It’s been a while since I’ve blogged. February flew by so fast and March is threatening to do the same as I scramble to confirm what it is I will be doing vocationally as of April 1. But let’s not allow that to distract us.
Helping Immigrants—Historic Precedents
Since March 23, 1848, support for newcomers has been a hallmark of Canadian society building. As John Ralston Saul explains in his book, A Fair Country: Telling Truths About Canada
, the first law passed in the Province of Canada (the newly formed entity uniting upper and lower Canada into a single colony that would achieve peaceful freedom in 1867) was the “Act to create a fund [to enable] Indigent Emigrants to proceed to their place of destination, and of supporting them until they can procure employment.” 
Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine, the first Canadian-born Prime Minister of this new political entity, and Robert Baldwin, his political partner, are enshrined on Parliament Hill as ground-breaking leaders of what many consider to be the first truly Canadian government. They established a precedent for the government taking responsibility to ensure that newcomers to the country are given every opportunity to quickly and smoothly adjust to life in their new home. And note: though the law focuses on employment and poverty, the focus was not simply on economics but, as Saul explains, on peace, fairness, and good government. “The key to a society built on more than one language and on multiple cultures was an idea of justice based on fairness or, to put it differently, an egalitarian approach based upon a constant striving for fairness” (143).
From its inception, Canada has been built around the notion of peace, welfare (or fairness) and good government (cf. Saul’s entire book, but especially part two). Our approach to immigration is a critical litmus test for how well we have done in fulfilling that vision of our “founding fathers.”
Settlement in Canada Today
At a forum on federalism sponsored by the Mowat Centre of the University of Toronto and the International Forum of Federalism on Friday, January 28th of this year, Daiva Stasiulis, professor at Carleton University made the following observation:
“If 50% of immigrant selection is targeted as ‘economic,’ should the federal government treat settlement programs (in part) as priority funding for economic development to address the gap between recruitment and integration and settlement?”
So when the Canadian government decided to cut $55 million from settlement across Canada this year ($43 million from Ontario alone), they were actually undermining the economy—reflecting an astonishing individualistic vision regarding society’s obligations to those we recruit as immigrants. In essence, we are saying, “Please come to Canada and help us build our economy.” Then once they come and cannot get their credentials recognized or a job commensurate to their skills, we say, “Fend for yourself.”
Based solely on economic considerations, every dollar spent on speeding the integration of immigrants is a dollar invested in our economy. In my earlier post, Immigration Part One, I noted that the reason Canada pursues immigration is economic. When people around you say, “If those people are going to come here and live off our land, then they should become like one of us” REMEMBER: they are coming in order to ensure YOUR standard of living is secure.
But there must be more. We must also consider the importance of humanitarian values, faith values, and the matter of society building when we consider our responsibility to immigrants.
Immigration: Economics or Society Building?
Yesterday in a meeting with bureaucrats at CIC we began to debate current policy direction around immigration. It was suggested that if we take care of the economic interests of newcomers, helping them find jobs quickly, then everything else will fall into place.
Yet, was not economic pragmatism the driving force behind immigration policies in many European nations that are today bemoaning multiculturalism—at least their take on it—and how it has failed. They feel their societies are splintering. I contend that part of the reason is that any approach to immigration has at its CORE society building. Economic well being will surely be a major part of any strategy, but always in light of how we forge a diverse yet cohesive society.
It’s not just about economics—it is about building the tapestry of our nation.
What about the church?
In my next post I will take us on a journey through Ephesians to reflect on the way the early church faced the challenge of forging a new humanity in and through faith in Jesus Christ. Leading up to that I simply leave you with this query: what role does the church have in welcoming newcomers and helping to forge a cohesive society characterized by peace, fairness and good government?
