Europeanapproach, emphasizes the basic notions ofcapacity building and focusing resources tothose at the bottom end of the social spectrum.This approach would target traditionally mar-ginalized workers like retrenched workers andthe long-term unemployed as well as racial/eth-nic minorities, people with disabilities, chil-dren in poverty and the homeless.

A third focus would emphasize socialinclusion as a fundamental capability, in a‘right-based approach.’ According to Sen(2001), an inclusive society is characterized bywidely-shared social experience and active par-ticipation, by broad equality of opportunitiesand life chances for individuals, and by theachievement of a basic level of well-being forall citizens. This approach emphasizes theneed for policy to improve capabilities throughlegal human rights protections that ensure thatall have the opportunity and ability to beincluded. It shifts the focus away from theindividual that is for example living in povertyor dependent on social assistance, and thusaway from blaming the victim.

Ultimately, the test of the relevance ofthese notions of social inclusion lies in theirability to shape progressive and practical socialpolicy reforms and initiatives. They musttherefore be grounded in and shaped by thecomplex realities of growing social exclusionfor Canadian newcomers.

12


Social Inclus ion and Canada’s Off ic ia l Mult icul tural i sm

Any consideration of social inclusion inthe Canadian context must take intoaccount the fact that Canada is an offi-

cially multicultural and anti-racist society, withwhat is considered to be one of the most openand welcoming immigration policies in theworld.

Canadian policies of multiculturalism,however, are rooted within and limited by theirspecific historical origins. Canadian multicul-turalism evolved within a process of politicalbargaining among the two “founding nations”of English and French and the more estab-lished immigrant communities of Europeanorigin (Wayland 1997), without the politicalparticipation of the overwhelmingly visibleminority immigrant arrivals of the past twodecades. Furthermore, official Canadian mul-ticulturalism and its derivate formal anti-racistpolicies have not been adequate to resolve thedemands for Quebec independence, Aboriginalclaims to land and autonomy, or anti-racistmobilization by visible minorities both immi-grant and Canadian-born (Winter 2001).

Indeed, Canada has one of the world’smost inclusive policies of citizenship acquisi-tion, and this must be recognized as a legiti-mate and important factor of social inclusion.Newcomers are able and encouraged to becomecitizens after three years of settlement inCanada, and the vast majority do acquireCanadian citizenship. As documented previ-ously in this paper, however, the immigrationstatus of newcomers (immigrant, refugee,refugee claimant) represents a hierarchy ofrights with both legal and practical implica-tions for social exclusion. Furthermore, theactual possibilities for economic, social andpolitical inclusion of all newcomers, regardlessof their formal immigration status, are too

often in contradiction to the formal and offi-cial promises of multiculturalism, anti-racismand citizenship acquisition.

The contradictions between Canada’s offi-cial policies and the reality of social exclusionfor Canada’s newcomers are well-documented.For example, A. Richmond (1994, 2000)reports on a system of “global apartheid” inwhich controls on international migration con-tinually increase for the most vulnerable whilebecoming more flexible for the internationalbusiness elite. Galabuzi (2001) speaks of alooming crisis of social instability and politicallegitimacy for Canadian society based on thegrowing trends towards the racialization ofpoverty for visible minorities and recent immi-grants. Henry and Tator (2000) speak of“democratic racism” in reference to the deeptension in Canada between two competingvalue systems: the reality of pervasive racism,and a commitment to the ideology of demo-cratic liberalism. And Lo et al. (2000) talk ofthe failure of immigrant settlement and inte-gration policies because of the persistence ofhigh unemployment, low income and povertyfor specific immigrant groups and the incon-gruity between immigration selection policiesand integration policies.

We are witnesses, therefore, to a real andgrowing contradiction between Canada’s offi-cial policies of multiculturalism, anti-racismand immigration citizenship acquisition, andthe growing reality of social exclusion forCanada’s newcomers. The resolution of thiscontradiction involves at least two fundamentalissues.

One of these issues which is exploredmore fully by Saloojee (2003) concerns the factthat a social inclusion framework must incor-porate an anti-racist perspective, taking into


13

account the limits of multiculturalism and therealities of systemic racism in contemporaryCanada. Within this perspective, of course, wemust recognize that the vast majority of recentnewcomers are non-European “visible minori-ties” experiencing systemic barriers of exclusionwithin the process of settlement.

The second issue addressed by othersincluding Jenson (2002) involves our basicnotions of citizenship. Jenson suggests that theCanadian diversity model can incorporate anotion of shared citizenship, in which unityand diversity are not mutually exclusive, andthat we can rely on democratic institutions tochoose between competing social values. Sucha perspective might allow us to move beyondthe limits of multiculturalism as the conserva-tive preservation of “cultures of origin” andmove towards a creative public dialogue incor-

porating the progressive values imported byour newcomer communities along with thedemocratic traditions of the host society. Inexploring the relationship between citizenshipvalues and the impact of newcomer settlementthere is much to be learned from our col-leagues in Quebec, where the debates andexperiments have taken place in the context ofa commitment to the social dominance of theFrench language and a critical distance fromofficial Canadian multicultural policy(McAndrew 2001). One important lesson ofthe Quebec experience is that there is a consid-erable tension between a focus on individualrights, which tends to co-exist with more tradi-tional notions of citizenship values, and anemphasis on collective rights, which tends tobe supportive of an anti-racist perspective andnotions of deep diversity.

Pol icy Perspect ives within a Social Inclus ion Framework

There can be no doubt of the impor-tance of including newcomers toCanada in the development of a social

inclusion perspective on public policy reform.Canada has one of the highest proportions ofimmigrants to total resident population of anycountry in the world; and (both) newcomersand visible minorities make up more than halfthe population in our largest cities likeToronto. The role of Canada’s newcomers istherefore central to any meaningful develop-ment of the notion of social inclusion.

But do the concepts of social inclusion“work” for newcomer settlement in Canada?Do they resonate? Do they offer new perspec-tives? Can they be useful tools for developingpolicy?

At the most basic level the notion ofsocial inclusion certainly provides a powerful

metaphor for addressing the challenges of new-comer settlement in Canada today.Immigrants want to be included, especially inthe labour market. Refugees want to beincluded though resolution of their status.And all newcomers want to be included as fulland equal participants in the economic, social,political and cultural life of their new home-land, while fearing that public policy debateswill exclude their particular issues and interestsas immigrants, or refugees, or visible minori-ties. The notion of social inclusion thereforeprovides an important starting point as analternative to the currently-dominant conceptof focusing immigration policy exclusively onrecruitment of “the best and the brightest”, ofcontinually raising the bar for admissions toCanada while secondarizing the needs of fami-ly reunification and refugee resettlement andignoring the barriers of social exclusion experi-enced by those who have already begun the

14


settlement journey within our country.

We would contend that the three possiblefocuses of a social inclusion perspective identi-fied earlier are not mutually exclusive, butrather essential and overlapping elements of theapplication of a social inclusion perspective tothe challenges of newcomer settlement inCanada. The restoration of governmentresponsibility for universal social programs inthe face of the neo-conservative tide, for exam-ple, is a necessary precondition for the socialinclusion of both newcomers and theCanadian-born. Furthermore, the targeting ofsocial programs to the most disadvantaged is ofobvious necessity for immigrants and refugeesexcluded from equitable participation in theCanadian labour market, as well as in areas ofexclusion for newcomers such as housing, edu-cation and access to health and social services.At the same time, a rights-based approach tosocial inclusion is an essential perspective fordealing with the reality of differential legal andpractical rights for Canada’s newcomers basedon immigration status (citizen versus immi-grant versus refugee; selected immigrant versusfamily class; sponsored refugee versus refugeeclaimant, etc.).

We would argue as well that the five ele-ments of a social inclusion perspective as previ-ously identified can be applied directly, andproductively, to the policy challenges posed bythe growing social exclusion of Canada’s new-comers. The notion of structuring policyinterventions around a life cycle approach, forexample, relates directly to the reality of thesettlement process extending over the newcom-er’s lifetime and continuing (at least) into thesecond generation. The necessity to deal withfailing communities and the needs of otherexcluded groups of people is directly relevantto the reality of economic, social and politicalexclusion for large groups of newcomers asdocumented in this paper. The need to mobi-

lize all relevant actors in a joint multi-agencyresponse speaks to both the necessity to involveall levels and relevant departments of the feder-al, provincial and municipal governments intackling the challenges of newcomer settle-ment, and the necessity to incorporate allstakeholders in a policy response including set-tlement agencies, mainstream institutions,employers and private foundations. Tacklingdiscrimination in all its forms, with respect tonewcomer settlement, means nothing more norless than the necessity of an anti-racist perspec-tive in dealing with the social exclusion ofimmigrants and refugees, the majority ofwhom are visible minorities. Finally, thenotion of ensuring that all policy formulationis evidence-based speaks directly to the needfor practical and transparent mechanisms ofpublic accountability for the various sectors ofgovernment responsible for combatting theexclusion of Canada’s newcomers from full par-ticipation in the economic, social, political andcultural life of their new homeland.

Within this perspective, we offer the fol-lowing suggestions for policy reform. Whilethey vary considerably in scope and complexi-ty, they all represent concrete examples of thepotential of a practical and incrementalapproach to the application of the social inclu-sion perspective to the challenges of newcomersettlement.

Access to Trades and Professions

An example of the immediate relevance andpractical applicability of the notion of socialinclusion is the issue of Access to Trades andProfessions (ATP). There can no longer be anydoubt that the economic contributions ofimmigrants and refugees would be significantlyhigher if Canada were capable of properly uti-lizing their foreign-based experience, educationand skills. In the next few decades, Canadawill reach a point where net immigration


15

accounts for 100 per cent of both populationgrowth and labour market replacement.Effective utilization of the experience, educa-tion and skills of newcomers is therefore key toeconomic success in an increasingly competi-tive global economy. As a result, there is grow-ing pressure for real progress in this area basedon a recognition by multiple stakeholders thatwe are quite simply wasting the talents of ournew citizens (Alboim and The MaytreeFoundation 2002; Brouwer 1999; Reitz 2001).It is particularly and bitterly ironic for new-comers, and for those who try to assist them,that the various licensing and professional bod-ies as well as Canadian employers appear todeny the legitimacy of the very skills and edu-cation that gained them admittance to ourcountry.

Fortunately, the vital importance of thisissue is gaining increasing attention at variouslevels including the federal government. TheCanadian Innovation Strategy, for example, isa federal policy initiative which focuses on thenecessity to develop the skills, talents, knowl-edge and creativity of Canadians in an increas-ingly globalized, technological and knowledge-based economy (HRDC 2002). It is signifi-cant that this policy includes specific objectivesrelated to immigration, and that in addition toattracting and selecting highly skilled immi-grants, the goals also include developing anintegrated and transparent approach to therecognition of foreign credentials, supportingthe integration of immigrants into Canada’slabour market and helping immigrants toachieve their full potential over the course oftheir working lives.

Nevertheless, as noted by Couton (2002),the non-recognition of foreign credentialsremains one of the most serious challenges tomaking effective use of the increasing numbersof highly-skilled and highly-educated newcom-ers attracted to Canada by our current immi-

gration policies. Furthermore, as documentedin detail by Alboim and The MaytreeFoundation (2002), real progress on the issueof access to trades and professions requires aseries of complex and detailed policy reformsinvolving multiple stakeholders. Progress inthis area would represent a major “win-win”situation from the perspective of both new-comers and the Canadian-born, but the real-ization of this progress remains a vital testingground for the practical application of a socialinclusion perspective, particularly with regardsto the development of effective partnershipsand successful, incremental policy reforms.

Local Autonomy and Immigrant Settlement

One progressive trend in the urban environ-ment is the growing demand for municipalautonomy. Across Canada, there is growingpressure from municipal governments for a“new deal” in their relationship with federaland provincial authorities. Among thedemands of municipal governments areincreased resources for immigrant settlementand a greater political voice in immigrationpolicy (Chief Administrator’s Office 2001;Commissioner of Community andNeighbourhood Services 2001; MwarighaM.S. 2002).

Historically, issues of immigration andsettlement have been the responsibility of thefederal and provincial governments. In recentyears however, the major urban centres havenot only increased their role in providing sup-port services to newcomers, but also have beenobliged to deal with all the multiple aspects ofan increasingly ethnoracially diverse popula-tion with respect to municipal programs andpolicies. In recent years, extra pressures havebeen placed on municipalities because of theeffects of downloading of responsibilities tomunicipalities by senior levels of government,severe cutbacks to public spending, the amal-

16


gamation of municipalities and the lack of anintegrated and effective pan-Canadian policyfor newcomer settlement. In Toronto, forexample, city planners warn that the munici-pality requires more resources to respond tothe growing need for housing, employmentand community services for newcomers andthat services currently provided to many newimmigrants are not adequate (Commissioner ofCommunity and Neighbourhood Services2001).

Greater involvement by municipal gov-ernments in the settlement process and in con-sultations over immigration policy could pro-vide real benefits. Local governments couldmake essential contributions to the develop-ment of long-term planning for newcomer set-tlement, and could also play a key role as “bro-kers” in bringing other partners to the table,including federal and provincial departmentswith no direct mandate for short-term settle-ment, as well as the voices of NGO serviceproviders and immigrant and refugee commu-nity leaders.

There is, of course, no guarantee thatmunicipalities will be any more responsive to,or representative of, newcomers and visibleminorities than other levels of government.The outcome of the current drive for urbanreform with respect to newcomer settlementwill depend on political mobilization, particu-larly on mobilization of the immigrants andrefugees who now constitute such a significantportion of the population of our major cities.Nevertheless, the drive for urban reform pro-vides an important impetus for the active polit-ical involvement of newcomer communities inurban politics, just as the mobilization of thesecommunities is essential to ensuring that urbanreform results in improved newcomer settle-ment. Therefore, the prospect of linkingurban reform to newcomer settlement has realpotential for the policy application of a social

inclusion framework.

The Immigrant Dispersion Policy

One very contemporary and controversial poli-cy debate in Canada involves the proposals byMinister of Citizenship and ImmigrationDenis Coderre to regulate the dispersion of aportion of Canada’s newcomers to our smallercities.

These proposals are motivated by legiti-mate policy concerns. On the positive side,there is no doubt that our smaller or “second-tier” cities could benefit economically and oth-erwise from increased immigration. On thenegative side, there are doubts—within theframework of existing settlement policy—about the capacity of our three largest cities tosuccessfully absorb the overwhelming majorityof immigrants and refugees that currentlychoose to reside in Toronto, Vancouver orMontreal.

The problem with the proposals as cur-rently formulated, however, is that they willcontribute to the exclusion rather than theinclusion of a segment of Canadian newcomers(Siddiqui 2002). Their mobility rights will berestricted, in comparison both to rights of theCanadian-born and previous immigrants, andin possible violation of our Charter of Rightsand Freedoms. Furthermore, they will bedenied the very benefits that have attractedprevious newcomers on a voluntary basis toour largest cities: economic opportunities,social and cultural diversity and support fromcommunities of their own ethnoracial origins.

Within a social inclusion framework, thesame policy challenges could result in newsolutions. Dispersion of recent newcomerscould be developed on a voluntary basis, withappropriate material incentives. Newcomerscould be attracted to second-tier cities throughthe development of improved settlement serv-


17

ices within these urban centres. Furthermore,the process of developing these incentives andimproving local settlement services wouldinvolve a generally beneficial increase in collab-oration between federal, provincial and munic-ipal governments.

Newcomer Children and Youth in the Schools

There is clearly a need for improved andextended settlement services for both newcom-er youth and their parents, and recent researchand program developments suggest that theschool system is the natural location for suchprograms. Along with its importance for theeducation of increasingly large numbers ofnewcomer children and youth, the school sys-tem provides opportunities for interaction withthese children’s parents and their ethnoracialcommunities, for experimentation and innova-tion in the development of anti-racist curricu-lum, and for more effective coordination ofsupport services. Kilbride et al. (2000) empha-size the importance of schools as a location forintegrated, supportive programs with a focuson anti-discrimination and anti-racism. Theynote as well that programs and interventionsmust be targeted, taking into account the dif-ferences experienced by newcomer youthaccording to country of origin, ethnoracial andcultural and religious background, immigra-tion status and gender.

One example of the development of suchprograms is in Ontario, where Citizenship andImmigration Canada during the past few yearshas funded pilot programs for school settle-ment workers, working in collaboration withboth school boards and local settlement agen-cies (Centre for Applied Social Research 2002).The program began in Toronto in 1998 as apartnership of the Ontario Administration ofSettlement and Integration Services (OASIS),the Toronto District School Board (TDSB)and a number of community-based immigrant

service agencies. Since its inception, the pro-gram has expanded to other cities in Ontarioand also has developed in French-languageschools. Initial evaluation suggests that theprogram has been very successful in providingincreased support to newcomer children andyouth, in helping their parents understand andinteract with the school as an institution andin building productive partnerships amongstvarious agencies involved in newcomer settle-ment.

Public Defense of Refugee Rights

Another and vital area of public policy effortswith respect to newcomer inclusion must bethe defense of basic refugee rights, which havebecome particularly vulnerable in the post-911climate as interpreted by both politicians andthe media. The vulnerability of newcomers inthis context is of course focused on particulargroups, such as Muslim women (Forcese2002). But we are witness as well to anincreasing general fragility of refugee rights, asthe fundamental legal and human rights ofrefugees become secondarized or even dis-placed through the pretext of concerns forsecurity. Examination of the evidence suggeststhat the growing legislative and administrativerestriction of refugee rights in Canada is moti-vated very little by actual security threats aris-ing within the refugee community, but verymuch by a pre-911 agenda that favoursincreased mobility for skilled immigrants andrestricted asylum rights for refugees (Adelman2002).

Policy efforts to defend the basic humanand legal rights of refugees in Canada must bebased in broad public education and advocacy.As such, it offers an opportunity for new voic-es to speak out in support of newcomer inclu-sion, and for leaders from our immigrant andrefugee communities to take up an active roleof leadership.

18


Student Loans and Exclusion of Newcomers

The Canada Student Loans Act is the primaryvehicle that is used by Canadians to financetheir post-secondary education, and loans areavailable to Canadian citizens and landedimmigrants. However, there are currently afew intended and unintended forms of exclu-sion for newcomers. Convention refugees whoare waiting for landing and are caught up inthe identity issue are not eligible for studentloans (Brouwer 2000). As well, landed immi-grants are not allowed access to student loansuntil they have completed one year of residen-cy in any given province, although we knowthat the first year of engagement in trainingand upgrading is often determinant for new-comers in terms of future attachment to theoccupational sector of their previous training,education and experience (Goldberg 2000).Furthermore non-degree and non-diplomacourses at universities and community colleges,courses that could aid newcomers in the estab-lishment of equivalencies leading to licensingand/or employment in their previous field, arenot eligible for student loans.

As a response to the situation ofConvention refugee youth, The MaytreeFoundation has established a scholarship pro-gram to provide access to post-secondary edu-cation. The program aims to give high per-forming young men and women, who wouldnot otherwise have access, an opportunity toparticipate in a community college or universi-ty program of their choice. It also seeks tofacilitate the landing process for participatingstudents and their families, and to promotesocial responsibility through volunteer service.

Other policy reforms in this area offer thepotential of simple and practical steps to com-bat the intentional or unintentional forms ofexclusion that currently exist, and therefore topromote incremental progress towards socialinclusion.

Towards an Integrated Settlement Policy

Perhaps the most important application of thesocial inclusion framework to newcomer settle-ment would be a redefinition of the basicnotion of settlement. The current crisis of set-tlement policy in Canada is directly related tothe lack of a long-term, multi-dimensional andpan-Canadian vision of the settlement process.The settlement journey for newcomers is onethat lasts a lifetime and extends into the secondgeneration, and our public policy responsemust accept this basic reality as a point ofdeparture. The elaboration of a new vision ofsettlement therefore involves the identificationof mutual obligations and benefits for bothnewcomers and the host society with respect toall the social, economic and political institu-tions of Canadian society.

One essential component of such avisioning process must be the clarification ofour notions of public accountability withrespect to newcomer settlement. All levels anddepartments of government must be heldaccountable for the results of newcomer settle-ment, not only with respect to the provision ofadequate resources for newcomer settlement,but also in terms of the necessity for broadpublic policy discussion on the nature andgoals of the newcomer settlement journey andits impact on our social, cultural and politicalinstitutions. Indicators are required not justfor measuring the effectiveness of service provi-sion, but also for evaluating the capacity of ourlabour markets and public institutions to com-bat exclusion and promote inclusion for new-comers. Immigrants and refugees, and theirassociations and their allies, must be morevocal and more organized in demanding suchaccountability.

Another essential component of an inte-grated settlement policy must be the restora-tion of adequate resources for settlement servic-es. Another still is the protection of the auton-


19

Conclus ion

omy of the community-based agencies on thefront lines of settlement service delivery, whichplay an essential role in program innovationand in advocacy for newcomer rights. Anotheragain is the development of mechanisms todirectly include the voices of leaders from theimmigrant and refugee communities in thedefinition and monitoring of our settlementpolicies.

The clarification and elaboration of anintegrated, pan-Canadian and multi-facetedsettlement policy therefore represents an essen-tial element for testing and elaborating the rel-evance of the social inclusion perspective, bothconceptually and practically, to the challengesof newcomer settlement in Canada.

In this paper we have attempted to docu-ment the process of growing exclusion forCanada’s newcomers, and to argue that the

social inclusion framework provides a valuableperspective for re-examining our policies onnewcomer settlement. The questions that areposed by the tension between newcomer inclu-sion and exclusion are fundamental. Will wefulfill our promises to utilize immigrant skills,welcome refugees and build a truly multicul-tural and anti-racist society? Or will weinstead be pressured by international anddomestic forces into consolidating variousforms of newcomer exclusion, and reproducinga hierarchy of rights based on ethnoracial andimmigration status?

The visioning of true social inclusion forCanada’s newcomers must be profound. Trueinclusion would mean not only a radicalreform of our policies of newcomer settlement,but also the development of economic, politi-cal, social and cultural mechanisms and prac-tices that include immigrants and refugees as

full participants. Such a vision must beginwith an anti-exclusion, anti-discrimination andanti-racist framework and progress towardsnew concepts and deeper notions of the valueof diversity and the potential for new forms ofcitizen participation and engagement.

The ultimate test of the social inclusionframework, however, rests in its usefulness inframing practical policy alternatives to thegrowing reality of exclusion for Canada’s new-comers. Such policies should be defined inconcrete terms appropriate for incrementalimplementation, and must as well win publicacceptance. In this paper we have suggestedthe points of departure for a number of suchpolicies promoting social inclusion forCanada’s newcomers; we invite our readers tocritique these and to suggest others.

20


We want to express our deep gratitudeto the reviewers of the first draft ofthis paper for their insightful and

constructive comments. We also want to givespecial acknowledgement to Mwarigha M.S.,for his assistance with the conceptual frame-work; to Anthony Richmond, for sharing hiscurrent work on the concepts of refugees, socialexclusion and “global apartheid”; to Tim Reesfor his critical and insightful comments; to

Valerie Preston for her feedback on immigrantwomen and to Naomi Alboim for her work indevelopment on a Municipal ImmigrationProgram.

Finally we must express our deepestappreciation to the Laidlaw Foundation for theopportunity to participate in, and hopefullymake some small contribution to, this vitalcontemporary policy debate.

Acknowledgements


21

Immigration in Canada

The development of Canada during the lastseveral hundred years has been shaped bywaves of immigration from all corners of theworld, to such an extent that Canada is oftendescribed as “a nation of immigrants.”Immigration is generally assumed to be benefi-cial to long-term economic growth.Historically in Canada both government andindustry have generally supported relativelyhigh levels of immigration, although theabsolute levels have varied significantly andsometimes declined during periods of econom-ic recession. Due to our aging workforce anddeclining birth rates, immigration is also con-sidered to play an essential role in augmentingCanada’s workforce and maintaining our taxbase for social services. Canada has one of thehighest proportions of immigrants to total resi-dent population of any country in the world:approximately 17 per cent compared to 10 percent for the USA and less for European coun-tries.

The Immigration Act of 1953 listed coun-tries by preference and was judged in this senseto be racially discriminatory. Pressures toeliminate this discriminatory aspect came bothfrom domestic human rights advocates andinternational diplomacy. These pressures even-tually led to the Immigration Act of 1976 inwhich racial criteria for immigration were for-mally eliminated and three broad classes ofimmigration were established: independent(point-selected), family reunification andrefugees.

During the period of time since thesechanges were implemented, the principalsource countries for immigration to Canadahave shifted from Europe (including Great

Britain) and the United States to Africa, theMiddle East, Latin America, the Caribbeanand particularly Asia. However the source ofthis change must be located not only in thepolicy and regulatory changes but also in thechanging preferences of potential immigrants.Rising economic prosperity in Europe in thepast decades, in particular, has limited thenumber of potential immigrants fromEuropean countries.

Historically, the system since 1967 forselected immigrants has been based on pointsassigned on the basis of skills of the prospec-tive immigrant and labour market needs.Attributes assessed have included age, educa-tion, occupational demand, skill level,arranged employment and province of intend-ed destination within Canada. The mix ofpoints has varied over time through adminis-trative decisions and has recently been revisedthrough legislation. Current policy favours agreater proportion of skilled immigrants (“thebest and the brightest”) and a lower propor-tion of family class immigrants than in thepast.

Some immigrants are also chosen as busi-ness or entrepreneurial class immigrants basedon their potential economic contributionsthrough investment and resulting job creation.Immigration regulations also permit entry for atemporary period for students and others; andthe Temporary Foreign Worker Program of thefederal government provides assistance toCanadian employers in recruiting foreignworkers to fill short-term labour market gaps(for example as agricultural labours, and in thehigh technology sector).

For the past years, the government ofCanada has been committed to a long-termgoal of increasing immigration levels to

Appendix: Background on Or igins of Canada's Immigrat ion Pol icy

22


approximately one per cent of the populationor 300,000 annually. Actual numbers havebeen less, but greater than 200,000 annually.In 2002 Citizenship and Immigration Canadaexpects to receive 140,000 selected on qualifi-cations or investment potential, 62,000 familyclass and 30,400 refugees.

Refugees

The Canadian government is committed underits international obligations and as part of itsimmigration program to provide support forresettlement of refugees. Historically Canadahas not only maintained an ongoing policy ofrefugee resettlement as an integral componentof its immigration program, but also providedrapid responses to refugee situations around theworld. Examples include the acceptance oflarge numbers of refugees from Hungary in the1950s, from Vietnam in the 1970s and morerecently from Kosovo. As well, the conditionsof many of those who immigrated to Canadafrom Europe immediately after the SecondWorld War, who were at the time described as“Displaced Persons”, were similar to those oftoday’s “refugees.” As a result a large portionof Canada’s immigrant population is made upof persons who came to our country asrefugees.

While immigrants come to Canada bychoice, refugees arrive here because they arefleeing human rights abuses in their homecountries. They are hoping for a safe haven inCanada and a chance to live in freedom andsecurity. Refugees that are selected abroadinclude both government-sponsored and pri-vately-assisted refugees; they arrive in Canadawith an established legal status as permanentresidents and receive some social support.Inland refugees or refugee claimants are thosethat make a claim to status as a Conventionrefugee, after arrival in Canada either as a legalvisitor or without legal status. The determina-tion of refugee claimants seeking status asConvention refugees is dealt with by a separateadministrative body, the Refugee Division ofthe Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).

During recent years, the number ofrefugees admitted annually has varied betweenabout 20,000 and 30,000; refugees representapproximately 12-13 per cent of the total num-ber of immigrants. Inland refugee claimantsare about half the total number of refugeescoming to Canada. In 2001, there were over40,000 refugee claims made in Canada.


23

Abella, R.S. 1984. Equality in Employment: A Royal Commission Report. Ottawa: Supply andServices.

Adelman, H. 2002. Refugees and Border Security Post-September 11. Refuge 20, no. 4 (August).

Alboim, N., and The Maytree Foundation. 2002. Fulfilling the Promise: Integrating Immigrant Skillsinto the Canadian Economy. Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy.

Anisef, P. 2000. Navigating the Life Course: Themes and Issues School-to-Work Transitions in the1990s. In Opportunity and Uncertainty: The Life Course Experiences of the Class of ’73, by Anisef et al.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bauder, H., and E. Cameron. 2002. Cultural Barriers to Labour Market Integration: Immigrants fromSouth Asia and the Former Yugoslavia. Vancouver: Research on Immigration and Integration in theMetropolis (RIIM).

Bloom, M., and M. Grant. 2001. Brain Gain: The Economic Benefits of Recognizing Learning andLearning Credentials in Canada. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada.

Boyd, M. 1992. Gender, Visible Minority and Immigrant Earnings Inequality: Reassessing andEmployment Equity Premise. In Deconstructing a Nation: Immigration, Multiculturalism and Racismin the 1990s Canada, edited by V. Satzewich. Toronto: Garamond Press.

Brouwer, A. 1998. Refugees in Legal Limbo. Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy.

———. 1999. Immigrants Need Not Apply. Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy.

———. 2000. Student Loans for Convention Refugees in Limbo. Toronto: The Maytree Foundation<www.maytree.com>.

Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR). 1998. Best Settlement Practices: Settlement Services forRefugees and Immigrants in Canada. Montreal: CCR.

Canadian Task Force on Mental Health Issues Affecting Immigrants and Refugees. 1988. Review ofthe Literature on Migrant Mental Health. Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada.

Centre for Applied Social Research. 2002. School Settlement Workers Serving the Needs ofCanadian Newcomers. CASRNews 4, no. 1 (spring).

Chambon, A., and T. Richmond. 2001. L’évaluation des services d’établissement pour les personnesimmigrantes et réfugiées: Enjeux conceptuels et méthodologiques. Cahiers de recherche sociologiques:L’évaluation sociale un enjeu politique 35 (printemps).

Chard, J., J. Badets, and L. Howatson-Lee. 2000. Immigrant Women. Women in Canada, 2000, AGender-Based Statistical Report. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Chief Administrator’s Office. 2001. In Common Cause: Cities Dialogue on Immigrant and RefugeeIssues in Canada. Toronto: City of Toronto.

References

24


Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services. 2001. Immigration and Settlement PolicyFramework. Toronto: City of Toronto.

Couton, P. 2002. Highly Skilled Immigrants: Recent Trends and Issues. isuma 3, no. 2 (fall)<www.isuma.net/v03n02/couton/couton_e.shtml>.

Cumming, P.A., E.L.D. Lee, and D.G. Oreopoulos. 1989. Access! Task Force on Access to Professionsand Trades in Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Citizenship.

DeVoretz, D.J., ed. 1995. Diminishing Returns: The Economics of Canada’s Recent Immigration Policy.Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute.

Economic Council of Canada. 1991. Economic and Social Impacts of Immigration. Ottawa: Supplyand Services Canada.

Evans, B.M., and J. Shields. 2002. The Third Sector: Neo-Liberal Restructuring, Governance, andthe Remaking of State-Civil Society Relationships. In The Handbook of Canadian PublicAdministration, edited by C. Dunn. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Forcese, L. 2002. To Be a Canadian Muslim after 9-11. INSCAN 15, no. 3 (winter).

Freiler, C. 2000. Social Inclusion as a Focus of Well Being for Children and Families. Paper prepared forthe Advisory Committee, Children’s Agenda Program. Toronto: Laidlaw Foundation.

Galabuzi, G. 2001. Canada’s Creeping Economic Apartheid: The Economic Segregation and SocialMarginalisation of Racialised Groups. Toronto: CJS Foundation for Research & Education.

Geronimo, J. 2000. A Search for Models: From Collaboration to Co-optation. Partnership Experiences inSettlement and Human Services for Newcomers. Toronto: The GTA Consortium on the Coordinationof Settlement Services <www.settlement.org>.

Goldberg, M. 2000. The Facts Are In! Newcomers’ Experiences in Accessing Regulated Professions inOntario. Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, Access to Professions and TradesUnit.

Government of Sweden. 2001. Sweden’s Action Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion. Stockholm.

Guidford, J. 2000. Making the Case for Economic and Social Inclusion. Ottawa: Health Canada.

Hanberger, A. 2001. Policy and Program Evaluation, Civil Society and Democracy. American Journalof Evaluation 22, no. 2:211-228.

Harvey, C. 2002. Introduction: Securing Refugee Protection in a Cold Climate. Refuge 20, no. 4(August).

Harvey, E.B., and B. Siu. 2001. Immigrants’ Socioeconomic Situation Compared, 1991-1996.INSCAN 15, no. 2 (fall).

Henry, F., and C. Tator. 2000. The Theory and Practice of Democratic Racism in Canada. InPerspectives on Ethnicity in Canada, edited by M.A. Kalbach, and W.E. Kalbach. Toronto: HarcourtCanada.


25

Henry, F., and E. Ginsberg. 1995. Who Gets the Work? A Test of Racial Discrimination inEmployment. Toronto: The Urban Alliance on Race Relations and The Social Planning Council ofMetropolitan Toronto.

Holder, B.S. 1998. The Role of Immigrant Servings Organizations in the Canadian Welfare State: ACase Study. Ph.D. diss., Department of Adult Education, Counselling Psychology and CommunityDevelopment, University of Toronto, CERIS Virtual Library <ceris.metropolis.net>.

Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC). 2001. Recent Immigrants Have ExperiencedUnusual Economic Difficulties. Applied Research Bulletin 7, no. 1 (winter/spring).

Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC). 2002. Knowledge Matters: Skills and Learning forCanadians - Canada’s Innovation Strategy. Ottawa: HRDC <www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/sp-ps/sl-ca/doc/summary.shtml>.

James, C. 2000. The Experiences of First Generation Canadians. In Opportunity and Uncertainty:The Life Course Experiences of the Class of ’73, by Anisef et al. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

James, C., D. Plaza, and C. Jansen. 1999. Issues of Race in Employment Experiences of CaribbeanWomen in Toronto. Canadian Woman Studies / Cahiers de la femme 19:129-133.

Jenson, J. 2001. Time to Strengthen Canada’s Commitment to Diversity. Canadian Policy ResearchNetworks (CPRN) <www.cprn.org).

———. 2002. Citizenship: Its Relationship to the Canadian Diversity Model. Canadian PolicyResearch Networks (CPRN) <www.cprn.org).

Jenson, J., and M. Papillon. 2001. The Changing Boundaries of Citizenship. A Review and a ResearchAgenda. Canadian Policy Research Networks (CPRN) <www.cprn.org).

Kaprielian-Churchill, I., and S. Churchill. 1994. The Pulse of the World: Refugees in Our Schools.Toronto: OISE Press.

Kazemipur, A., and S. Halli. 1997. Plight of Immigrants: The Spatial Concentration of Poverty inCanada. Canadian Journal of Regional Sciences Special Issue 20, no. 1-2 (spring-summer): 11-28.

———. 2000. The new poverty in Canada. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.

Kilbride, K.M., P. Anisef, E. Baichman-Anisef, and R. Khattar. 2000. Between Two Worlds: TheExperiences and Concerns of Immigrant Youth in Ontario. Toronto: CERIS and CIC-OASIS<www.settlement.org>.

Kumin, J., and D. Chaikel, D. 2002. Taking the Agenda Forward: The Roundtable on SeparatedChildren Seeking Asylum in Canada. Refuge 20, no. 2 (February).

Lee, Y. 1999. Social Cohesion in Canada: The Role of the Immigrant Service Sector. OCASINewsletter 73 (summer/autumn).

Leithwood, K., M. Fullan, and P. Laing. 2002. Towards the Schools We Need. University of TorontoBulletin, 22 April, 20.

26


Lo, L., V. Preston, S. Wang, K. Reil, E. Harvey, and B. Siu. 2000. Immigrants’ Economic Status inToronto: Rethinking Settlement and Integration Strategies. Toronto: CERIS Working Paper<ceris.metropolis.net>.

McAndrew, M. 2001. Immigration et diversité à l’école: Le débat québécois dans une perspective compar-ative. Montreal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.

Mojab, S. 1999. De-skilling immigrant women. Canadian Woman Studies / Cahiers de la femme19:123-128.

Mohamed, H. 2002. Neither Here Nor There: The Social Cost of Refugees in Limbo. INSCAN 15,no. 3 (winter).

Montgomery, C. 2002. The ‘Brown Paper Syndrome’: Unaccompanied Minors and Questions ofStatus. Refuge 20, no. 2 (February).

Mwarigha M.S. 2002. Towards a Framework for Local Responsibility: Taking Action to End the CurrentLimbo in Immigrant Settlement - Toronto. Toronto: The Maytree Foundation.

Omidvar, R. 2002. A Sense of Belonging: Immigration across the Ages. INSCAN 15, no. 4 (spring).

Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI). 2000. Immigrant Settlement Counselling:A Training Guide. Toronto: OCASI.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1995. Our Children at Risk.London: OECD.

Ornstein, M. 2000. Ethno-Racial Inequality in the City of Toronto: An Analysis of the 1996 Census.Toronto: City of Toronto <ceris.metropolis.net>.

Owen, T. 1999. The View from Toronto: Settlement Services in the Late 1990's. Toronto: CERISVirtual Library <ceris.metropolis.net>.

Pendakur, R. 2000. Immigrants and the Labour Force: Policy, Regulation and Impact. Montreal:McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Preston, V., and G. Man. 1999. Employment Experiences of Chinese Immigrant Women: AnExploration of Diversity. Canadian Woman Studies / Cahiers de la femme 19:115-122.

Qadeer, M. Forthcoming. Ethnic Segregation in a Multicultural City, Toronto, Canada. Chapter 3of Urban Spatial Segregation: A Land Policy Perspective.

Quinn, J. 2002. Food Bank Clients Often Well-Educated Immigrants. The Toronto Star, 31 March,p. A12.

Raffo, C., and M. Reeves. 2000. Youth Transitions and Social Exclusion: Developments in SocialCapital Theory. Journal of Youth Studies 3, no. 2:147-166.

Reitz, J.G. 1995. A Review of the Literature on Aspects of Ethno-Racial Access, Utilization and Deliveryof Social Services. Toronto: CERIS Virtual Library <ceris.metropolis.net>.


27

———. 1998. Warmth of the Welcome: the Social Causes of Economic Success for Immigrants inDifferent Nations and Cities. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

———. 2001. Immigrant Skill Utilization in the Canadian Labour Market: Implications of HumanCapital Research. Journal of International Migration and Integration 2, no. 3 (summer).

Richmond, A. 1994. Global Apartheid: Refugees, Racism and the New World Order. Toronto: OxfordUniversity Press.

———. 2000. Global Apartheid: Migration, Racism and the World System. In Perspectives onEthnicity in Canada, edited by M.A. Kalbach, and W.E. Kalbach. Toronto: Harcourt Canada.

Richmond, T. 1996. Effects of Cutbacks on Immigrant Service Agencies. Toronto: City of TorontoPublic Health Department <ceris.metropolis.net>.

Richmond, T., D. Beyenne, C. Butcher, and B. Joe. 1996. Immigrant Service Agencies: AFundamental Component of Anti-Racist Social Services. In Perspectives on Racism and the HumanServices Sector, edited by C.E. James. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Sadoway, G. 2002. Introduction: Children at Risk. Refuge 20, no. 2 (February).

Saloojee, A. 2003. Social Inclusion, Anti-Racism and Democratic Citizenship. Toronto: The LaidlawFoundation.

Satzcewich, V., ed. 1998. Racism & Social Inequality in Canada: Concepts, Controversies & Strategies ofResistance. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.

Sen, A. 2001. Development as Freedom. London: Oxford University Press.

Shields, J. 2002. No Safe Haven: Markets, Welfare and Migrants. Paper presented to the CanadianSociology and Anthropology Association, Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities, 1 June,Toronto.

Siddiqui, H. 2002. Don’t Turn Canada into Germany. The Toronto Star, 27 June, p. A27.

Siemiatycki, M., and E. Isin. 1997. Immigration, Ethnoracial Diversity and Urban Citizenship inToronto. Canadian Journal of Regional Sciences Special Issue 20, no. 1-2 (spring-summer): 73-102.

Simich, L. 2000. Towards a Greater Toronto Charter: Implications for Immigrant Settlement. Toronto:The Maytree Foundation.

Taylor, C., ed. 1994. Multiculturalism Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Troper, H. 2000. History of Immigration since the Second World War: From Toronto “The Good” toToronto “The World in a City”. Toronto: CERIS Working Paper <ceris.metropolis.net>.

Tyyska, V. 2001. Long and Winding Road: Adolescents and Youth in Canada Today. Toronto: CanadianScholar’s Press Inc.

28


Wayland, S. 1997. Immigration, Multiculturalism and National Identity in Canada. InternationalJournal on Group Rights 5:33-58.

Winter, E. 2001. National Unity versus Multiculturalism? Rethinking the Logic of Inclusion inGermany and Canada. International Journal of Canadian Studies 24 (fall / autumn): 165-193.

PUBLISHED IN 2002-2003

Clyde Hertzman — Leave No Child Behind! Social Exclusion and ChildDevelopment

Dow Marmur — Ethical Reflections on Social Inclusion

Andrew Jackson and Does Work Include Children? The Effects of the LabourKatherine Scott — Market on Family Income, Time, and Stress

Michael Bach — Social Inclusion as Solidarity: Re-thinking the ChildRights Agenda

Martha Friendly and Social inclusion for Canadian Children through Donna Lero — Early Childhood Education and Care

Meg Luxton — Feminist Perspectives on Social Inclusion andChildren’s Well-Being

Terry Wotherspoon — The Dynamics of Social Inclusion: Public Educationand Aboriginal People in Canada

Peter Donnelly andJay Coakley — The Role of Recreation in Promoting Social Inclusion

Andrew Mitchell and Richard Shillington — Poverty, Inequality, and Social Inclusion

Catherine Frazee — Thumbs Up! Inclusion, Rights and Equality asExperienced by Youth with Disabilities

Anver Saloojee — Social Inclusion, Anti-Racism and DemocraticCitizenship

Ratna Omidvar and Immigrant Settlement and Social Inclusion in CanadaTed Richmond —

PERSPECTIVES ONSOCIAL INCLUSION W O R K I N G

P A P E RS E R I E S

The full papers (in English only) and the summaries in French andEnglish can be downloaded from the Laidlaw Foundation’s

web site at www.laidlawfdn.org under Children’s Agenda/Working Paper Series on Social Inclusion

orordered from [email protected]

Price: $11.00 full paper; $6.00 Summaries(Taxes do not apply and shipment included).

INCLUSION - Brotherhood of St. Laurencelibrary.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/626/1/Immigrant... ·...

Documents

Transcript of INCLUSION - Brotherhood of St. Laurencelibrary.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/626/1/Immigrant... ·...