Focusing on values is ‘empty exercise’
Forget whether it’s offensive, it’s unenforceable
“Do you beat your wife?”
Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch released her list of “Canadian values” test questions for immigrants Monday. They landed the same day news broke in the U.S. about a questionnaire put out by Oklahoma Republican John Bennett to any Muslim constituents hoping to meet him. The question above came from that questionnaire.
Leitch’s questions were less explicitly sectarian, but you didn’t need to be a theologist to get the drift.
If she becomes prime minister, Leitch proposes that new arrivals will be asked three questions:
“Are men and women equal, and entitled to equal protection under the law?”
“Is it ever OK to coerce or use violence against an individual or a group who disagrees with your views?”
“Do you recognize that to have a good life in Canada, you will need to work hard to provide for yourself and your family, that you can’t expect to have things you want given to you?”
The consequences of giving the wrong answer were not spelled out.
Her leadership rival, Deepak Obhrai, was not impressed.
“Ms. Leitch’s proposal to screen every immigrant and visitor is nothing but Donald Trump’s executive order, disguised as Canadian values, and crafted to keep Muslims out of Canada,” he said.
Leitch’s announcement went on to say that every single potential immigrant should have a face-to-face interview with a trained immigration officer, which is not a terrible idea. They are now limited mainly to spousal applicants, to confirm the truthfulness of marriage claims, and an increase could reduce the fraud and misrepresentation that rocketed when the practice was ended in 2002.
But it’s not values that we need to tighten — it’s the integrity of a very successful immigration system under increasing stress after being used as a source of electoral fodder by the Liberal government. A glance at the OECD’s most recent Migration Outlook shows how the Canadian system is attracting some of the world’s best and brightest.
In 2014, 260,400 permanent residents were admitted, and more than half of the 25- to 64-year-olds in that group had completed post-secondary degrees. The employment rate for foreignborn men was higher than for native-born men, a statistic that gives the lie to the popular image of the immigrant welfare scrounger.
The Conservatives reformed the system over their time in power, so that family class immigration was on the decline (down 18 per cent in 2014), while economic immigration was on the rise (up 11 per cent). New programs such as the Express Entry system were introduced to speed the application process for people with the skills Canada needs.
But the 2015 election meant a change of emphasis. The Liberals promised to prioritize family reunification, granting points under the Express Entry system to applicants with siblings in Canada and doubling the number of applications allowed for parents and grandparents.
Immigration targets have been raised to 300,000; visa requirements on Mexico have been lifted; language requirements have been watered down for younger and older applicants; while the residency requirement for citizenship has been reduced to three years from four, one of the lowest among peer countries.
Perhaps the most egregious example of political pandering was the repeal of the law that revoked citizenship for dual citizens convicted of terrorism or treason. If you can have your citizenship revoked for misrepresentation, does it make sense that you are able to keep it after being caught planning to explode truck bombs in downtown Toronto, as was the case with Zakaria Amara, ringleader of the Toronto 18 terror group, who recently saw his citizenship reinstated?
Justin Trudeau’s pledges on immigration had the desired impact — a shift in allegiance of a number of visible minority communities to the Liberals.
But they made no sense from a policy perspective. Their adoption has created an opportunity for the Conservative Party to make a pitch to voters who agree that immigration is a necessity for economic growth, yet do not believe parties should use bad policy in a bidding war for votes.
The idea to increase the number of face-to-face interviews for immigrants is a good one, but the rest of Leitch’s plan is unworkable.
As Howard Anglin, a former chief of staff to Jason Kenney when he was immigration minister, wrote recently in iPolitics, the Conservatives considered a values pledge for new citizens. After looking at examples from Australia and the Netherlands, they concluded such pledges were “empty exercises.”
“Even assuming one could agree on a list of values that newcomers would pledge to uphold (would Conservatives trust Trudeau to draft this? Would Liberals have trusted Stephen Harper to?), it would be about as meaningful as clicking ‘accept’ on a computer program’s ‘terms of use’ and, in practice, even less enforceable.”
A more sensible immigration policy would forget about “values” and concentrate on outcomes — where the focus is on attracting smart workers who will help Canada navigate an age of automation and job displacement.
As author Peter C. Newman once noted: “When a nation’s elite is three generations removed from steerage, it cannot afford too many pretensions.”