Focusing a Swedish lens on Canadian integration policy

D A N I E L H I E B E R T U B C A N D M E T R O P O L I S B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A

Subtitle…

 What could Canada’s immigration system look like with a social democratic government?

  E.g., Olivia Chow as Minister of CIC… … taking inspiration from an advanced welfare state like Sweden

Themes

     Background: major policy choices required of governments Canadian choices Swedish choices Swedish challenges What could this tell us?

21

st

century policy questions (1)

 Managing the demographic transformation toward low fertility… options   Ignore the problem (e.g., Italy) Raise productivity, extend working age (e.g., Japan)   Raise net migration (e.g., Canada) Raise fertility (e.g., Sweden)

21

st

century policy questions (2)

 Maximizing the benefits of immigration … options  Select ‘designer’ immigrants  Ethical concerns (e.g., IOM, GCIM)  International competition  Difficulty of predicting success  People come in families, not just as individuals  Humanitarian obligations  Enhance systems of integration  Cost  Political concerns

Canada’s choices

  Demographic transformation  Immigration (no success in raising fertility or productivity) Maximizing benefits of immigration   Historic focus on selection  Skilled Worker class  Business classes Objective: self-sufficient immigrants who make an economic contribution to Canada, quickly

Canada: Selection side

   1980s: heightened emphasis on economic immigrants 1990s: devolution to Quebec and other provinces 2000s: growing reliance on PNPs and creation of the CEC  Increasing significance of ‘stepwise’ immigration

Canada: Settlement side

   1970s: introduction of modern settlement model with limited language education and orientation services (delivered by NGOs) 1990s: gender equity in language programs  Devolution to provinces (selectively) 2000s: increase in settlement funding   Transferred to provinces in QC, BC, MB Administered by CIC elsewhere

Canada: Settlement side

 In an effort to provide equal services to all newcomers, the level of services is not high  All newcomers can access language and orientation services, but   No free additional education No housing support  Limited employment preparation services  Few enhanced services for refugees  In fact, government sponsored refugees must repay transportation costs

Sweden’s choices

 Demographic transformation  Strong pro-fertility/family policies   Fertility ‘bounce’ Near-replacement fertility level and therefore less demographic pressure  Employers still identify short-term labour needs for both skilled and less-skilled workers

Sweden’s choices

 Perspective on immigration   Historically linked to social democratic values  Self-image … not an immigration society  Commitment to international solidarity with global south (e.g., parliamentary committee on circular migration and development, 2010)  Strong welfare state (though reforms are occurring) Immigration policy  Driven by asylum and family reunification  Complication of Shengen Accord

Sweden’s choices

 Recent past (since 2006 coalition government led by Moderate Party): Centre-right   New perspectives on immigration Three major policy directions  Enhanced attraction of skilled immigrants  Enhanced admission of lower-skilled  Enhanced settlement/integration programs for refugees

Sweden: Selection side

 Skilled worker recruitment  Shengen system: mainly labour migration     Stepwise system driven by employers (like CEC) Permanent residence granted after 5 years of temporary work visas Currently: rapid increase of TFWs with expected rise in permanent status in near future Minister: “We must make it easier for people who want to come to Sweden to work here.”

Sweden: Selection side

 Lower-skilled worker recruitment  Driven by employers (similar to Canada’s TFW program)  Emphasis on ‘circularity’ and development impacts in global south  Not expected to lead to permanent residence (like Canada)

Sweden: Settlement side

  Economic immigrants: no programs given stepwise nature of admission (exception is free language training) Humanitarian   Major restructuring in 2010 Previous system  Integration services and housing delivered by municipal governments, funds provided by national state  Criticism of welfare dependence and labour market avoidance (politically contested!)

Sweden: settlement side

 Humanitarian immigrants  New system  ‘Recentralization’ to national state  Administered by Ministry of Employment (sub-ministry for integration)  Each adult individual granted access to an Introduction Guide responsible for assessing their skills and developing a personal plan to acquire housing, language, health, employment  Guides are from the private sector and fees paid by state provided they succeed; clients have choice of guides with publicly-listed success rates and client satisfaction scores

Sweden: settlement side

 Humanitarian immigrants  New system  New array of subsidies  To post-secondary institutions for credentialization  To municipal gov’ts for refugees who learn Swedish within one year  To newcomers to move to jobs  To employers to hire refugees  Note: refugee integration includes housing, employment preparation and NO TRANSPORTATION LOANS for state sponsored refugees

Sweden: settlement side

 Family immigrants   If members of refugee families, access to Introduction Guides and eligible for subsidies If not, only eligible for language training

Swedish challenges

   Shengen system reduces regulatory capacity Anti-immigrant/refugee political party (Sweden Democrats): highly vocal Reluctant society of immigration  Systemic openness does not necessarily lead to welcoming social atmosphere   Relatively high levels of minority residential concentration Cautious approach to reforms of the labour immigration system

Are there lessons from Sweden for Canada?

 Interesting statistic  Migration Policy Environment Index (MIPEX)  EU initiative to quantify the policy environment for newcomers … policies, not outcomes  Canada is included as a benchmark for European comparisons  Top possible score = 100  Sweden ranked 1 st with 83; Canada 3 rd with 72  Canada suffers due to problems with credentialization and the lack of inclusion of immigrants in the political system

Are there lessons from Sweden for Canada?

    General point: immigration systems reflect larger socio-political dynamics  What is possible in one society may not be in another Unseen aspect of policy formation  Transparency and accessibility of Swedish data Canadian policies supporting families (by all political parties) are insignificant Swedish integration system administered by the state and incorporates private sector  Limited role for NGOs in anti-racism advocacy  Ironic given historical social democratic values

Are there lessons from Sweden for Canada?

   Devolution of responsibility to municipalities was reversed in Sweden  Attempt to rebuild a coherent policy system with universal goal of economic integration Swedish financial commitment to refugee integration is ~5x higher (percapita) that Canada’s  Despite the fact that relative numbers are much higher But it is much lower for economic immigrants  Is it worth thinking about differentiated programs?

Are there lessons from Sweden for Canada?

   In Canada selection policy has changed with devolution  Though the traditional ‘mainstays’ of the Canadian system—the Skilled Worker and Business Classes—have seen little change And, despite devolution, integration policy has not changed very much  Though additional resources are available, and there have been many experiments in programming, goals are consistent In Sweden, there have been rapid and fundamental shifts in selection and integration policy   More adaptive system Is Canada’s system too complex to adapt? Who would decide how?