The ethnocultural diversity that characterizes Canada’s cities, especially the larger ones, is a product of the evolution of Canadian immigration policy. There are two ways to understand the multicultural impact successive waves of newcomers have had on Canada’s urban landscape: one approach stresses the role of the state in dictating who would enter Canada, while the other approach stresses social, economic, and cultural forces outside the state as the motivation for immigration policy (Simmons and Keohane, 1992). From a state-centred perspective, one can point to senior government decision-makers and their efforts to change the Immigration Act and its related regulations (Hawkins, 1988), or immigration bureaucrats acting as gatekeepers and/or facilitators in the immigration process (Dirks, 1995). Alternatively, from a societal perspective, some argue that it was the attitude of the general public which permitted the perpetuation of racial stereotypes in immigration policy (Satzewich, 1989), or that economic forces have dictated the inflow of immigrants into Canada (Anderson and Marr, 1987; Hiebert, 1994). Both state-centred and societal approaches offer valuable insights into the application of Canadian immigration policy.

This chapter begins with an historical overview of Canadian immigration policy, using a combination of state and societal approaches to that policy. An understanding of past and present immigration policy helps to identify the points of comparison between the two case studies used in this dissertation. Traditional immigration policy over most of this century produced diverse, urban communities like Kensington. By contrast, as the chapter concludes, immigration policy over the past two decades and its emphasis on economic considerations is fostering suburban, ethnoculturally diverse communities like Markham.

Unlike countries in Europe, where immigration can often be identified with a single country, region, or ethnic group, ethnocultural diversity is a defining characteristic of Canadian immigration. Moreover, statistics show that among newcomers, the once majority European immigration has been steadily replaced since the 1970s by immigrants from Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and the Caribbean. These new immigrants have introduced a spectrum of ethnocultural diversity previously unknown to Canadian communities.

The diverse character of Canadian immigration should be understood, however, within the historical context of what has been a series of severely racist immigration policies over the last century (see Table 3.1). In an attempt to control the development of a burgeoning Canadian society, Canada’s immigration policy restricted entry for certain groups deemed "less desirable" by policymakers. Perhaps the starkest examples of restrictive legislation are the Chinese Act(s) 1885, 1923 which required a sizable head tax from all potential immigrants of Chinese origin, and used other hurdles in the immigration process as disincentives. Immigration was also formally discouraged from other Asian countries such as India through what was known as the Continuous Journey Regulation. In fact, for the first half of this century, entrance criteria were clearly based on race and ethnicity, allowing Canadian policymakers to influence what Canadian society would look like.

By the end of World War II, Canada still had an ethnically and racially restrictive immigration policy, supported by the general public and politicians alike. As Prime Minister Mackenzie King stated before the House of Commons in 1947, "the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population" (Satzewich, 1989: 78). This view was codified in the Immigration Act, 1952 as the government, through the Minister of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, was empowered to prohibit entry of immigrants for reasons ranging from their nationality, ethnic group and geographical area of origin, to their "peculiar customs... [and/or] unsuitability having regard to the climatic, economic, social, industrial, education, labour, health or other conditions" (Satzewich, 1989: 78-79). The objective of these restrictions was apparently to prohibit entry of people deemed unable to adapt to Canada’s harsh climate (and therefore be a drain on the health and labour system), or those unable to assimilate into the culture and capitalist economy. In 1956 the regulations to the Immigration Act were again amended, this time formally categorizing source countries for immigration as being either "preferred", "non-preferred" or "restricted" (Anderson and Marr, 1987: 94).

Alongside these legislative means of structuring immigration policy and restricting access to "undesirable" groups, other more "favourable" groups were encouraged through the discretionary means available to immigration policymakers. During Prime Minister Laurier’s government (1896-1911), Minister of the Interior Clifford Sifton aggressively used immigration policy to settle the West. Immigrants from ethnic groups deemed good farmers were given priority over others. In particular, the promise of cheap land was offered to Northern Europeans, and then later Southern and Eastern Europeans to increase the numbers of what was deemed settlers of "good quality". Sifton is remembered for saying, "a stalwart peasant in a sheepskin coat, born to the soil, whose forefathers have been farmers for ten generations, with a stout wife and a half-dozen children is good quality" (Knowles, 1992: 64). By 1910, revisions to the Immigration Act enhanced such a discretionary role for policymakers and "conferred on the cabinet virtually unlimited discretionary power allowing it to issue orders-in-council to regulate the volume, ethnic origin, or occupational composition of immigrants destined for Canada" (Knowles, 1992: 80). Later, under Prime Minster Mackenzie King’s first government (1921-1926), discretion in immigration policy was again used, as the administration of immigration was heavily influenced by the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National railways and their vested interest in attracting unskilled labour. A number of immigrants in officially "non-preferred" or "restricted" categories were granted entry at this time (Thompson and Weinfield, 1995: 188).

Using such legislative and discretionary tools, Canada’s early immigration policy was structured around a hierarchy of favoured nations aimed at attracting those immigrants least "socially distant" from the British. Overtly racist yet supported by successive layers of legislation, change to this status quo in immigration policy was slow to come. In fact, immigration policy was based on ethnic and racial criteria until the early 1960s, when a poor international reputation contributed to a radical change in policy (Troper, 1993: 226). By removing regulations dictating "preferred" countries of origin from the Immigration Act, in 1962 the federal government took the first step towards the visible and diverse immigration we see in Canada today. Four years later, a White Paper on Immigration was released by the government to facilitate public consultation. Following the debate it spawned, the regulations of the Immigration Act were amended again in 1967.

Considered by many as the landmark for when Canada’s immigration policy was officially de-racialized, the 1967 changes have been described as putting into place "a complete universal, non-discriminatory immigration policy and a unique and sensible selection system" (Hawkins, 1988: 342). Introduced at this time was the "points system," whereby prospective immigrants score points in a number of criteria including education, experience, arranged employment and language ability. These criteria form the basis of Canadian immigration policy today, although not all categories of immigrants are assessed with the points system.

Critics of the 1967 amendments suggest that these changes were not so high-minded as supporters proclaim. As some argue, "Canada backed into a non-racist immigration policy. The motivation was less to court non-white immigration than it was to improve Canada’s international image and bring immigration legislation into line with domestic human rights policy more generally" (Troper, 1993: 266). Others maintain that despite a change in rhetoric during this period, the process remained structured by racist stereotypes. While officially immigration was not racially restrictive, an ideological climate against visible minority immigration within government and the public at large meant that immigration was not encouraged equally at all overseas offices, and in some cases there was a reluctance to establish offices that would encourage increased immigration from undesirable locations, such as the Caribbean (Satzewich, 1989: 93).

In 1975, immigration entered a new era of public debate with the release of the infamous "Green Paper" -- a four volume Canadian Immigration and Population Study. The Green Paper offered background information designed to initiate wide public discussion about the costs and benefits of immigration, and included policy alternatives framed by the assumption that immigration should fill Canada’s economic needs. Out of this discussion, the Immigration Act itself underwent major revisions in 1976, establishing the cornerstones of Canada’s current immigration policy. The 1976 revisions included a preamble which cemented the principle of universality (admission without regard to nationality, race, colour or creed). On a procedural level, the new Immigration Act, 1976 created a new system for the planning and management of Canadian immigration (including the introduction of mandatory consultation with provinces to set inflow targets); established three classes of immigrants: Family, Economic, and Refugees; and substantially reduced the excesses of ministerial discretion (Hawkins, 1988: 377-78).

Whether motivated by concerns over Canada’s international reputation or more genuine concerns about the racist policies that dominated Canadian immigration policy over the century, the changes to immigration regulations in the late 1960s and then to the Act itself in the mid-1970s fundamentally changed the character of Canadian immigration. Since then, Canadian communities have become more ethnoculturally diverse, and in larger urban centres this diversity is magnified by the arrival of large numbers of immigrants belonging to visible minority groups. This is not to suggest, however, that the diversity in immigration has erased the racism inherent in Canadian society. In fact the opening up of immigration policy and the diversity it has brought into Canada’s cities is forcing a controversial debate on the value of immigration and on what basis we are all Canadians.

An important characteristic of Canada’s geography of immigration is its urban nature -- the context for this dissertation. As mentioned in Chapter One, not only have immigrants historically settled in Canadian cities, but today nearly two-thirds (62 per cent) live in the three largest metropolitan areas -- Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 1997). As a result of this attraction to urban centres, almost 90 per cent of all Canadian immigrants live in just three provinces: Ontario (53 per cent), British Columbia (23 per cent) and Quebec (13 per cent) (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 1997).

To a limited degree, the geography of Canadian immigration is the product of the federal government’s efforts to distribute the benefits and impacts of immigration policy throughout the country. One of the earliest, and perhaps most striking, examples of efforts on the part of the federal government to control the geography of Canadian immigration was with the settlement of the Western prairies. At the turn of the century, federal policymakers were able to encourage suitable immigrants to settle and form secure communities in what they saw as unprotected and largely unsettled land with the promise of cheap land (Driedger, 1989: 73). As a result of this targeted campaign, diverse European immigration began to shape Western communities.

This commitment to regional distribution is even spelled out in the Immigration Act itself. One of the objectives of immigration is, as s. 3(h) of the Act states: "to foster the development of a strong and viable economy and the property of all regions in Canada" (Immigration Act, 1985: s. 3h). Yet as current statistics confirm, "there is a profound gap between the rhetoric of the Immigration Act (which portrays immigration as an instrument of regional equity) and actual settlement patterns (which exacerbate disparities across the country)" (Hiebert, 1994: 256).

Beyond the formal commitment in the Act, regional distributive principles have been institutionalized in the mandatory consultations the federal government must have with provinces every year before setting immigration inflow targets, and in the smattering of federal-provincial agreements on immigration that exist. This interjurisdictional contact provides a limited means for regional distribution in immigration policy, in that all provinces have in theory the potential to structure policy in ways that may be favourable to their unique regional needs. Yet in contrast to other policy areas, immigration has been one place where most provinces have been reluctant to push for an active role. As Dalon explains, while the Constitution "provides the provinces with a legal justification for entering the field of immigration, it does not by itself constitute a compelling reason for such action (Dalon, 1976: 79). Quebec, of course, is the obvious exception. Seeing the attraction and integration of especially French-speaking immigrants into a province with a naturally declining population as a political benefit, Quebec has defined the potential for a provincial role in immigration in Canada. In general, however, with the movement towards business class immigration and the large numbers of visible minority immigrants settling in major receiving cities, all provinces are expressing a greater interest in immigration policy. (Dirks, 1995: 111)

Despite provincial interests in immigration, this is a policy area of federal responsibility as defined by the Canadian Constitution. Responsibility is separated by the federal government into two areas of immigration policy and planning: 1) immigration flows, and 2) the settlement of immigrants. In managing immigration inflows, the Immigration Act demands the government make yearly decisions about the number of immigrants to enter Canada (to be released in an annual report to Parliament), and engage in five year plans that detail their immigration strategy. With the revisions of 1976, the Act also assigns a minor role to provinces in setting targets for immigration flows through the mandated need for their consultation.

In contrast to this rather straightforward jurisdiction over managing immigration flows, the settlement and adaptation of immigrants is an area of complex jurisdictional overlap and is by no means centralized. The federal government’s role in immigrant settlement is primarily one of funding, and currently involves four programs: the Transportation, Assistance and Admissibility Loans Program; the Adjustment Assistance Program (AAP); Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC); and the Immigrant Settlement and Adaptation Program (ISAP). One area where immigration policy and social policy converge, however, is the provision of settlement services which involves areas of provincial jurisdiction such as education and social assistance, and therefore necessitates a provincial role. In Ontario, for example, the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Community and Social Services all provide programs and services either directed at immigrants or used by immigrants as part of the settlement process. Moreover, amidst current consultation over alternative means for the federal government to meet its immigrant settlement obligations, there is widespread speculation over the potential for an increased provincial role. One option could be the downloading of federal responsibilities for settlement services to the provinces, accompanied by block funding. Under this scenario, it would be up to provincial discretion as to how the services were delivered, and to what degree government agencies or existing non-profit organizations would be involved.

Immigration settlement is an area which illuminates the local dimension of immigration policy, as the vast majority of Canada’s immigrants have chosen to settle within major urban areas. In addition to the federal and provincial governments, local and/or regional municipalities play a role in immigrant settlement, albeit a less defined one than higher levels of government. Although limited in funds, some larger municipalities do offer grants to local human service providers including immigrant settlement organizations. As well, many municipalities with diverse populations are recognizing the need for multi-lingual access and translation services so that the public can better use the range of general municipal services offered. Race relations or community relations committees have become increasingly standard in municipalities, and in some cases equity and race relations initiatives have infiltrated the daily activities of the local bureaucracy, as in the former City of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto governments.

Added to these layers of government jurisdiction are the nonprofit sector service providers found within many of the urban centres where Canadian immigrants have settled. Through a myriad of community, multi-service, ethnocultural, and religious organizations, the practical, day-to-day delivery of immigrant services such as English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL), counselling, employment training, and housing assistance are for the most part done by the nonprofit sector. Arguably better able to reach immigrant populations than large government bureaucracies, this often informal network of services and programs attempts to meet a wide range of needs for newcomers. Most of these nonprofit organizations depend on government funding, and some even carry out specific federal government settlement programs through contract funding arrangements (e.g. LINC or ISAP). This sector of service provision for newcomers has a long history in Canada, although today the continued existence of many organizations is in jeopardy as all three levels of government engage in deficit reduction and cut back funding to nonprofit organizations.

The Toronto area has various layers of immigrant settlement services that can be accessed by newcomers. The federal government funds the national programs mentioned above (loans, AAP, LINC and ISAP) either directly or through contracts with nonprofit sector agencies. The Ontario government also influences immigrant settlement in areas where the work of provincial departments intersects with immigration. The Province also engages in some direct funding to nonprofit organizations, although this has decreased with widespread efforts to decrease government spending.

At the core of the Greater Toronto Area is the old City of Toronto, where the majority of immigrant settlement services are available (see Map 3.1). Settlement services are concentrated in this area because of their proximity to traditional immigrant communities such as Kensington, an original immigrant reception area or "port of entry" in Toronto. This clustering of services and programs, however, is not only for the benefit of the population in the urban core. Acting as a hub for the new City of Toronto (formerly Metropolitan Toronto) and to some extent the wider Greater Toronto Area, many organizations delivering immigrant services beyond the boundaries of the urban core have chosen to locate their offices centrally and yet serve the larger region. Often this is the result of organizations expanding beyond their original clientele as immigration patterns have shifted and immigrants have increasingly settled beyond the City of Toronto and in the surrounding regions of Peel and York. There are very few settlement service organizations within these outlying communities, in part because of the recency of immigration settlement in these areas. As is the case in Markham, the need for integration and settlement services is only now becoming obvious to the wider suburban population.

Officially Canadian immigration is separated into three classes: Family, Economic, and Refugee; and each class is subdivided into various categories (see Table 3.2). These classes reflect the motivation behind Canadian immigration policy, often characterized as a historical balance between the value of immigrant family reunification and the benefit of immigration for the Canadian economy.

Today it seems that balance is clearly being tipped in favour of economic immigration, and is expected to continue to be so into the next century. Amendments to the Immigration Act regulations in 1992 allowed the government to shift priorities between entrance classes, which has meant that family reunification is no longer guaranteed a dominant position in Canadian immigration policy. According to the federal government’s most recent five year plan for immigration (1995-2000), economic immigration is expected to slowly, but steadily, outweigh family immigration (see Figure 3.1).

Table 3.2: Structure of Canadian Immigration, Entrance Classes and Categories

While some see this move towards economic immigration as a recent shift, the emphasis on economic concerns can also be interpreted as the entrenchment of something that has long been important in Canadian immigration policy. Early in the century, for example, immigration was viewed as a valuable means of meeting labour market needs. Moreover, the various amendments to the Immigration Act and its regulations that took place in the 1960s and 1970s steadily replaced entrance criteria based on country of origin with economic considerations of education, training and language skills. Moreover, the federal government’s actions in the area of immigration have been described as "tap-on, tap-off" -- a reference to the influence of internal economic demands on immigration policy (Anderson and Marr, 1987).

The most significant change to recent immigration policy in terms of economic considerations, however, has been the creation of a new category for business immigrants. Supported by immigration policy that clearly favours immigrants that are seen to be an economic benefit to the country, the potential of business immigration has captured the interest of the federal as well as provincial governments.

Business immigration falls within Canada’s economic class of immigration (see Table 3.2). Immigrants who enter through the economic class are seen to fill a specific economic need in the country or are expected to contribute positively to the economy in some way. These economic immigrants are categorized as either:

First introduced as a pilot program in Ontario in 1975, business immigration has been a category within Canadian immigration policy since 1978. The objective of the program is to encourage the immigration of experienced business persons who will make a positive contribution to the country’s economic development, through their capital and business knowledge while creating jobs for Canadians. In the first years after its introduction, the business immigration program attracted a small number of applicants, mostly from the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France. By 1983, business immigration to Canada increased sharply as Hong Kong became the top source country for entrepreneur immigrants (Smart, 1994: 101). Hong Kong continues to dominate the business immigration category today, and represents the top source country for Canada’s total immigration (all classes combined) (Citizenship and Immigration, 1998).

Originally a program made up of "business migrants" and "entrepreneurs" (Smart, 1994: 99), the business immigration category was further expanded in 1986 with the introduction of the Immigrant Investor Program. Under this program, qualified business people were admitted to Canada on the condition they invested capital in pre-approved Canadian business ventures. The program was designed to create jobs and benefit smaller businesses that were typically having trouble raising funds (Employment and Immigration, 1993). The minimum investment required by a prospective immigrant to qualify for the program ($250,000, $350,000 or $500,000) was linked to the province in which they wished to settle and invest. In an effort to redistribute the benefits of this foreign capital across the country, the largest investment was required of those immigrants who intended to settle in the provinces with the highest proportion of business immigrants. These investor requirements have since increased, with the minimum investment required for immigrants settling in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec or Ontario now set at $450,000. For those investing in the other provinces, the minimum investment is $350,000 (Peirol, 1997).

The economic impact the business category of immigration has had on Canada is staggering, especially given that it represents a relatively small proportion of all Canadian immigration (only about 8 percent of all immigration between 1985 and 1991). Between 1987 and 1990, nearly 11,000 entrepreneurial immigrants had an estimated collective net worth of $14.3 billion; their investments were to create about 48,000 jobs (Li, 1993: 232). During the same period, nearly 2,000 "investor immigrants were estimated to have a net worth of about $3.2 billion, of which $753 million was estimated to have [been] directly invested in various Canadian investment funds" (Li, 1993: 235). These economic benefits are not equally spread across the country, however, as some provinces and cities are considered more attractive than others. Similar to Canadian immigration trends in general, business immigrants are most attracted to Vancouver, followed by Toronto and Montreal (Citizenship and Immigration, 1994b).

Despite these dizzying figures, business immigration has been criticized for not providing the economic benefit it promises. Predictably, the gains made from business immigration are not equitably distributed among the provinces (Hiebert, 1994). Beyond the issue of regional equity, it is questionable whether business immigrants have met their promised obligations regarding job creation and investment. Moreover, there is concern over the long term commitment of those immigrants whose investment is only a small portion of their net wealth -- commitment that is likely needed to make the investment succeed.

Within an immigration program that some argue facilitates the selling of Canadian visas to wealthy newcomers, the impression exists that business immigrants are given an easy entry into the country and are not as rigorously scrutinized as immigrants in other categories. Describing the federal government’s attitude as "laissez-faire", some argue that "instead of reforming the business migration program to require greater accountability and to ensure that these migrants are of maximum economic benefit to Canada, the government has been content to make it even easier for entrepreneur immigrants to enter Canada" (Nash, 1994: 261).

Interestingly, the business immigration program is also criticized for the hardship it presents to the business immigrants themselves. Despite the obvious attractions some immigrants may have to the program, ambiguity over the criteria by which investment opportunities are judged to meet program requirements, as well as provincial variations in the program’s administration, raise questions as to the level of risk these investments present for immigrants. Moreover, the program presents structural challenges for immigrants through such things as the exclusive power given to fund managers for those who enter as investors, or the hurdles for entrepreneur immigrants of setting up a new business in a largely unknown market and/or buying an existing business that is having difficulties (Smart, 1994).

Finally, business immigration has been severely criticized for creating a two-tier system for immigration. With the goal of providing economically prosperous immigration, some suggest the federal government has created a mechanism whereby Canadian citizenship can be "bought" by the wealthy (Malarek, 1987: 227). Historically Canadian immigrants have entered Canadian society at the bottom of the socio-economic hierarchy (Porter, 1965). With business immigration programs, and an increased emphasis on the economic contribution of immigrants through criteria that favour education and skills, the stereotype of the "poor immigrant" has given way to "a more complex class and ethnic hierarchy in Canada" (Abu-Laban, 1997: 79).

Without question, business immigrants have a very different impact upon urban communities than previous immigrants. For these wealthy newcomers, suburban living is not something that comes with integration into the host society, but is instead a point of entry. This is changing the typical patterns of immigrant settlement, and creating ethnoculturally diverse suburban communities such as Markham.

Historically urban core communities like Kensington have been the reception areas for immigrants, with mobility beyond those communities often achieved with the next generation. Business immigrants, however, are on average much wealthier than many previous immigrants to Canada and are more likely to buy a suburban home upon entry into a local community. In many respects, they are more like their new middle-class suburban neighbours than the stereotypical newcomer needing a range of basic settlement and integration services. This does not mean, however, that these immigrants do not need help integrating into Canadian society. Obvious tensions are created by this new pattern of immigration settlement, requiring an adjustment on the part of both newcomers and existing residents.

Factors such as period of immigration, country of origin, and immigrant entrance class all potentially shape Canadian cities in different ways. In the next four chapters, specific examples of urban and suburban immigration settlement patterns will be explored. Chapter Four introduces the inner-city community of Kensington, which is a prime example of the kind of traditional "port of entry" for immigrants that exists in many of Canada’s largest cities, similar to St. Lawrence Boulevard in Montreal, or the downtown Eastside in Vancouver. Chapter Five examines a particular planning case study in Kensington -- the redevelopment of a former College campus site. Chapter Five shifts to the suburban Town of Markham, a community that is currently dealing with the impacts of federal immigration policy changes aimed at attracting wealthier economic immigrants to Canada. Chapter Six examines the planning case of retail condominium developments, or Asian malls as they are known.

_______________________________________________________________

Titlepages - chapter:   1 |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  - Appdxa - biblio