2016-2017 qualitative research about immigration issues

Final Report

Prepared for the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Research Firm: Quorus Consulting Group Inc.
Contract Award Date: February 22, 2017
Delivery Date: August 28, 2017
Contract #: B8815-170582/001/CY
POR Number: POR 114-16

Department Contact: IRCC.COMMPOR-ROPCOMM.IRCC@cic.gc.ca

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.

Political neutrality certification

I hereby certify as Senior Officer of Quorus Consulting Group Inc. that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research.

Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.

Signed:

Rick Nadeau, President

Quorus Consulting Group Inc.

Executive summary

Research purpose and objectives

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) conducts an ongoing research program to help the Department develop a better understanding of Canadian attitudes toward the issues surrounding citizenship and immigration. By gauging and analyzing the opinions of Canadians and immigrants, the Department gains insights into important policy areas related to the mandate of the department and related services.

The issues studied included the following:

• Key issues related to immigration;
• Views on Canada as a country of immigration;
• Impact of immigration;
• Settlement and integration;
• Citizenship;
• Views/expectations of the federal government; and
• Communication needs and preferences.

Summary of findings

Perceptions of Canada

• When asked what words comes to mind when they think about Canada, the large majority of the words used in both the general population and immigrant groups had a positive connotation.
• Words associated with the weather, Canada’s natural environment, maple syrup and diversity were common themes raised by both groups.
• Immigrants were somewhat more likely to say words that describe the attitude and way of life of Canadians (e.g. open-minded, welcoming) and that Canada is a calm, safe, stable or secure country.
• Members of the general population were more likely to say words that reflect things we encounter in our daily lives or more traditional symbols (e.g. maple leaf, hockey, the flag, etc.).

Canada as an immigration destination

• Most immigrants came to Canada to study or work and many followed someone else such as a spouse, parents or children.
• Immigrants would often refer to Canada as having more opportunities for them, as being a better place to raise their children, as having less corruption, being cleaner, having less congestion, being safer/ less violent and having access to great social support such as healthcare, old age security, and child support.
• Canada is also known internationally as being a desirable destination, where immigrants are welcomed, where quality of life in general is high and they know they will have a passport that is well respected around the world.

Perceptions of immigration levels and priorities

• Familiarity with immigration levels and categories was low although immigrants were more familiar with the categories.
• Participants were generally comfortable with the immigration levels for 2016 and 2017. While they could assess the impact of this sort of influx on their region, determining the appropriateness of this level of immigration for the overall country was more difficult. The comfort most had with these immigration levels depended on an assumption that the Government of Canada has some sort of plan or research regarding the country’s ability to receive, settle and absorb this many immigrants.
• Most felt the country is large enough and that the benefits to immigration outweigh the disadvantages.
• The research explored what participants might see as advantages or disadvantages of a multi-year approach to immigration planning as opposed to single-year planning. Participant preferences were split on this issue. Proponents of the single-year approach argued that Canada could easily adapt from one year to the next as international and domestic situations changed. Proponents of the multi-year approach felt that this would allow government support and social services to more efficiently plan budgets and resources dedicated to settlement. These participants would however like some flexibility built into the plan to accommodate any urgent international situations that might warrant resettling more refugees than originally planned.
• Participants were asked whether a certain immigrant category should be prioritized. Generally, immigrants and members of the general population want immigrants to contribute economically and ideally they want them to work in the field in which they were trained. Participants in immigrant groups then prioritized family class immigrants, more so than members of the general population. Some participants in immigrant groups felt that family class should be prioritized now that the 2016 influx of Syrian refugees had been processed and many had been waiting to bring their family members to Canada for a long time.
• When asked whether Canada should give more weight in economic programs to Americans and other people who have American work experience, there was no immediate recognition of the benefits of this measure and many instantly viewed it as a form of positive discrimination. Participants started appreciating the relevance and benefits of the measure for certain professions or industries (e.g. health care) and that someone with American work experience could conceivably integrate and start working sooner after immigrating compared to someone without that experience.
• Greater awareness and media coverage of refugees is changing the discussion on Canada’s role regarding this specific segment of immigrants and it is having a broader impact on how Canadians discuss immigration in general. The discussions revealed that there were many misperceptions and misunderstandings around refugees and the refugee process. In the end, general population participants and immigrants recognized that there are positive and challenging aspects to resettling refugees and very few would argue that Canada should stop resettling refugees altogether. However, participants want reassurances around security and integration efforts, and they hoped that Canada is maintaining some sort of balance between helping those facing crisis overseas and the ones in need at home. It was also deemed important, when determining immigration levels for each immigrant category, to strike the right mix of refugees versus other immigrants who can immediately “contribute.”

Impact of immigration on Canada

• As noted earlier, comfort with immigration levels largely depended on an assumption that the Government of Canada has some sort of plan or research regarding the country’s ability to receive, settle and absorb 300,000 immigrants. Feedback through these focus groups reveals that some might think that the overall plan, or system, is not as robust as it should be. Participants frequently referred to strains on healthcare, classrooms, traffic, housing and cost of living, employment and integration in their communities.
• These strains or pressures were more likely to be heard from participants in larger Canadian centres. It should be noted though that participants in smaller centres like Brantford, Red Deer, Halifax and Winnipeg also expressed concerns with many of these same pressure points, just not as much as those in the larger centres and not necessarily across all these pressure points.
• In the end though, the benefits of immigration tended to outweigh the disadvantages or challenges. Participants from both immigrant and general population groups believe the benefits of immigration are especially economic (e.g. more labour, international expertise, more consumers, broadening the tax base, etc.) and social in the form of diversity and multiculturalism.
• One benefit that did come up a few times, more so among members of the general population, was how Canada’s reputation as a welcoming and diverse country is maintained through our immigration policy. This is a reputation of which some participants were proud, especially in light of the immigration policies surfacing in other countries. Compared to economic and diversity arguments though, the reputational component is secondary.

Settlement and integration

• Immigrants believed that integration is a desirable outcome for them and that most are working towards integrating. Some members of the general population were less convinced that all immigrants want to integrate, or at least integrate completely. A few knew of immigrants who can barely speak an official language and who live, shop, socialize and work almost entirely within their cultural community, which for them was an indication of not wanting to integrate into Canadian society.
• The most common challenges to integration, as noted by both general population and immigrant participants, were labour-related, especially foreign credential recognition. Immigrants also emphasized that their international work experience was not typically recognized and that gaining the Canadian experience that employers seek is very difficult.
• Not knowing one of the two official languages was also a barrier to integration, as noted by both general population and certain immigrant participants. Immigrants with at least a working knowledge of one of the official languages admitted that this definitely helped them in their integration efforts.
• Participants in larger centres hoped that there are efforts in place to ensure that immigrants are being encouraged to settle in all parts of the country. Some felt this might prove problematic if the support mechanisms that are readily accessible and known in larger centers are not equally available in smaller centers.

Canada and USA

• At the time of the focus groups and for the few months prior to the groups, there were individuals who had landed in the United States who were illegally walking across the Canadian border. Discussions revealed a general lack of awareness and accurate understanding of what was actually happening and they revealed a very low level of awareness of the Safe Third Country Agreement or how this agreement was influencing where individuals decide to cross into Canada.
• Even with some background information, participants still had some difficulty in forming an opinion around what should be done with the Agreement and what Canada’s role should be.
• Many came to the conclusion that the Agreement is counterintuitive and that the logic of the Agreement should be either reversed or more complete so that those who cross “illegally” are also turned back.
• Nobody came to the conclusion on their own that the Agreement should be suspended. When this was proposed, some agreed on the basis that this would discourage individuals from crossing illegally resulting in a safer and more humane approach for refugee claimants and to more control over who crosses our border.
• Those crossing the border illegally were also seen as jumping the immigration queue and that, out of fairness for other immigrants and refugees who had followed proper procedures, these claimants should be refused automatic entry. Some immigrant participants were especially frustrated with this development since many had waited months and even years to immigrate to Canada, and some had been waiting a long time to have family members immigrate. A few were also concerned that, if the total number of immigrants allowed into Canada in any given year is fixed, then admitting these refugees into Canada would seem unfair if their numbers negatively impact on quotas for other immigrant groups.

Citizenship oath

• Upcoming modifications to the Oath of Citizenship were discussed in all general population sessions. Participants had not heard of these modifications being discussed and there was very low knowledge of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Based on background information provided by the moderator, modifying the Oath was considered acceptable insofar as newcomers are educated about Indigenous people and treaties.

Client service

• The sessions with immigrants explored whether they had any suggestions regarding the immigration application process. Feedback revealed that the department website is a critical information portal and touchpoint for immigrants and continued success there is vital.
• Participants tended to express frustration in two key areas, notably the challenge in checking on the status of their application, especially through the Department call centre, and immigration criteria that they felt kept changing, even after their application had been submitted. As such, immigrants would like to see improvements in terms of application updates, reduce how many and how often criteria changes, if it they must change, keeping applicants aware of these changes.
• Finally, immigrants would like to see more invested in properly and completely informing immigration applicants about credential and experience equivalency in Canada and helping immigrants achieve equivalency as soon as possible after immigrating.

Methodology

The research methodology consisted of twenty traditional, in-facility focus groups. These sessions were divided across nine different locations across the country and sessions involved immigrants from particular cultural communities and members of the general population.

The target population for the focus groups consisted of adult Canadians at least 18 years old and a mix of immigrants from various cultural communities. Participants invited to participate were randomly recruited by telephone from the general public or invited from a proprietary database. In the design of the recruitment screener, specific questions were inserted to clearly identify whether participants qualify for the research program and to ensure a good representation of men and women from a mix of ages, income, residency status and education. Furthermore, specific sessions in specific cities were conducted with members of certain cultural communities. Additional qualification criteria for the general population and the immigrant sessions included:

• General population groups:
  • Excluded immigrants who have been in Canada for 15 years or less
  • In cities where there were two general population groups (Brantford and Red Deer), the groups were segmented by household income as follows:
    • “High income” was defined as anyone with a personal annual income of over $60,000 or anyone in a household with multiple incomes with an annual household income of over $80,000.
    • “Low/middle” income was defined as anyone with a personal annual income of up to $60,000 or anyone in a household with multiple incomes with an annual household income of under $80,000.
• Immigrant groups included a mix of:
  • Newcomer Immigrants: Less than 5 years in Canada (minimum of 5 per group)
  • Established Immigrants: those who have been in Canada for 5 to 10 years were then prioritized (2 or 3 per group) with only a few (1 or 2 per group) who have been in Canada 10 to 15 years.
  • Excluded individuals who only rarely or sometimes speak the specific language at home

The recruitment process also sought a good representation of men and women from a mix of ages, income, residency status and education. Quorus adapted and translated the recruitment screener and the moderation guide for this study based on designs provided by IRCC.

Other parameters of the study include:

• Quorus recruited 10 participants to achieve 8-10 participants per focus group;
• Immigrants were offered an honorarium of $125.00 and members of the general population an honorarium of $100.00 at the end of the focus groups;
• At the recruitment stage and at the beginning of each focus group, participants were informed that the research was for the Government of Canada, that the sessions were audio/video taped and that there were observers.
• All focus groups were held in a facility that allowed the client team to observe the sessions, either behind a one-way mirror or via closed-circuit TV in a room adjacent to the meeting room where the focus groups took place.

A total of 164 individuals participated in these focus groups. The locations, participant segments and dates for each of the sessions are presented in the grid below:

All English and French focus groups were moderated by Rick Nadeau, one of Quorus’ bilingual senior researchers on the Government of Canada Standing Offer. Other focus groups with non-official languages like Cantonese, Mandarin and Punjabi were moderated by seasoned moderators fluent in the mother tongue of the participants.

Supplier Name: Quorus Consulting Group Inc.
PWGSC Contract Number: B8815-170582/001/CY
Contract Award Date: February 22, 2017
Contract Amount (including HST): $160,313.10
For more information, please contact IRCC at: IRCC.COMMPOR-ROPCOMM.IRCC@cic.gc.ca

Sommaire exécutif

Contexte et objectifs de recherche

Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada (IRCC) dirige un programme de recherche permanent pour l’aider à mieux comprendre l’attitude des Canadiens et des Canadiennes sur les enjeux relatifs à la citoyenneté et à l’immigration. C’est par la mesure et l’analyse de l’opinion de Canadiens et d’immigrants que le Ministère acquiert de nouvelles perspectives dans des secteurs de politiques importants qui se rattachent à son mandat et aux services qu’il offre.

Les enjeux examinés sont les suivants :

• Les enjeux importants liés à l’immigration;
• Les perceptions du Canada comme pays d’immigration;
• Les répercussions de l’immigration;
• L’établissement et l’intégration;
• La citoyenneté;
• La vision/les attentes du gouvernement fédéral; et
• Les besoins de communication et les préférences.

Résumé des conclusions

Les perceptions sur le Canada

• Lorsqu’on leur a demandé aux participants d’exprimer ce que le Canada évoquait pour eux, les participants des deux groupes de discussion (immigrants et population en général) ont choisila plupart des mots choisis affichaient uneà connotation positive, sans distinction entre les groupes de discussion.
• Des termes associés au climat, à l’environnement naturel du Canada, au sirop d’érable et à la diversité revenaient fréquemment dans les deux groupes.
• Les immigrants étaient portés à choisir des mots décrivant l’attitude et le mode de vie des Canadiens (p. ex. : leur ouverture d’esprit, leur accueil) et qualifiaient le Canada de pays calme, stable et sécuritaire.
• Les répondants issus de la population en générale optaient plutôt pour des mots qui représentent les activités du quotidien ou des symboles typiques (p. ex. : la feuille d’érable, le hockey, le drapeau, etc.).

Le Canada, destination de choix pour les immigrants

• La plupart des immigrants sont venus au Canada pour travailler ou étudier, et plusieurs ont suivi la trace d’une autre personne, par exemple, un conjoint, un parent, un enfant.
• Les participants indiquaient souvent que le Canada leur offrait plus de possibilités, que c’était un meilleur endroit où élever leur famille, qu’il y avait moins de corruption et de congestion, qu’il était plus propre, plus sécuritaire et moins violent. Le Canada leur donnait aussi accès à un important filet social, dont les soins de santé, la sécurité de la vieillesse et les allocations pour enfants.
• Sur la scène internationale, le Canada est reconnu comme une destination attrayante; les immigrants y sont les bienvenus et, dans son ensemble, la qualité de vie y est élevée et ils reconnaissent que lorsqu’ils obtiennent leur citoyenneté canadienne, ils détiennent un passeport respecté partout dans le monde.

Perceptions sur les niveaux d’immigration et les catégories prioritaires

• Il existe une méconnaissance des niveaux d’immigration et des catégories d’immigration prioritaires, quoique les immigrants aient mieux connu les catégories d’immigration.
• Les participants n’ont rien contre les niveaux d’immigration de 2016 et de 2017. Bien qu’ils aient été en mesure d’évaluer les répercussions de ces niveaux dans leur région, il leur semblait plus difficile de les saisir pour l’ensemble du pays. Leur réaction était d’autant plus favorable à ces niveaux d’immigration qu’ils supposaient que gouvernement du Canada avait planifié sa capacité d’accueillir, d’installer et d’absorber tous ces immigrants au pays.
• La plupart des participants trouvaient que le Canada est d’assez grande taille pour accueillir ce nombre d’immigrants et que les avantages de l’immigration dépassent les inconvénients.
• L’enquête a permis d’explorer les avantages et les désavantages d’une approche pluriannuelle et d’une approche annuelle de planification de l’immigration. Les préférences des participants étaient partagées sur cette question. La préférence pour l’approche annuelle reposait surtout sur le fait que le Canada pourrait s’adapter aux situations internationales et internes changeantes d’une année à l’autre. Les adeptes d’une approche pluriannuelle considéraient qu’une telle démarche favoriserait une planification plus efficace du budget et des ressources gouvernementales en matière d’appui et de services sociaux pour l’établissement des immigrants. Ils recherchaient cependant une certaine flexibilité dans le plan pour permettre au Canada de s’ajuster à une situation internationale urgente et accueillir rapidement un plus grand nombre de réfugiés au besoin.
• On a demandé aux participants s’il fallait prioriser une catégorie d’immigrants. Généralement parlant, les participants des deux groupes s’intéressent aux immigrants qui contribuent à l’économie et, de préférence, qui travaillent dans leur domaine de compétences. Les participants issus des groupes d’immigrants ont ensuite accordé la priorité à la catégorie du regroupement familial, plus que ceux de la population en général. Ayant attendu longtemps pour faire immigrer des membres de leur famille, ils considèrent important de prioriser les demandes de parrainage maintenant qu’on a terminé le traitement des demandes de réfugiés syriens de 2016.
• Lorsqu’on a demandé aux participants si la catégorie Immigration économique devait accorder plus d’importance aux Américains et aux personnes qui possèdent une expérience de travail américaine, les participants n’y voyaient aucun avantage immédiat et plusieurs d’entre eux la qualifiaient de discrimination positive. Après avoir mieux compris la pertinence et les avantages de cette mesure pour certaines professions ou industries (p. ex. : les soins de santé), les participants acceptaient mieux qu’une personne ayant une expérience de travail américaine soit plus apte à s’intégrer et à se mettre au travail rapidement après son arrivée au pays contrairement à une personne sans cette expérience.
• La couverture médiatique et une plus grande prise de conscience face aux réfugiés modifient les discussions portant sur le rôle du Canada par rapport aux réfugiés et ont des répercussions sur la manière dont les Canadiens parlent d’immigration en général. Il existe aussi des perceptions erronées et de l’incompréhension face aux réfugiées et au processus d’octroi de l’asile. Somme toute, les participants des deux groupes reconnaissent les côtés positifs et les difficultés associées à la réinstallation des réfugiés et très peu de participants sont d’avis que le Canada devrait cesser ses activités de réinstallation des réfugiés. Cependant, certains participants veulent être rassurés quant aux efforts portant sur la sécurité et l’intégration et espèrent que le Canada trouve un certain équilibre entre l’aide aux personnes issues de pays en conflit et celle qu’il apporte aux personnes dans le besoin au Canada. Lorsque vient le temps de fixer les niveaux d’immigration pour chaque catégorie d’immigrants, les participants estiment qu’il est important de trouver le juste équilibre entre l’accueil de réfugiés et celui d’immigrants qui peuvent être « mis à contribution » immédiatement.

Les répercussions de l’immigration au Canada

• Comme mentionné précédemment, la réaction favorable au nombre d'immigrants suppose que le gouvernement du Canada est prêt à accueillir, établir et absorber 300 000 immigrants au pays. Les commentaires émanant des groupes de discussion laissent penser que certains croient que le plan d'ensemble ou le système n'est pas aussi robuste qu'il devrait l'être. Les participants ont souvent mentionné les pressions exercées sur les soins de santé, les écoles, la congestion routière, le logement et le coût de la vie, le marché du travail et l'intégration dans leurs collectivités.
• Les participants des grandes villes étaient plus portés à émettre des commentaires relatifs aux pressions exercées sur leur ville. Les participants des plus petites villes comme Brantford, Red Deer, Halifax et Winnipeg ont aussi exprimé des préoccupations semblables par rapport à ces pressions, mais à un degré moindre et pas nécessairement sur tous les points soulevés dans les grandes villes.
• Au bout du compte, les avantages de l'immigration outrepassaient les désavantages et les problèmes. Les participants des deux groupes croient que les avantages sont surtout d'ordre économique (p. ex. : plus de travailleurs, des compétences internationales, plus de consommateurs, une plus grande assiette fiscale, etc.) et social (sur le plan de la diversité et du multiculturalisme).
• Les politiques d'immigration du Canada, au cœur de sa réputation de société accueillante et diverse, constituent un autre avantage mentionné à quelques reprises et surtout par les participants de la population en général. Certains participants en étaient fiers, surtout à la lumière des politiques d'immigration qui voient le jour dans d'autres pays. Le facteur " réputation " se place cependant derrière les avantages sur le plan de l'économie et de la diversité.

Établissement et intégration

• Les immigrants voient leur intégration de manière positive, et la plupart y travaillent. Les participants de la population en général semblaient toutefois moins convaincus du désir des immigrants de s’intégrer, du moins pleinement. Quelques-uns connaissaient des immigrants qui parlaient à peine une des langues officielles et qui vivaient, faisaient leurs emplettes, socialisaient et travaillaient presque exclusivement à même leur communauté ethnoculturelle, y voyant un signe que les immigrants ne veulent pas s’intégrer à la société canadienne.
• Tant les participants de la population en général que les immigrants considèrent que les freins liés au travail constituent l’enjeu d’intégration le plus commun, surtout la reconnaissance des titres de compétences étrangers. Les immigrants ont aussi fait remarquer que leur expérience de travail internationale n’est souvent pas reconnue et qu’il s’avérait très difficile d’acquérir l’expérience canadienne que bon nombre d’employeurs exigent.
• Les participants s’entendaient pour la plupart sur le fait que l’intégration réussie repose sur la maîtrise de l’une des langues officielles du Canada. Les immigrants ayant au moins une connaissance pratique de l’une d’entre elles ont admis que cela les avait certainement aidés.
• Plusieurs participants des grandes villes ont dit espérer voir les immigrants s’établir partout au Canada et que des efforts iraient dans ce sens. D’autres considéraient que cela pourrait cependant créer un problème si les mécanismes de soutien, facilement accessibles et connus dans les grands centres, ne sont pas offerts de manière égale dans les plus petites villes.

Le Canada et les États-Unis

• Lors de la tenue des groupes de discussion et même quelques mois auparavant, le Canada a été la cible d’un nombre accru de demandeurs d’asile, des individus admis aux États-Unis qui traversaient illégalement la frontière à pied pour se rendre au Canada. Les discussions ont démontré la méconnaissance et l’incompréhension générale de la situation et le fait que très peu de participants connaissaient l’Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs et son influence sur l’endroit que choisissent ces individus pour entrer au Canada.
• Bien qu’ils aient reçu des renseignements contextuels, les participants pouvaient difficilement se faire une opinion sur la manière de traiter cette Entente et sur le rôle du Canada.
• Pour plusieurs participants, l’Entente va à l’encontre de leur intuition. Ils croyaient que le raisonnement sous-jacent devrait être soit inversé ou plus complet de sorte qu’une personne qui traverse la frontière « illégalement » doit aussi s’en retourner.
• Personne n’a proposé la suspension possible de l’Entente. Toutefois, lorsqu’on a présenté cette option, certains y voyaient une approche plus sécuritaire et plus humaine, qui permettrait d’avoir de meilleurs contrôles sur les personnes qui entrent au Canada et qui dissuaderaient certains demandeurs d’asile de traverser la frontière illégalement.
• Certains préconisent le refus automatique de l’entrée aux pays des personnes qui traversaient la frontière illégalement, par souci d’équité envers les autres immigrants et réfugiés qui s’étaient conformés aux règles. Certains participants issus des groupes d’immigrants voyaient cette façon d’entrer au pays comme un « raccourci » et étaient d’autant plus frustrés par cette situation que plusieurs d’entre eux avaient dû attendre des mois, voire des années pour immigrer au Canada et que d’autres attendaient depuis longtemps l’immigration d’un membre de leur famille. Certains s’inquiètent aussi du fait que l’arrivée de ces réfugiés pourrait avoir un impact défavorable sur les contingents d’autres groupes d’immigrants étant donné le nombre fixe d’immigrants pouvant entrer au Canada dans une année.

Serment de citoyenneté

• On a discuté des modifications prévues au serment de citoyenneté dans toutes les séances composées de membres de la population en général. Les participants ne savaient pas qu’il y avait une recommandation en ce sens et très peu d’entre eux connaissaient la Commission de vérité et réconciliation du Canada. Sur la base des renseignements fournis par le modérateur, les participants sont d’accord avec la modification du serment si on éduque les nouveaux arrivants au sujet des Autochtones et des traités au préalable.

Prestation de services aux clients

• Lors des séances regroupant les immigrants, on a voulu savoir s’ils avaient des suggestions concernant le processus de demande d’immigration. Les commentaires dévoilent l’importance critique du site Web du Ministère, qui leur donne accès aux renseignements dont ils ont besoin et qu’il est vital de bien le maintenir.
• Les participants ont exprimé leur frustration sur deux points principaux : la difficulté à vérifier l’état de leur demande, surtout auprès du centre d’appel du Ministère, et les critères d’immigration qui semblaient changer souvent, même après la soumission de leur demande. Les immigrants voudraient donc avoir un accès amélioré aux mises à jour de leurs demandes, une réduction du nombre et de la fréquence des modifications, et, lorsqu’elles surviennent, transmettre l’information aux demandeurs.
• Enfin, les immigrants voudraient voir des efforts plus soutenus dans la communication de renseignements corrects et complets concernant l’équivalence, au Canada, des titres de compétences étrangers et de l’expérience, et dans l’appui qu’ils reçoivent pour obtenir cette équivalence aussi rapidement que possible.

Méthodologie

Cette recherche se base sur l’animation de vingt groupes de discussion traditionnels en personne. Composées d’immigrants issus d’une communauté ethnoculturelle particulière et des membres de la population en général, ces séances ont eu lieu dans neuf régions du pays.

La population ciblée pour faire partie des groupes de discussion s’étendait aux adultes canadiens de plus de 18 ans et à un ensemble d’immigrants issus de communautés ethnoculturelles diverses. Les participants ont été recrutés aléatoirement, par téléphone, à partir de la population en général ou encore à partir d’une base de données exclusive. Lors de la conception du questionnaire de recrutement, on a utilisé des questions particulières pour être en mesure d’identifier clairement si les participants répondaient aux critères de sélection du programme de recherche et pour assurer une bonne représentation d’hommes et de femmes de divers âges, de revenus, de statut de résidence et de niveau d’éducation. De plus, les discussions se sont concentrées sur les membres de certaines communautés ethnoculturelles lors de séances particulières dans des villes particulières. Il y a aussi eu l’ajout de critères de sélection pour le recrutement des participants, à savoir :

• Groupes de la population en général
  • On a exclu les immigrants qui habitent au Canada depuis moins de 15 ans
  • Dans les villes où les participants des deux groupes provenaient de la population en général (Brantford et Red Deer), on a divisé les groupes selon le revenu du ménage, soit :
    • On a défini comme « à revenu élevé » toute personne dont le revenu annuel dépassait 60 000 $ ou quiconque faisait partie d’un ménage à revenus multiples dont le revenu annuel du ménage dépassait 80 000 $.
    • On a défini comme « à revenu moyen ou faible » toute personne dont le revenu annuel était inférieur à 60 000 $ ou quiconque faisait partie d’un ménage à revenus multiples dont le revenu annuel du ménage était inférieur à 80 000 $.
• Les groupes d’immigrants (un mélange de ces sous-groupes)
  • Les nouveaux arrivants : Arrivés au Canada depuis moins de cinq ans (au moins cinq dans chaque groupe)
  • Les immigrants de plus longue date : La création de deux sous-groupes en priorisant ceux qui étaient au Canada depuis cinq à dix ans (deux ou trois personnes par groupe) par rapport à ceux qui étaient au Canada depuis 10 à 15 ans (une ou deux personnes par groupe).
  • On a exclu les personnes qui, à la maison, communiquaient peu ou pas dans la langue utilisée pour la discussion.

Les critères de sélection visaient aussi à assurer une bonne représentation d’hommes et de femmes selon leur âge, leur revenu, leur statut de résidence et leur niveau d’éducation. Quorus, appuyé de documents conçus par IRCC, s’est chargé de l’adaptation et de la traduction du questionnaire de recrutement et du guide du modérateur pour cette recherche.

Les autres paramètres de recherche comprenaient :

• Quorus a recruté 10 participants pour chaque groupe de discussion dans le but d’en avoir au moins huit;
• À la fin des groupes de discussion, on a offert une rétribution de 125 $ aux participants des groupes d’immigrants et une rétribution de 100 $ aux participants de la population en général;
• À l’étape du recrutement et au début de chaque groupe de discussion, on a mentionné aux participants que cette recherche se faisait pour le compte du gouvernement du Canada, qu’il y aurait un enregistrement audio et vidéo des groupes de discussion et qu’il y avait des observateurs.
• Tous les groupes de discussion ont eu lieu dans un endroit permettant à l’équipe client d’observer la séance, soit derrière un miroir sans tain ou par télédiffusion en circuit fermé dans une pièce avoisinante.

En tout, 164 personnes ont participé aux groupes de discussion. La répartition est la suivante :

Rick Nadeau, bilingue, et un des chercheurs principaux de Quorus, firme qui se trouve sur la liste des offres permanentes du gouvernement du Canada, a procédé à la modération de tous les groupes de discussion en anglais et en français. Pour les groupes de discussion menés dans une autre langue, comme le cantonais, le mandarin et le punjabi, les séances ont été dirigées par des modérateurs chevronnés qui parlaient couramment la langue maternelle des participants.

Fournisseur : Le groupe-conseil Quorus Inc.
Numéro du contrat : B8815-170582/001/CY
Date d’octroi du contrat : 22 février 2017
Valeur du contrat (TVH incluse) : 160 313,10 $
Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements, veuillez communiquer avec IRCC à l’adresse suivante : IRCC.COMMPOR-ROPCOMM.IRCC@cic.gc.ca

Detailed results

Perceptions of Canada

To open up the discussion in each session, participants were asked what comes to mind when they think about Canada. Irrespective of the focus group, the large majority of the words used had a positive connotation.

A number of themes were mentioned by participants from both the general population groups and those from immigrant groups:

• The weather, including cold, rain, and snow…although “cold” and “snow” were more common among immigrants;
• Canada’s beautiful, clean and bountiful nature and environment;
• Maple syrup; and,
• Diversity.

Immigrants were somewhat more likely to say words that describe the attitude and way of life of Canadians, including open-minded and welcoming, our humanity and tolerance, and that Canada is a calm, safe, stable or secure country. They also alluded to the size of the country and how few people live here, that it is a land of opportunity and that it is clean.

Members of the general population were more likely to say words that reflect things we encounter in our daily lives or more traditional symbols, such as the maple leaf, the flag, hockey, beer, and our healthcare system. The terms “freedom” and “democracy” also surfaced more often in general population sessions.

Canada as an Immigration Destination

Many of the spontaneous words mentioned by immigrants helped explain why they chose Canada as an immigration destination and why they decided to stay after they arrived. At the root of the decision to move to Canada though, we discover a variety of contributing factors:

• Many immigrants followed someone else, meaning, they either followed their spouse who had already immigrated to Canada to work or study, or younger immigrants came with their parents.
• A domestic connection (other than a parent or spouse) was often a compelling reason to immigrate. This tended to be a relative who had already immigrated and settled in Canada, and in a few cases it would be friends or coworkers. These connections were often located in the same city, region or province as the participant and served as immigration champions who were not only promoting Canada as a destination, but also providing the new immigrant guidance on Canadian immigration processes and procedures, both before and after immigrating.
• Participants would often compare Canada to their home country and emphasize the relative benefit of living here rather than in their home country. Participants would refer to Canada as having more opportunities for them, as being a better place to raise their children, as having less corruption, being cleaner, having less congestion, being safer/ less violent and having access to great social support such as healthcare, old age security, and child support.
• Canada is also known internationally as being a desirable destination, where immigrants are welcomed and where quality of life in general is high. Not only is it known as a desirable place to live, but once they have their Canadian citizenship, they know they have a passport that is well respected around the world.

“It is a different social and economic environment here compared to England. […] I can’t think of any reason why I would want to leave Canada.” (Immigrant)

“In the beginning, I thought the children would have better opportunity here. […] Corruption too has made things worse there – here we don’t face such things.” (Immigrant)

“We wanted to immigrate here because holding a Chinese passport is troublesome to travel – we immigrated as skilled workers to Canada because it is less trouble to travel and besides, the US is a little scary.” (Immigrant)

“In 2009, I checked the Internet for the friendliest and most peaceful country and Canada was the top country. I didn’t know anything else about the country – weather, regulations, etc. – I just wanted to know which countries were at the top of that list.” (Immigrant)

“My country was getting too unsafe for my family so I put in my papers as a skilled tradesman. This is a very popular country where people from my country immigrate. I knew people here in 2007. […] Canada has a great name behind it and I’ve been to the US and I don’t like their way of life and their way of thinking.” (Immigrant)

“I decided to stay because my family is here, I love my job, it is a good place, it has lots of opportunities, it has good programs for children like swimming – it is a land of opportunity.” (Immigrant)

“I am able to earn a good living here and I can take care of my family the way I want to take care of them. It enables my family to have a great life.” (Immigrant)

“The biggest reason I like Canada is the diversity – in my home country there are different people, but here I’ve made friends who are from all over the world and I just love it.” (Immigrant)

A focus on international students

A few participants came to Canada as international students. These focus groups provided the research team the opportunity to understand why certain immigrants had chosen to pursue post-secondary studies in Canada. The main reasons students chose Canada instead of studying in another country like the U.S., Britain, or Australia included:

• More affordable tuition;
• A Canadian degree is internationally recognized and it is seen as a high quality education;
• Canada was seen as a safe place to study;
• Students can work while they study, which is not allowed in many other countries; and
• Canada and Canadian universities are known for being receptive to international students.

Challenges facing their community

Participants in all sessions were asked to identify what they considered some of the more important challenges facing their community. In focus groups with immigrants, participants were asked to focus on challenges facing their ethnic community whereas participants in general population sessions were asked to broadly consider the challenges facing their municipality or part of town.

The most common themes that surfaced in the general population groups included the following:

• Healthcare was almost always raised in each group. Concerns were raised regarding being able to find a family doctor, the long wait times at emergency and the long wait times for, or outright access to, specialists.
• Public transportation or traffic was also often raised, especially in Toronto and Vancouver.
• Cost of living, especially affordable housing, was also raised in a number of cities. The cost of buying a home was especially noted by participants in Toronto and Vancouver.
• Participants, especially those in the relatively smaller urban centers like Winnipeg, Halifax, Red Deer and Brantford, were concerned with the lack of employment opportunities, underemployment, over-use of temporary positions, and low wages, especially minimum wage. Wages were a particular concern for some who felt wages do not reflect the rate at which the cost of living has been increasing.
• Many noted the rise in drug use, with fentanyl at the center of attention – this was more likely to be noted in the smaller centres like Red Deer and Brantford.
• Crime and safety were noted in the smaller centres such as Red Deer, Brantford and Winnipeg.
• Poverty and homelessness were raised in a variety of centers, as much in Red Deer as in larger centers like Toronto and Vancouver. Participants seemed to feel that poverty and homelessness are on the rise largely because of the challenges around employment and wages, the increasing cost of living in general, and the high cost of rent and home purchases in particular. Crime and drug use were also seen as connected to these factors.

“Schools are way over packed and our school is only 4 years old.” (General population)

“Even though we take pride in our healthcare system, we lack doctors, there are extreme wait times in emergency situations, and our hospital needs to be upgraded.” (General population)

“Our community is growing too fast! Home prices are going up, municipal taxes are going up […] and the city is not taking care of the older neighbourhoods.” (General population)

“Drugs! They are killing us – and there is no race. […] It is getting worse. It used to be alcoholism and now our kids are doing drugs and they are dying from it.” (General population)

“Overpopulation – and the pressure it puts on infrastructure, healthcare, housing, jobs, education – it all links together. There is a snowball effect.” (General population)

“As a first-time home buyer, the idea of buying a house in BC is staggering.” (General population)

Participants were not aware of any particular action or initiative from the Government of Canada that is addressing any of the challenges they raised. There was only very limited recall of potential investments in infrastructure and support for low-income and middle-class Canadians, such as through the Canada Child Tax benefit (although participants did not mention this benefit by name, they described it as part of their response). As well, participants sometimes confused provincial or municipal government initiatives with Government of Canada initiatives.

Challenges facing their ethnic community – immigrant feedback

Even when asked to focus on the challenges faced by their own ethnic communities, immigrants often raised the same types of issues raised by participants in the general population focus groups. In addition to those broader challenges, immigrants raised some challenges that were unique to immigrants in general; the issues raised were not exclusive to their own ethnic community. The most common challenges raised by immigrants included the following:

• Foreign credential recognition, such as when credentials and experience obtained outside of Canada are not recognized by educational institutions or potential employers.
• Immigrants were also concerned with the lack of employment opportunities in general and the lack of opportunities in their specific area of expertise. Underemployment is also raised, something they believe is connected to the lack of opportunities in their region or to the fact that the credentials and experience obtained outside of Canada are not being recognized.
• Even for those who are qualified to work, a common challenge is obtaining the Canadian work experience that is so often valued by Canadian employers. Related to this issue is that Canadian employers do not always recognize international (or non-Canadian) work experience.
• Learning English was a particular challenge in focus groups with Chinese and middle-eastern participants. Otherwise, participants who immigrated to Canada already fluent or with at least a good working knowledge of one of the two official languages almost seemed to take for granted their fluency when considering how well they have been able to integrate and settle. More specifically, these participants all agreed that their ability to integrate would have been much more difficult if they had not known English or French when they immigrated to Canada.
• Stereotypes exist, but immigrants did not seem to feel that this was a significant challenge for them. A few participants stated that racism is everywhere and that it is a fact of life, while others considered some of the stereotyping as ridiculous (e.g. Caribbean participants explained how some seem to think they are all from Jamaica and some Chinese immigrants explained that some locals think that they are all rich) and blamed it on a basic ignorance of other cultures. When specifically prompted, none of the participants had ever felt like they were physically threatened or in danger since arriving in Canada.

“When I was in India, I was working. After moving here, my education so far, they do not recognize my MBA. So all the studies I have done in India, you feel like you wasted your studies because there is no acceptance here. […] You struggle to get jobs in the right field, in the right place that you want.” (Immigrant)

“The price of homes is ridiculous.” (Immigrant)

“Language is the most challenging thing – I work in my community, I talk in Farsi. But I should use English and it is a challenge. I don’t have enough practice.” (Immigrant)

“I did special training but it was not “International training” that puts me at a disadvantage. Everywhere I apply, they ask for Canadian experience and I cannot give it to them, if a student did their internship here they go ahead first.” (Immigrant)

“They ask for Canadian experience, which I don’t have, but then I don’t get the chance to get it so I am stuck in between.” (Immigrant)

“The public transportation is always breaking down, and they are not 24-7.” (Immigrant)

Similar to participants in the general population sessions, immigrants had very limited awareness of any particular action or initiative from the Government of Canada that is addressing any of the challenges they raised. There were a few mentions of language courses, but these were often said to have long waiting lists. Immigrants were certainly familiar with various aids and programs that help immigrants settle and integrate (as noted later in this report), however they did not necessarily associate these with the Government of Canada or as anything new or recent that the Government had introduced to address any specific challenge.

Immigration levels and priority categories

When discussing specific aspects of immigration policy and immigration levels, the nature of the comments and the confidence with which participants spoke around these issues highlighted a general lack of understanding and awareness of immigration in Canada. Immigrants were more familiar with immigration categories than general population participants were, but most participants, in any group, underestimated immigration levels.

Reactions were generally positive to the fact that roughly 300,000 immigrants entered Canada in 2016 and that the number would remain roughly the same for 2017. If not positive, participants tended to be indifferent to the number. These reactions were based on the trust or assumption participants had that the Government had a plan regarding the country’s ability to receive, settle and absorb these many immigrants. A few participants initially felt that the proposed number of immigrants was too large, but then upon realizing that this was a national figure (and not just for their city or their province) and upon realizing that this figure includes all immigration categories, not just refugees, the number became more reasonable.

A common concern with the proposed number of immigrants to Canada was where immigrants would settle. Participants would argue that the proposed number is acceptable for Canada given the size of the country and the amount of space available. However, some participants, especially those in larger centers like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, hoped that there are efforts in place to ensure that immigrants are being encouraged to settle in all parts of the country. They suspect that, historically, immigrants have gravitated to their cities and that more regional diversification is needed to alleviate what they see as growing pressure on their city’s systems (e.g. healthcare, schools, roads, etc.) and cost of living.

“300,000 is not a bad number, especially when our population is decreasing because of birth rates – this is the only way our country can succeed.” (General population)

“It is a large number if they are not distributing them accordingly – if you are just going to have them settle in certain communities that are already overpopulated, it is not going to work. […] We could build up other parts of the country if we distributed immigrants accordingly. Certain planning needs to be in place instead of putting extra strain on places that are already strained.” (General population)

“If there are enough jobs, why not bring all 300,000, maybe even more.” (Immigrant)

It was also explained to participants that IRCC currently sets immigration levels one year at a time. The research explored what participants might see as advantages or disadvantages of a multi-year approach. Participants were not particularly adamant about one approach over the other and tended to agree with whomever proposed a logical reason to keep the current one-year approach or change to multi-year plans.

• Preferences for the one-year approach were largely driven by a perception that this would allow for maximum flexibility, without necessarily getting potential immigrants’ hopes up. Canada could easily adapt from one year to the next as international and domestic situations changed. Proponents of the one-year plan also sensed that a multi-year plan would “lock” Canada into immigration commitments that may have seemed reasonable at the time, but that over time and with changing circumstances in Canada and abroad (e.g. a sudden economic downturn), they may not be able to fully or adequately deliver on these commitments.
• Proponents of the multi-year approach felt that this would allow government support and social services to more efficiently plan budgets and resources dedicated to settlement. It would also allow those looking to immigrate (or those looking to sponsor someone to immigrate) to understand the general direction of the country. These participants would however like some flexibility built into the plan to accommodate any urgent international situations that would see Canada suddenly increase how many refugees it would resettle beyond the original plan.

“The only value I see to something like a 5-year plan is that when they set up their budgets, they could have money set aside or have things set up. When you have a one-year plan, are you scrambling to get these 300,000 in or do you have a beautiful network setup for the next 5 years so that it all runs smoother – they get a job, they can become part of society, etc.” (General Population)

“If we know that in 3 years we will have 300,000 immigrants then you can plan the support services around it (civil servants, hospitals, etc.). You can plan for this influx.” (General population)

“When you have an annual plan, you can gauge what the country needs every year and adjust quotas accordingly.” (Immigrant)

Participants were also asked whether a certain immigrant category should be prioritized. Seeing as many participants, especially among the general population, did not know the various immigrant categories, this discussion often required the moderator to explain the different categories.

This discussion revealed that the word “priority” takes on two different meanings in this context. Most participants tended to immediately think that it was referring to a level of urgency, and given this interpretation, they quickly recommend that Canada needs to prioritize refugees whose situation is most dire. Participants were asked to consider quantity rather than urgency. For instance, of the 300,000 immigrants being considered for 2017, the moderator would ask which category should make up the majority or the bulk of the immigrants. Given this interpretation, and given that most general population participants were not very familiar with immigrant categories to begin with, it was a challenge for many to recommend a priority category. Both immigrants and members of the general population would typically gravitate to preferring more immigrants who can contribute as much and as quickly as possible, with a contingency for refugees. Immigrants and members of the general population were just as concerned about seeing immigrants contribute to Canada as they were about making sure they do not rely on social support too long, if at all. In reaction to proposed immigration levels, one member of the general population explained: “It depends what they have to offer, what they are bringing in? It depends if they are drawing off the welfare system as they come in or if they have a contribution to society.”

• Generally, immigrants and members of the general population want immigrants to contribute economically and ideally they want them to work in the field in which they were trained. They feel immigrants should certainly be working in their field of expertise if that was one of the criteria under which they qualified as an immigrant to Canada in the first place.
• Participants in immigrant groups also want family class immigrants to be a priority for the Government of Canada, especially in terms of making it easier and faster for family to immigrate. This was raised more often in immigrant groups than in those with members of the general population. This sentiment largely stemmed from a desire to complete the family picture in Canada, and that they had been waiting a long time for this to happen. Many also explained that the immigration process is difficult when it comes to sponsoring family to immigrate to Canada. A good example was a Chinese participant who explained that the requirements are somewhat counter-intuitive: they need to demonstrate to IRCC a certain level of income to sponsor and support their parents but without their parents to look after their children, one of the income earners must stay at home, which limits their ability to reach the income they need to effectively have their parents immigrate. Some participants in immigrant groups also felt that family class should be prioritized as they felt that those who had been waiting to bring their family members to Canada should be prioritized now that the 2016 influx of Syrian refugees had been processed.
• Some members of the general population did not understand how older immigrants, such as parents of established immigrants, can “contribute.” We heard comments suggesting that Canada should limit or discourage older immigrants who cannot work and who represent an immediate burden on the healthcare system. The manner in which these immigrants can support established immigrants and their community and how they can contribute to the economy as consumers was not obvious to these participants.
• A cautionary note was conveyed by both immigrants and members of the general population that the number of refugees should not be too high.

“For development, the economic immigrant should be emphasized. Your total development depends on that, everyone is connected with the economy.” (Immigrant)

“There are some refugees who come here and take advantage of the system – we need to speed up the refugee screening process.” (Immigrant)

“300 000 is fine but it depends on class – not too many refugees because they do not have skills, we need to assume a tax burden to pay for housing, support, etc.” (Immigrant)

Finally, participants were asked whether Canada should give more weight in economic programs to Americans and other people who have American work experience. The immediate reaction in all sessions was a general dislike of the proposed idea. There was no immediate recognition of the benefits of this measure among participants and many instantly viewed the measure as a form of positive discrimination. A few, who considered the measure a favour to Americans, were not certain that the U.S. government would reciprocate by making it easier for Canadians who want to immigrate to the U.S.

Immediate reactions to the measure would seem to suggest that participants were mostly, if not exclusively, focused on the measure benefiting U.S. citizens wanting to immigrate to Canada. In this light, participants could not see why a U.S. citizen should get preferential treatment or more points on their immigration application. However, when the moderator repeated the measure and then clarified that more weight could also be given to any immigrant with American experience, participants started appreciating the relevance and benefits of the measure. In particular, participants started realizing that there are similarities between the U.S. and Canada when it comes to certain professional standards, language, and way of life, and that someone with American work experience could conceivably integrate and start working sooner after immigrating compared to someone without that experience. Participants did emphasize though that this logic was most relevant to certain professions and trades. For instance, healthcare was often referenced as a good example of how someone with American healthcare experience could be eligible for more points on their immigration application.

Participants also stressed that the logic also depended on the source country. The greater the difference between such things as language, training requirements or standards between the source country and Canada, the more relevant American experience becomes. Having worked through some examples with participants, a few started appreciating how the logic could then be extended to U.S. citizens as well despite original resistance to that part of the measure. Some participants also felt that through this same logic, the measure could be applied to applicants from or with experience in other countries where standards in certain trades and professions are similar to Canada’s, such as the UK, Australia, etc.

“I would be uncomfortable giving favouritism to any country, including the US. It’s an ethical issue.” (General Population)

“I have no problem thinking about it in terms of experience, for instance working in a hospital in the US compared to a foreign doctor. As a foreign doctor who has work experience in the US, that should make it easier for you to get into Canada. It’s an equivalence issue.” (General Population)

Benefits of immigration for Canada

Participants were asked to list what they considered to be the top two or three ways Canada benefits from immigration. Results from this exercise show that participants from both immigrant and general population groups believe the benefits of immigration are especially seen from an economic and social viewpoint. The results also show that, notwithstanding a few differences, both immigrants and members of the general population have very similar views on how immigration can benefit Canada; there are numerous similarities in the sub-themes proposed and language used by both groups of participants. Finally, views on the benefits of immigration for Canada are very similar across the country, irrespective of the region or the size of the community or urban centre.

Economic benefits

Participants provided many benefits that were related to the economy, and within that broad theme, labour-related benefits were probably the most common. More specifically:

• Participants, especially in immigrant groups, often referred to the fact that many immigrants come to Canada to work, which effectively increases the country’s workforce. They are an important source of skilled labour and in some ways they fill certain labour gaps. For some participants, more workers meant more production, which then leads to a stronger economy. This may have been a more common comment in immigrant groups since that is largely why they were accepted as immigrants or why they decided to immigrate in the first place. For their part, members of the general population were more likely than their immigrant counterparts to say immigrants do jobs that Canadians would not do, although this was not a very common benefit.
• Participants also believe that Canada can tap international expertise through immigration. This was described as an expertise that is difficult to develop domestically, one for which demand outstrips supply in Canada or one for which there is an immediate or more urgent need. There is an appreciation that some countries are better than Canada in certain industries and that we can become more competitive in these industries through immigration.
• Participants described two natural outcomes from having more workers in Canada. First, participants recognize that if immigrants are working, then they are also paying taxes, effectively increasing Canada’s ability to generate tax revenue. Second, participants recognize that working immigrants also become consumers, which in turn stimulates the economy. A few even added that immigrants immigrate with money and that they end up spending some of this money to get settled, such as buying a home or home furnishings. This “consumer” argument was more common among focus groups with the general population.

“We can increase the diversity of our skillset – other countries have expertise in medicine, technology, research, etc. and we can pick their brains and hopefully if it is beneficial, it stays in Canada.” (General Population)

“More people means more production, more consumption, and more self-sustainability.” (General Population)

“Because there is a shortage of labor, immigrants come and bring about development.” (Immigrant)

Participants also noted a variety of other economic benefits related to immigration:

• One of the more common benefits mentioned was how immigration helps offset the aging Canadian population. Both immigrants and members of the general population seemed to be familiar with the fact that Canada faces a demographic challenge with its aging population and low birth rate. They understood that the population needs to grow to support the aging segment of the population. They also understood that the Canadian population and its workforce need to become more sustainable by increasing the number of younger citizens.
• Some participants also believe that immigrants can increase Canada’s productivity and innovation through their specific expertise or by having a different way of thinking or managing.
• Immigrant participants noted that some immigrants bring foreign money which they can not only spend in Canada (as consumers) but they can also invest. Immigrants were more likely to highlight the economic importance of investor class immigrants compared to members of the general population.
• A few participants also indicated that, through their roles as consumers, immigrants also create cultural industries that otherwise would not have existed in Canada, such as ethnic grocery stores or ethnic restaurants.
• A few participants suggested that immigrants can improve our international trade potential. For instance, immigrants who come to Canada as experienced workers could generate more or different working relationships with their home country. They know how business is done in that country. They could also share this savviness with locals leading to a knowledge multiplier effect.

“Can create new technologies by importing new talent.” (Immigrant)

“We need immigration for population growth – without it we would be in a negative situation.” (General Population)

“New immigrants are younger – it will improve the age of the population.” (Immigrant)

“It’s new ideas, new people, new immigrants, with fresh minds, new skills and fresh ideas – Canada is buying skills through immigration.” (Immigrant)

Social benefits

Participants in every focus group also highlighted the extent to which Canada derives a significant social benefit in the form of diversity and multiculturalism. It is also worth noting that both immigrants and participants in the general population groups recognize this broader benefit for Canada. Participants were encouraged to expand on how Canada benefits from greater cultural diversity. Three common themes emerged from this discussion, all of which tended to be widely accepted by participants:

• Diversity “makes us better people” by broadening our knowledge and understanding of other cultures. Many participants argued that this increased understanding then leads to increased tolerance in most people. It not only helps us understand other cultures, but helps us understand what is happening beyond our borders.
• It was argued that diversity also exposes us to different philosophies and ways of thinking. It generates more perspectives on any issue than if we were not as diverse.
• From a lifestyle perspective, culture diversity allows locals to experience different foods, festivals and cultural events.

“There will be more diversity for the children – a different perspective of looking at the world than what we would have had. They will have all these different cultures around them and to know, yes, there is a bigger world than Canada. And our children will learn a better tolerance.” (General Population)

“The society becomes more multicultural and you can benefit from the best parts of each culture’s lifestyle.” (Immigrant)

“It gives a boost to the economy – there are more festivals to celebrate, people are spending more when they are out at different activities.” (Immigrant)

“Canada is known for its multiculturalism and this country was built by immigrants and we benefit in so many ways from diversity, from cultural values, to food. As a whole, we have a better or stronger world view than perhaps other countries because of the diversity we live in.” (General Population)

Other benefits

One benefit that did come up a few times, and more so among members of the general population, was how Canada’s reputation as a welcoming and diverse country is maintained through our immigration policy. This is a reputation of which some participants were proud, especially in light of the immigration policies surfacing in other countries. Compared to economic and diversity arguments though, the reputational component is secondary.

Some participants also suspected that our openness to immigrants from some countries improves our relationship and diplomatic ties with those same countries. A few also suspected that friends and family who come to visit established immigrants benefits our tourism industry.

“The knowledge that we help people have a better life – it is something to be proud of.” (General Population)

Challenges of immigration for Canada

Participants were also asked to list the top challenges Canada faces related to immigration. The results from this exercise show that many of the benefits of immigration, such as the dimensions related to labour or diversity, can also be flipped around and seen as challenges. This exercise also revealed that the general population tends to view challenges around immigration somewhat differently compared to immigrants – these views are summarized below.

General population concerns

Concerns raised by members of the general population tended to focus on our country’s ability to effectively absorb immigrants. They tended to focus on competition for resources that is typically associated with population growth in general and on our society’s ability to manage diversity by striking the right mix of accommodation and integration.

• From a competition for resource perspective, members of the general population were concerned with three particular pressure points:
  1. The first was perceived pressure on social infrastructure and services, with schools, hospitals and healthcare, and roads and congestion at the center of attention. For a few, law enforcement fell into this category. Given the extent to which participants were already concerned with certain aspects of these services, as noted earlier in this report, they saw an ongoing influx of immigrants adding more pressure on systems and infrastructures that they considered already strained. This sentiment was especially, but not exclusively, noted in larger centres like Toronto and Vancouver.
  2. A second pressure point, and one not entirely disconnected from the first pressure point, was the perceived added pressure on social support costs such as employment insurance, welfare and healthcare costs until immigrants were settled. Although some participants did recognize that an increase in immigrants may result in a larger tax base, few seemed to connect this with the potential increase in costs.
  3. The third pressure point is much more directly connected to participants’ personal financial situation: some participants believed that immigration will contribute to continued increases in the cost of living, on the valuation of homes and increase competition for job opportunities. They viewed immigration as one of many factors contributing to the influx of population into their region and for them, more people means more demand for jobs, amenities, and homes in their region which then helps sustain the increasing cost of living and of homes. Pressure on the cost of living and on the prices of homes was more likely to be raised in larger centres like North York and Surrey while pressure on the job market (sometimes referred to as “taking jobs from locals”) was noted across a range of city sizes, including Surrey, Halifax, North York and Red Deer.
• As much as participants valued diversity, many were concerned with our society’s ability and willingness to accommodate so many diverse cultures and whether our model of accommodation is entirely successful. Some participants explained that they encountered or learned of immigrants or groups of immigrants who had not fully integrated socially (e.g. they had a poor working knowledge of English or French, they only socialized and lived with others from their own ethnic community, etc.) and economically (e.g. they were unemployed or underemployed or they only worked with others from their ethnic community), leaving these participants skeptical regarding whether or not integration will ever be successful with these individuals. Some members of the general population were also feeling some degree of frustration with situations where they felt locals had been asked to change to accommodate some ethnic groups. Some felt that as much as immigrants are welcome to “live their lives”, they should not expect locals to change to accommodate immigrants’ lifestyle or culture. Concerns on this front were raised in all general population groups across the country except in Winnipeg. Participants in Red Deer seemed more concerned with what they had seen, read or heard happening in other parts of the province or of the country.

A few general population participants were concerned with how some parts of Canada might be “losing their identity” because of the volume and concentration of immigrants. They were also concerned with racism among some locals and how Canadian society is challenged by individuals who are not open to cultural diversity or who discriminate against specific ethnicities. Finally, Canada’s ability to ensure appropriate security screening was also raised in a few sessions.

“We’re accepting all these people but are we making sure they’re safe to come to Canada? It’s a concern.” (General Population)

“Over the course of 10-20-30 years, your costs for this larger population are going to increase, for everything. They may be working and bringing in taxes, but then your healthcare costs and education costs increase, your policing costs increase, your housing costs increase because they need to live somewhere. Food costs increase. There are costs to the environment through pollution.” (General Population)

“More cultures coming here will lead to more racism, more people pointing fingers.” (General Population)

“An employer is not going to employ someone who cannot speak the native tongue.” (General Population)

“Overpopulation is a challenge depending on where they decide to settle. Long term, if 100,000 people decide to move to Halifax over the next 10 years, it is a strain on schools, on jobs, housing – that’s 100,000 more people when we already have X number of people already without jobs, without homes.” (General Population)

Immigrant concerns

Immigrants shared a few of the same concerns as members of the general population, especially the ones related to pressure on social services, infrastructure and housing and the ones related to managing diversity. However, many of their concerns also focused on employment-related issues. More specifically:

• Many immigrants were concerned with Canada’s ability to create labour market conditions that will allow all immigrants, current and future, to reach their full potential. In this regard, they were especially concerned with the lack of foreign credential and international experience recognition and the challenges related to getting Canadian work experience and Canadian references. There was a feeling among some participants of having been “cheated.” They were also concerned with the extent of underemployment among immigrants and, among those who have the proper credentials, the lack of job opportunities that actually suit their qualifications.
• Immigrants did not refer to any potential increase in social support costs the way members of the general population did. However, immigrants did have similar concerns as the general population regarding the perceived growing pressure on healthcare and social support services as a result of the continued influx of immigrants. These sentiments were more common in Vancouver and in the Greater Toronto Area. One participant positioned this as Canada’s ability to continue to meet the needs of ALL Canadians.
• In a number of sessions with immigrants, participants raised a concern with how Canada will be able to manage the full range of diversity. Some were seeing certain ethnicities not integrating, and others were seeing clusters or regional segregation of other ethnicities and they are wondering if this pattern or approach to immigration settlement is something Canada should encourage or discourage.
• To a lesser extent than the general population, immigrants were also concerned with the impact of immigration on the price and availability of housing. Similar to the general population, they see immigration as a source of population growth which in turn is putting pressure on housing and home prices.
• Immigrants were more likely to raise safety and security as a concern than members of the general population. Participants did not necessarily have any proof or examples that security measures were being relaxed or inefficient. They simply want reassurances that compromises are not being made to accommodate an immigration policy that is seeing 300,000 new people entering the country each year, including an important contingent of refugees.

Some concerns that were mentioned less frequently included:

• Overcoming language barriers – but while this is less of a challenge for Canada it remains an important integration barrier for certain immigrant groups (and this is further discussed later in this report); and,
• Discrimination or conflict between new immigrants and established immigrants, or between young and old immigrants from the same ethnic community.

“The children of Punjabis who are born here, the Indo-Canadians, they don’t want to adjust with us – they call us outsiders. They say you’ve come to our country.” (Immigrant)

Settlement and integration

A broader discussion was had around settlement and integration. Before exploring the topic too much, participants were asked to explain their own interpretation of “integration” and what, to them, represented an integrated immigrant. Here again we notice a distinction between the views of members of the general population and those from immigrants. These two views are summarized in the following way:

According to general population participants, an immigrant who is integrated is someone who:

• Contributes: Although this often meant that immigrants are working, it also meant immigrants have invested in Canada, they are studying or they are volunteering. These participants believed an integrated immigrant is out there doing something and not depending on social support.
• Lives their life but also respects Canada’s laws and values: There was an expectation that someone who is integrated has abandoned the laws from their home country and do not use what used to be acceptable there as an excuse for doing something outside Canadian law. A few were also concerned with very recent immigrants and refugees who might use their ignorance of local laws as an excuse. Regarding values, participants were not expecting immigrants to abandon their culture, but they were looking to immigrants to at least respect the values that are predominant in Canada.
• Speaks one of the official languages: Participants seemed to feel quite strongly that an immigrant needs to know one of Canada’s official languages to successfully integrate. Without the ability to communicate outside their own ethnic community, they feel an immigrant cannot interact with other Canadians, they cannot participate in activities outside their own ethnic community, they cannot work to their full potential, etc. If they cannot communicate in English or French, then an immigrant is highly likely to only interact with their own ethnic community, which then leads to the last point below.
• Lives with and among us: Again, while participants were not expecting immigrants to abandon their culture and avoid members of their own ethnic communities, they did not believe that someone who lives entirely within their ethnic community to be successfully integrated.

“There are cracks in the system. When you see people on the street who are of ethnic backgrounds that if there was some sort of support there for them because they don’t speak English or somehow they didn’t fit when they arrived in this country. Those who, through the regular process cannot find a job, they become cast away somehow so I think we do a poor job of making all that possible for them.” (General Population)

According to immigrants, an immigrant who is integrated is someone who:

• Feels in Canada the way they felt in their home country: Immigrants explained that once they feel “at home” in Canada, then they will feel like they are fully integrated. Similarly, when they visit their home country and they miss Canada, then they will feel they are integrated.
• Feels accepted the same as everyone else – socially and in the workplace: Feeling integrated was not just how they viewed themselves in relation to Canada, but was also related to how they felt others in Canada view them. The moment they feel they are not treated or viewed like an immigrant, but just like everyone else in Canada, then they will feel integrated. This was not just how they are seen in society, but also how well they have established themselves in the workforce. In this respect, having a job they enjoy and that is properly aligned with their skills and experience was important to feeling integrated. For those who had a successful career in their home country, this simply meant have the same type of career in Canada.

“True integration is finding that internal peace that you are who you are. You don’t need to be like the locals. You don’t have to have a lot of white friends. When you stop struggling, when you stop wanting to be ‘integrated’, you are then really integrated. You are calling Canada home.” (Immigrant)

“I don’t want to feel completely integrated – I don’t want to think like the other Canadians sometimes. I just want to feel at home here, and that is all.” (Immigrant)

It is worth noting that some immigrants believed that they can achieve integration by living and thriving within their cultural community. For instance: “The Chinese community is part of the Canadian society, and as such I am integrated into Canadian society.”

Ultimately, immigrants believed that integration is a desirable outcome for them and that they are working towards integrating. Members of the general population were less convinced that all immigrants want to integrate, or at least integrate completely. As noted earlier in the report, many participants knew or knew of immigrants who can barely speak English or French and who live, shop, socialize and work almost entirely within their cultural community, which for them was an indication that some immigrants are not interested in integrating into Canadian society.

Aids to integration

Participants were asked to expand on what might be supporting or impeding settlement and integration. Here again, we see a divide of opinions and awareness between general population participants and immigrants.

Both segments of participants were well aware of English as a Second Language (ESL) courses being provided to immigrants for whom English is not their first language. Both segments also highlighted the importance of certain forms of government support that help immigrants get settled, including the healthcare system, education for their children and welfare. Some participants thought friends and family of immigrants were another support as were established members of their ethnic community (e.g. through cultural centres, religious organizations, etc.). These specific supports to help immigrants settle and integrate were the extent of what members of the general population knew of.

Immigrants on the other hand were much more informed of settlement and integration supports, although not all immigrants were equally informed. Beyond ESL and government social support, immigrants also listed the following:

• Pre-immigration seminars, especially noted among Filipino participants, and the Canadian Immigrant Integration Program (CIIP), as noted in focus groups with Punjabi participants;
• Employment support services and seminars, including those provided by provincial governments;
• Community-based organizations, including local churches, and ethnic associations and support groups;
• Immigrant settlement services and immigration societies (e.g. COSTI, MOSAIC, SUCCESS Immigration Services);
• University orientation services for international students; and,
• Friends, family and coworkers.

“I think the pre-flight orientation really helped a lot because we were required by the Embassy of Canada to attend a series of three seminars. It informed us on things like what we needed to bring, what the median salaries are for certain professions.” (Immigrant)

Barriers to integration

The most common challenges to integration, as noted by both general population and immigrant participants, were labour-related. Foreign credential recognition was noted in all sessions as a particularly important barrier, and one which seems to cause some degree of frustration. Many participants did not understand how Canada does not better prepare or warn potential immigrants pre-immigration for the skills upgrading or additional education they will require in order to practice their profession in Canada. As well, participants did not believe immigrants are sufficiently supported after they arrive in Canada in order to have them begin working in the job for which they are trained and educated. However, some did argue that some of the onus is on the immigrant to fully inform themselves about working in Canada. Once informed, if they still want to immigrate, then it is their responsibility to meet Canada’s standards.

General population participants also explained that finding work in general can be an integration barrier for immigrants. Some located in smaller centers, like Brantford, also explained that there may not be sufficient support for immigrants outside of major centers. If this was the case, this presents an important challenge for immigration since many participants located in major centers actually would like to see immigrants locate in smaller centers across Canada. This might prove problematic if the support mechanisms that are readily accessible and known in larger centers are not equally available in smaller centers. This hypothesis is however founded in part on awareness of resources among the general population, which, as noted earlier, seems to be fairly limited.

Some general population participants seemed to feel that immigrants have access to a full range of resources, programs and government supports and that if they cannot successfully integrate with these, then the issue is not what is available to them, but rather their own willingness to integrate.

As for immigrants themselves, they felt that integration will be difficult to achieve if they do not get their career on track. For them, notwithstanding the challenges around foreign credential recognition, they felt obtaining relevant Canadian work experience and getting their international experience recognized were both important barriers to moving forward. There was some mention of government-supported or sponsored ESL programs having long waiting lists and a few mentions that these ESL courses were not particularly effective. Another challenge raised by immigrants is that although they were well supported by government services throughout their first year in Canada, they felt a lot of support and attention dropped off after this first year. These participants felt that a follow-up or a series of regular follow-ups with immigrants after “Year 1” would be advisable to make sure that immigrants stay on track, especially since the types of support they may need after their first year might change. There was also a sense that if an immigrant is not on track after Year 1, they are the ones who will likely need the most follow-up.

Some immigrants in many of the ethnic communities involved in this research felt that they were not interacting with locals as much as they should. Participant feedback points to two possible factors behind this. First, some felt they were struggling to make ends meet: they wake up, they go to work, and they come back home. They felt this cycle was challenging and not conducive to socializing with locals or being able to take additional training or education to help them break the cycle. Some participants also admitted to limiting most of their interactions to members of their own ethnic community simply because it provided them with a safe, familiar touchpoint in a new country where they were starting a new life. Many admitted that access to that community was essential to their progress so far.

A few also explained that learning English had been a challenge for them and that they also knew other immigrants for whom this is a significant barrier to integration.

“It takes time to integrate. You need to spend time with Canadians to know their culture.” (Immigrant)

“I don’t feel integrated because I go to work, go back home, go to work, go back home and this is what I’ve been doing for 4 years. I don’t have that many friends…but I do drink coffee 5 times a day so I am working towards integrating.” (Immigrant)

“I don’t think Brantford or the smaller cities are prepared for an influx of immigration. Take the school boards, if a lot of immigrants were to arrive that needed ESL, Branford couldn’t handle it.” (General Population)

“The Government of Canada should provide more funding to upgrading skills back, the ESL, free BCC schooling, Douglas College.” (Immigrant)

The refugee dynamic

In every focus group, some part of the discussion was dedicated to refugees. What is noteworthy is that this group of immigrants was often raised by participants in an unprompted manner. What is also noteworthy is that attitudes around broader immigration issues were somewhat influenced by awareness and knowledge of refugee resettlement, in particular the resettlement of Syrian refugees. For instance:

• When reacting to immigration levels, a few participants thought that Canada would be admitting 300,000 refugees this year, up from 25,000;
• Discussions around immigration levels, priority categories and multi-year planning showed that participants were very sensitive to how the Government of Canada would integrate refugees into its plans;
• The moderator needed to make sure in a few instances that participants understood the difference between a refugee and an immigrant;
• There was some degree of familiarity with the forms of financial and social support offered refugees. For instance, a few participants were aware that refugees receive Government of Canada support for one year and then they are supported by provincial support mechanisms;
• Sometimes concerns raised about a certain aspect of immigration in general, such as security, were really concerns with refugee resettlement.

These discussions uncovered a series of positive aspects related to Canada resettling refugees:

• Generally, participants want Canada to resettle refugees. They felt we have a reputation as a global citizen and they fundamentally agreed that it is the right thing to do.
• Participants felt Canada should help resettle refugees because we can. There was an appreciation for the fact that Canada has a lot to offer. Some participants even stated they were comfortable with some of their tax dollars going towards helping those who are escaping crisis.
• Some also suspected that refugees are individuals who will be especially grateful for the opportunity being provided to them and that they will be quite eager to succeed and want to give back to their host country.

These discussions also uncovered a series of challenges related to Canada resettling refugees:

• There was a sense that integration is more difficult for refugees compared to other immigrants. Unlike many other immigrants, refugees were not seen as satisfying any specific criteria that would easily see them fit into the workforce or society. Some also believed that refugees are much less likely to know someone in Canada compared to other immigrants. There was also a perception that refugees need more medical and mental health support compared to other immigrants. All this led participants to conclude that most refugees are likely to draw on government support for an extended period of time.
• A sentiment fairly distinct to immigrants was a form of resentment towards the level of support refugees receive after they arrive in Canada. A few felt refugees are people who are taking the “easy way” into Canada and once they arrive, they “get everything.” They then explain how their immigration process took a long time and that even after they arrived, their credentials and experience were not recognized and they “are nothing.” Another participant noted: “We should all become refugees! It is easier to be a refugee than come as an immigrant!”
• Some also recognized that public resources are being used to resettle refugees, that it is their tax money at work. As much as some were comfortable with that idea, others felt that there needed to be limits to public resources given while others believed those types of financial resources should instead support Canadians who are struggling.
• Those who tended to raise security as an immigration concern in general were in fact concerned with Canada’s ability to effectively screen all refugees.
• A few also suspected that refugees might be less interested in wanting to stay long-term because they do not choose the country that resettles them.

In the end, general population participants and immigrants recognized that there are positive and challenging aspects to resettling refugees and that the positive ones generally outweigh the challenges. Very few participants would argue that Canada should stop resettling refugees. However, some participants seemed to want reassurances around security and integration efforts, and they hoped that Canada is maintaining some sort of balance between helping those facing crisis overseas and helping the ones in need at home. It was important to strike the right balance between accepting refugees versus other immigrants who can immediately “contribute”.

The discussion also revealed that there were many misperceptions and misunderstandings around refugees and the refugee process. Perceptions, both positive and negative, were largely fueled by media coverage and community contact and experience with Syrian refugee resettlement efforts. These perceptions ultimately determined whether a participant felt the overall refugee integration and resettlement efforts were succeeding.

“I am more than happy to see some of my tax dollars going to resettling refugees.” (General Population)

“I don’t think it would be a good idea to set a 5-year plan. The world is changing so fast […] something could happen in another part of the world at some point in the future and we don’t have the policies in place to let them in because we will have policies in place that keeps them out. […] Going on a year by year basis allows us as Canadians to set the mark for the world.” (General Population)

“I think refugees will become citizens who will want to give back to Canada as much if not more than what Canada gave them. They want to succeed here.” (General Population)

Safe Third Country Agreement

At the time of the focus groups and for the few months prior to the groups, there were individuals who had landed in the United States who were illegally walking across the Canadian border. The focus group discussion revealed that there was some top-of-mind awareness of what was happening at the Canada-U.S. border. Awareness in each group rose the moment one of the participants correctly identified the issue.

The ensuing discussion revealed a general lack of awareness and accurate understanding of what was actually happening. For instance, participants were not sure why individuals were crossing outside designated ports of entry. They would sooner suspect that these individuals have something to hide or that they did not have all their proper documentation. Only a few suspected these individuals were being compelled by recent changes in U.S. immigration policies. Overall, there was a very low level of awareness of the Safe Third Country Agreement or how this agreement was influencing where individuals decide to cross into Canada. A few even suspected that the individuals looking to cross into Canada were U.S. citizens.

Participants were provided with some background information and the following, high-level explanation of the impact of the Safe Third Country Agreement on border crossings. A participant handout was also provided and can be found in Appendix E of the moderation guide.

“There are individuals who have landed in the United States who are illegally walking across the Canadian border. They are choosing to cross into Canada illegally because of something called the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States, an agreement that has been in place since 2004. Generally, under the Agreement, refugee claimants are required to request refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in. This means that people who have landed in the United States, but try to cross into Canada legally at designated ports of entry (for instance an airport or when one drives into Canada), could be turned away by Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) agents. If people walk across the border outside of designated ports of entry, the Safe Third Country Agreement does not apply and they can make an asylum claim here.”

Even with some background information, participants still had some difficulty in forming an opinion around what should be done with the Agreement and what Canada’s role is. This was another scenario where many participants tended to gravitate to whatever logical position was first presented. Ultimately, two predominant views on the Agreement emerged:

• A group of participants could not understand why those who present themselves at designated points of entry were turned away while those who cross illegally are allowed to stay. They saw those arriving at designated points of entry as the ones “doing the right thing” and they are being turned away whereas those who are seen as being covert are allowed to stay. For these participants, the Agreement is counterintuitive and the logic of the Agreement should be either reversed or more complete so that those who cross “illegally” are also turned back.
• Nobody came to the conclusion on their own that the Agreement should be suspended. However, when presented with the hypothesis that some believe a suspension should be considered due to recent changes in U.S. immigration policies, a second, broad view on the Agreement emerged. Some agreed to suspend the Agreement to allow claims at designated ports of entry because it would discourage individuals from crossing illegally resulting in a safer and more humane approach for refugee claimants. There was a sense that these refugee claims are justified and by having more, even if not all, claimants present at designated ports of entry, Canada is at least establishing more control over who crosses our border.

In a scenario where the Agreement were to be suspended, participants did not come to the conclusion that demand for claims will increase dramatically. Rather, they suspected that claims would be done in a more orderly and legal fashion.

“I don’t understand why the law does not require illegal border crossers to be returned to the US. […] It just seems like a flawed law.” (General Population)

“[Suspending the agreement] makes more sense safety-wise, it makes more sense resource-wise, it makes more sense to be able to document. It’s just safe all the way around. It would be done properly.” (General Population)

“If we make the border a place where refugees can come and talk to the authorities and speak their piece, knowing that the process will be done properly, I think that is better all the way around. It’s more humane.” (General Population)

It is also worth noting that those crossing the border illegally were seen by some as jumping the immigration queue and that, out of fairness for other immigrants and refugees who had followed proper procedures, these claimants should be refused automatic entry. Some immigrant participants were especially frustrated with this development since many had waited months and even years to immigrate to Canada, and some had been waiting a long time to have family members immigrate. A few were also concerned that, if the total number of immigrants allowed into Canada in any given year is fixed, these refugees might negatively impact on quotas for other immigrant groups.

Oath of citizenship

Upcoming modifications to the Oath of Citizenship were discussed in all general population sessions. None of the participants in these groups were aware that a recommendation had been made to modify the Oath. As well, very few participants had heard of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission or its mandate. To ensure a consistent interpretation of the context of the recommendation, the moderator provided all participants some background information about the Commission as well as a handout, which can be found in Appendix F of the moderation guide. Through the handout, participants could see how the Oath would be modified based on a recommendation from the Commission:

• Current Oath: I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
• Proposed Oath: I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada including Treaties with Indigenous Peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Under the assumption that the Oath will be modified to include new language around treaties with Indigenous Peoples, nearly all participants agreed that the proposed language is easy to understand and appropriate. This assessment was based on one condition, however: participants only agreed with the modifications insofar as newcomers are adequately educated about Indigenous Peoples and the Treaties. Many felt that they themselves would struggle with this new formulation given their own limited knowledge of the Treaties. They assumed that someone new to Canada would be even less familiar.

• A few participants were not overly concerned with how the Oath is written. They suspected that newcomers simply say the words to get their citizenship without any specific concern with what they are saying. They compared it to “blindly” agreeing to the Terms and Conditions that always accompany new software or computer program.
• A few also wanted to be reassured that the overall recommendation and the specific text being proposed was arrived at through consultation with Indigenous Peoples.
• Even though they were asked to assume that the modifications will happen, a few participants took it upon themselves to question the need to modify the Oath and that it might represent a precedent whereby other groups in Canada will want to be represented in the Oath.

“Well if we make this change, then other minority groups in Canada will want to be included.” (General Population)

“Well a newcomer won’t know what treaties are or who Indigenous Peoples are. […] They need to know what they’re signing up for.” (General Population)

Client service delivery and sources of information

The sessions with immigrants explored whether they had any suggestions regarding the immigration application process. Participants were also asked to briefly discuss where they get their information on policy, services and programs related to immigration, refugees and citizenship.

This exercise revealed that the IRCC website (recognized by participants as cic.gc.ca), is a common and favoured destination for immigrants when it comes to information on policy, services and programs related to immigration, refugees and citizenship. Despite a few complaints about the complexity of the site, most immigrants considered the site easy to use, helpful and resourceful. A few highlighted how effective it was at helping them identify local resources they could access post immigration.

There was very limited use of the Department’s social media channels among immigrants. The few who shared an opinion on these explained that the information they would get through social media was rarely relevant to them and they preferred to access resources that get at their very specific information needs.

Other sources of information that participants said they used to obtain information on the immigration process or to find resources once they arrived included:

• Among participants from India, WhatsApp was a popular mobile application;
• Settlement.org was a popular website among participants in Ontario;
• Many immigrants got their information from their immigration agent or consultant.

In terms of the process itself, the following general themes and suggestions were raised by immigrants:

• Immigration Process: Notwithstanding a few possibilities for improvement, the overall immigration process was seen as simple. From a qualification perspective, participants described Canada as one of the “easiest” countries to which one can immigrate when compared to countries like the U.S., France, the U.K. or Australia. The processing time was seen as long, however. A few liked that an immigrant does not have to have a job lined up to qualify. Similarly, international students liked that they were granted a work VISA allowing them to work in Canada for a period that is dependent on how long their program is.
• Status Updates: The most consistent challenge encountered by immigrants was getting updates on the status of applications. Given how long the process can take, updates seemed all the more valued. Participants described getting an acknowledgement that their application had been received, but they were not informed regarding the progress their application was making or given any sense of timing. The only information they were given was that their application was “in progress.” Participants all agreed that calling the Department to get an update was not very helpful. A few were aware of the feature on the IRCC website that allows them to “Check your application status.” While a few felt this feature was helpful if they applied online, others felt this was just another way to learn that the application is “in progress.”
• Moving Target: Another commonly heard complaint from immigrants was that they felt immigration criteria and qualifications changed from year to year. Participants felt this not only made it difficult for them when they were going through the immigration process, but it was proving to be a challenge for those who were sponsoring family to join them. It was even noted by some that the criteria would change while their application was being assessed and that it was frustrating for them to have to update their application information. It was even a challenge to remain updated on these changes. Participants would like to see some stability in the criteria over a given period of time, or at least not have the criteria change after an application has been submitted.
• First In, First Out: Some participants felt some who had applied after them were approved before them. For these participants, they would want the process to respect the application queue.
• Foreign Credential Recognition Pre-Education: Finally, immigrants would like to see more invested in properly and completely informing immigration applicants about credential and experience equivalency in Canada. Similarly, some did not believe their credentials should be re-evaluated after they arrive in Canada and that there should be consistency between how the Government assesses their credentials and how the private sector assesses them.

“The government should be more caring, such as reaching out to potential immigrants as early as possible/before they arrive in Canada, and should provide customized information packages and orientation by profession for example.” (Immigrant)

“It took too long. By the time I received my visas we didn’t even want to come anymore. I had already had a senior position at work and it seemed that I had to give up too much.” (Immigrant)

Background and methodology

Background and research objectives

The Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) conducts an ongoing research program to help the Department develop a better understanding of Canadian attitudes toward the issues surrounding citizenship and immigration. By gauging and analyzing the opinions of Canadians and immigrants, the Department gains insights into important policy areas related to the mandate of the department and related services.

The issues studied included the following:

• Key issues related to immigration;
• Views on Canada as a country of immigration;
• Impact of immigration
• Settlement and integration;
• Citizenship;
• Views/expectations of the federal government; and
• Communication needs and preferences.

Methodology

Overview: The research methodology consisted of twenty traditional in-person focus groups with newcomers, longer-term or established immigrants and Canadian adults at least 18 years old. These sessions were divided across nine different locations across the country and sessions involved immigrants from particular cultural communities and members of the general population.

Quorus adapted and translated the recruitment screener and the moderation guide for this study. The design of these research instruments relied on designs used by IRCC in previous waves of similar research. Quorus consultants updated these research documents to reflect the current research needs.

The target population for the focus groups consisted of adult Canadians at least 18 years old and a mix of immigrants from various cultural communities. Participants invited to participate were randomly recruited by telephone from the general public or invited from a proprietary database. In the design of the recruitment screener, specific questions were inserted to clearly identify whether participants qualify for the research program and to ensure a good representation of men and women from a mix of ages, income, residency status and education. Furthermore, specific sessions in specific cities were conducted with members of certain cultural communities. Additional qualification criteria for the general population and the immigrant sessions included:

• General population groups:
  • Excluded immigrants who have been in Canada for 15 years or less
  • In cities where there were two general population groups (Brantford and Red Deer), the groups were segmented by household income as follows:
    • “High income” was defined as anyone with a personal annual income of over $60,000 or anyone in a household with multiple incomes with an annual household income of over $80,000.
    • “Low/middle” income was defined as anyone with a personal annual income of up to $60,000 or anyone in a household with multiple incomes with an annual household income of under $80,000.
• Immigrant groups included a mix of:
  • Newcomer Immigrants: Less than 5 years in Canada (minimum of 5 per group)
  • Established Immigrants: those who have been in Canada for 5 to 10 years were then prioritized (2 or 3 per group) with only a few (1 or 2 per group) who have been in Canada 10 to 15 years.
  • Excluded individuals who only rarely or sometimes speak the specific language at home

In addition to the general participant profiling criteria noted above, additional screening was done to ensure quality respondents, such as:

• Participants had a sufficient command of the focus group language to fully participate in the focus group sessions.
• No participant (nor anyone in their immediate family or household) worked in an occupation that had anything to do with the research topic area, in related government departments/agencies, nor in advertising, graphic design, marketing research, public relations or the media (radio, television, newspaper, film/video production, etc.).
• No participants acquainted with each other were knowingly recruited for the same study, unless they were in different sessions that were scheduled separately.
• No participant was recruited who had attended a qualitative research session within the past six months.
• No participant was recruited who had attended five or more qualitative research sessions in the past five years.
• No participant was recruited who had attended, in the past two years, a qualitative research session on the same general topic.
• No participant was recruited who works for Federal or provincial government.

Quorus recruited 10 participants to achieve 8-10 participants per focus group. Participants for immigrant focus groups were offered an honorarium of $125.00 at the end of the focus groups and those recruited for the general population focus groups were offered an honorarium of $100.00 at the end of the focus groups. Furthermore:

• All recruitment was conducted in the participant’s official language of choice, English and French, as appropriate.
• Upon request, participants were informed on how they can access the research findings.
• Upon request, participants were provided Quorus’ privacy policy.
• Recruitment confirmed each participant’s ability to speak, understand, read and write in the language in which the session was to be conducted.
• Participants were informed of their rights under the Privacy and Access to Information Acts and ensured that those rights would be protected throughout the research process. This includes: informing them of the purpose of the research; identifying both the sponsoring department or agency and research supplier; informing participants that the study will be made available to the public 6 months after field completion through Library and Archives Canada and informing them that their participation in the study is voluntary and the information provided will be administered according to the requirements of the Privacy Act.

At the recruitment stage and at the beginning of each focus group, participants were informed that the research is for the Government of Canada. At the beginning of each session, participants were also informed of audio/video taping of the focus group sessions, in addition to the presence of observers. Quorus ensured that prior consent was obtained at the recruitment stage and before participants entered the focus group room.

All focus groups were held in a facility that allowed the client team to observe the sessions. Professional focus group facilities were used in centers where they were available. Otherwise, Quorus arranged for viewing via closed-circuit TV in a room adjacent to the meeting room where the focus groups took place. In all locations, audio/video recording capabilities were in place.

A total of 164 individuals participated in these focus groups. The locations, participant segments and dates for each of the sessions are presented in the grid below:

All English and French focus groups were moderated by Rick Nadeau, one of Quorus’ bilingual senior researchers on the Government of Canada Standing Offer. The Filipino sessions and the “mixed immigrant” session in Halifax were conducted in English. The French Arabic session in Montreal was conducted in French. Other focus groups with non-official languages like Cantonese, Mandarin and Punjabi were moderated by seasoned moderators fluent in the mother tongue of the participants. Given multiple moderators were used for this project, the following was done to ensure consistency of approach as the research progresses:

• One lead moderator, Rick Nadeau, moderated 16 of the 20 groups, thereby ensuring consistency across all of those sessions.
• After the first evening of focus groups (which were moderated by Rick Nadeau), an initial briefing was done with each of the three other moderators to walk them through the moderation guide and some of the nuances, techniques and probing strategies used by the lead moderator.
• Moderators who had worked on IRCC projects in the past were used, thereby increasing their familiarity with the issues and the audiences.
• Rick Nadeau was in attendance at each of the sessions, including those moderated by other moderators, thereby providing on-site support and coaching as needed.
• Each moderator was asked to provide a written summary of their session and asked to review the final comprehensive report to ensure that any unique perspectives from their respective audiences were adequately represented in the analysis.

Appendices

Recruitment Screeners – English and French

English

NOTE: All times are stated in local area time
Recruit: 10 for 8 to show per group
Honorarium: $100 to $125

Respondent’s name:
Respondent’s phone # (home):
Respondent’s phone # (work):
Respondent’s fax #:
Respondent’s e-mail:
Sample source (panel, random, client or referral):

Montreal, Quebec
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Group 1: Arabic (French), 5:30 pm, $125 honorarium
Group 2: Gen Pop (French), 7:30 pm, $100 honorarium

Surrey, British Columbia
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Group 3: Gen Pop (English), 10:00 am, $100 honorarium
Group 4: Punjabi, 12:00 pm, $125 honorarium

Vancouver, British Columbia
Monday, March 20, 2017
Group 5: Mandarin, 5:30 pm, $125 honorarium
Group 6: Filipino, 7:30 pm, $125 honorarium

Red Deer, Alberta
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Group 7: Gen Pop (Low/middle income), 5:30 pm, $100 honorarium
Group 8: Gen Pop (High Income), 7:30 pm, $100 honorarium

Winnipeg, Manitoba
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Group 9: Gen Pop, 5:30 pm, $100 honorarium
Group 10: Filipino, 7:30 pm, $125 honorarium

Halifax, Nova Scotia
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Group 11: Mix Immigrants, 5:30 pm, $125 honorarium
Group 12: Gen Pop, 7:30 pm, $100 honorarium

Toronto, Ontario
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Group 13: Cantonese, 10:00 am, $125 honorarium
Group 14: Gen Pop, 12:00 pm, $100 honorarium

Mississauga, Ontario
Monday, March 27, 2017
Group 15: Top Middle East, 5:30 pm, $125 honorarium
Group 16: Punjabi, 7:30 pm, $125 honorarium

Brantford, Ontario
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Group 17: Gen Pop (Low/middle income), 5:30 pm, $100 honorarium
Group 18: Gen Pop (High Income), 7:30 pm, $100 honorarium

Toronto, Ontario
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Group 19: Caribbean countries, 5:30 pm, $125 honorarium
Group 20: African countries, 7:30 pm, $125 honorarium

Hello/Bonjour, my name is [NAME] from Quorus Consulting; we are calling today to invite participants to attend a focus group discussion we are currently conducting on behalf of the Government of Canada. Your participation in the research is completely voluntary and your decision to participate or not will not affect any dealings you may have with the government.

All information collected, used and/or disclosed will be used for research purposes only and administered as per the requirements of the Privacy Act. The session will last a maximum of 2 hours and you will receive a cash gift as a thank you for attending the session. May we have your permission to ask you or someone else in your household some further questions to see if you/they fit in our study?

• Yes (1 – Continue)
• No (2 – Thank and terminate)

Q1. Do you or any member of your household currently work or has worked in the last five years, in the following industries:

Market Research or Marketing

• Yes, in the last 5 years (1)
• No, not in the last 5 years (2)
• Never (3)

Public Relations or Media (TV, Radio, Print)

• Yes, in the last 5 years (1)
• No, not in the last 5 years (2)
• Never (3)

Advertising and Communications

• Yes, in the last 5 years (1)
• No, not in the last 5 years (2)
• Never (3)

An employee of a political party

• Yes, in the last 5 years (1)
• No, not in the last 5 years (2)
• Never (3)

An employee of a government department or agency, whether federal or provincial

• Yes, in the last 5 years (1)
• No, not in the last 5 years (2)
• Never (3)

IF “YES, IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS” TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, THANK AND TERMINATE

Q2. INDICATE (DO NOT READ. 50/50 SPLIT):

• Male (1)
• Female (2)

Q3. Were you born in Canada, or in another country?

• Canada (go to Q6)
• Another country (continue)
• Don’t know/refused (thank and terminate)

Q4. How old were you when you moved to Canada? (TERMINATE IF MOVED TO CANADA UNDER AGE OF 14)

Q5. In what year did you come to Canada?

• BETWEEN 2013 AND 2017: GROUPS 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 (minimum 5 per group)
• BETWEEN 2007 AND 2012: GROUPS 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 (maximum 3 per group)
• BETWEEN 2002 AND 2006: GROUPS 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 (maximum 2 per group)
• 2001 OR EARLIER: GROUPS 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18
• DON’T KNOW/REFUSED: THANK AND TERMINATE

Q6. We have been asked to speak to participants from all different ages. So that we may do this accurately, may I have your exact age please? (GET A MIX OF 18 TO 69 YEARS)

• Under 18 (1, terminate)
• 18-29 years of age (2)
• 30-44 years of age (3)
• 45-54 years of age (4)
• 55-69 years of age (5)
• 70 years or more (6, terminate)

SKIP Q7 IF BORN IN CANADA
Q7. Because we would like to talk to people who have come to Canada in different ways, I would like you to tell me which one of the following best describes your current legal status in Canada. Again, please be assured that we are asking for this information for research purposes only. Are you…? (READ LIST – IF RESPONDENT SAYS LANDED IMMIGRANT, CLASSIFY AS PERMANENT RESIDENT. GET A MIX OF 1, 2 AND 3)

• A Canadian citizen (1)
• A permanent resident of Canada (NB: includes “landed immigrant”) (2)
• A temporary foreign worker/resident (NB: includes temporary live-in care giver) (3)
• A refugee (4, terminate)
• Or, are you in Canada on a student visa? (5, terminate)
• Don’t know/refused (6, terminate)

SKIP Q8 IF BORN IN CANADA
Q8. What is your country of origin, that is, in what country were you born and a permanent resident in before coming to Canada? (DO NOT READ LIST; RECRUIT MIX OF DIFFERENT COUNTRIES FOR GROUPS WHERE MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY IS TARGETED.)

• China, Taiwan, Hong Kong (1, GROUPS 5 & 13)
• India, Pakistan (2, GROUPS 4 & 16)
• Philippines (3, GROUPS 6 & 10)
• Iraq, Iran, Syria, Morocco, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia (4, GROUP 15)
• French-speaking: Lebanon, Morocco (5, GROUP 1, RECRUIT 3 OF EACH)
• French speaking: Algeria, Syria, (6, GROUP 1, RECRUIT 2 OF EACH)
• Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Bahamas Islands, Barbados, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada (7, GROUP 19)
• Ethiopia, Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria, Somalia, South Africa, Eritrea, Federal Republic of Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Republic Dem. of Congo (8, GROUP 20)
• Other (88, GROUPS 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18)

ASK ALL
Q9. How many people earning an income, including yourself, live in your household?

• One (ASK Q10)
• Two (SKIP TO Q11)
• Three (SKIP TO Q11)
• Four or more (SKIP TO Q11)

IF ONLY ONE PERSON EARNING INCOME IN HOUSEHOLD ASK:
Q10. Which of the following categories best corresponds to your total personal annual income, before taxes, for 2016? (READ, GET A MIX FOR GROUPS OTHER THAN 7, 8, 17, AND 18)

• Under $30,000 (GROUPS 7, 18)
• $30,000 to $60,000 (GROUPS 7, 18)
• $60,000 to $80,000 (GROUPS 7, 18)
• $80,000 to $100,000 (GROUPS 8, 17)
• $100,000 to $150,000 (GROUPS 8, 17)
• $150,000 and over (GROUPS 8, 17)
• Don’t know/refused (ASK Q10A)

IF RESPONDENT REFUSES TO GIVE PERSONAL INCOME AND IS BEING RECRUITED FOR GROUPS 7, 8, 17, OR 18 ASK:
10a. Is it under or over $80,000?

• Under $80,000 (1, GROUPS 7, 18)
• Over $80,000 (2, GROUPS 8, 17)
• Don’t know/refused (9, terminate)

ASK ALL FROM HOUSEHOLDS WITH MORE THAN ONE PERSON EARNING INCOME
Q11. Which of the following categories best corresponds to the total annual income, before taxes, of all members of your household, for 2016? (READ, GET A MIX FOR GROUPS OTHER THAN 7, 8, 17, AND 18)

• Under $30,000 (GROUPS 7, 18)
• $30,000 to $60,000 (GROUPS 7, 18)
• $60,000 to $80,000 (GROUPS 7, 18)
• $80,000 to $100,000 (GROUPS 8, 17)
• $100,000 to $150,000 (GROUPS 8, 17)
• $150,000 and over (GROUPS 8, 17)
• Don’t know/refused (ASK Q11A)

IF RESPONDENT REFUSES TO GIVE PERSONAL INCOME AND IS BEING RECRUITED FOR GROUPS 7, 8, 17, OR 18 ASK:
11a. Is it under or over $100,000?

• Under $100,000 (1, GROUPS 7, 18)
• Over $100,000 (2, GROUPS 8, 17)
• Don’t know/refused (9, terminate)

Q12. What is the highest level of education you have received? (DO NOT READ LIST – GET MIX)

• Some high school or less (1)
• Completed high school (2)
• Some college/university (no degree) (3)
• Completed college/university (4)
• Post-graduate studies (5)

Q13. Currently are you…? (READ LIST)

• Working full-time (35 hrs. +)
• Working part-time (under 35 hrs.)
• Unemployed, but looking for work (1 max. /group)
• A full-time student (1 max. /group)
• Retired (2 max. /group)
• Not in the workforce (inc. homemaker) (1 max. /group)

ASK Q14 IF WORKING FULL OR PART-TIME TERMINATE IF TIED TO EXCLUSIONS IN Q.1
Q14. What is your current occupation?

• Type of job:
• Type of company:

ASK ALL BORN IN CHINA, TAIWAN OR HONG KONG FOR GROUPS 5 AND 13
Q15. Do you speak, read and understand Mandarin or Cantonese Chinese?

• Yes, Mandarin (1, GO TO Q16)
• Yes, Cantonese (2, GO TO Q17)
• No (3, THANK AND TERMINATE)

Q16. And would you be comfortable participating in a group discussion conducted completely in Mandarin or would you prefer to participate in English?

• Yes, comfortable in Mandarin (1, GROUP 5)
• No (2, THANK AND TERMINATE)
• Equally comfortable (VOLUNTEERED, 3, GROUP 5)

Q17. And would you be comfortable participating in a group discussion conducted completely in Cantonese or would you prefer to participate in English?

• Yes, comfortable in Cantonese (1, GROUP 13)
• No (2, THANK AND TERMINATE)
• Equally comfortable (VOLUNTEERED, 3, GROUP 13)

ASK ALL BORN IN INDIA OR PAKISTAN FOR GROUPS 4 & 16
Q18. Do you speak and understand Punjabi?

• Yes (1)
• No (2, THANK AND TERMINATE)

Q19. And would you be comfortable participating in a group discussion conducted completely in Punjabi or would you prefer to participate in English?

• Yes, comfortable in Punjabi (1, GROUPS 4 & 16)
• No, prefer English (2, THANK AND TERMINATE)
• Equally comfortable in English or Punjabi (VOLUNTEERED, 3, GROUPS 4 & 16)

ASK ALL RECRUITS FOR GROUPS 6, 10, 11, 15, 19, AND 20
Q20. The session will be conducted in English. How comfortable are you in taking part in a group discussion conducted completely in English? Are you... (READ LIST)

• Very comfortable (1)
• Fairly comfortable (2)
• Not very comfortable (3, TERMINATE)
• Very uncomfortable (4, TERMINATE)

ASK ALL BORN IN FRENCH ARAB COUNTRIES FOR GROUP 1
Q21. The session will be conducted in French. How comfortable are you in taking part in a group discussion conducted completely in French? Are you... (READ LIST)

• Very comfortable (1)
• Fairly comfortable (2)
• Not very comfortable (3, TERMINATE)
• Very uncomfortable (4, TERMINATE)

ASK ALL
Q22. Participants in group discussions are asked to voice their opinions and thoughts, how comfortable are you in voicing your opinions in front of others? Are you... (READ LIST)

• Very comfortable (1, MIN. 5 PER GROUP)
• Fairly comfortable (2)
• Not very comfortable (3, TERMINATE)
• Very uncomfortable (4, TERMINATE)

Q23. Have you ever attended a focus group or a one-to-one discussion for which you have received a sum of money, here or elsewhere?

• Yes (1, MAXIMUM 6 PER GROUP)
• No (2, SKIP TO Q27)

IF YES ASK:
Q24. When did you last attend one of these discussions? (TERMINATE IF IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS)

Q25. How many focus groups or one-to-one discussions have you attended in the past 5 years? (SPECIFY. IF MORE THAN 5, TERMINATE.)

Q26. What topics were discussed in the focus groups you took part in during the last two years? (SPECIFY. TERMINATE IF RELATED TO IMMIGRATION OR SETTLEMENT ISSUES)

ASK ALL
Q27. Sometimes participants are also asked to write out their answers on a questionnaire. Is there any reason why you could not participate? If you need glasses to read, please remember to bring them.

• Yes (1, TERMINATE)
• No (2)
  NOTE: TERMINATE IF RESPONDENT OFFERS ANY REASON SUCH AS SIGHT OR HEARING PROBLEM, A WRITTEN OR VERBAL LANGUAGE PROBLEM, OR A CONCERN WITH NOT BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY.

Invitation

As I mentioned earlier, the group discussion will take place the evening of, [DATE @ TIME] for 2 hours and participants will receive [INSERT $100.00 FOR GROUPS 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18 / INSERT $125.00 FOR GROUPS 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20] for their time. Would you be willing to attend?

• Yes (1, CONTINUE)
• No (2, THANK AND TERMINATE)

Privacy Questions

Thank you for agreeing to take part in our sessions. We will be providing your name to the facility so that they can sign you in and check your ID when you arrive. The groups will be audio and /or videotaped for the researchers to use when doing their reporting, please note these materials will not be used for any other purpose and will be destroyed once the project is fully completed. Also once the groups are completed your name will be submitted to the MRIA’s (Marketing Research and Intelligence Association) Qualitative Central system as a focus group participant, you will not be contacted for any reason for being on this list.

P1. Do you agree with this?

• Yes (1, GO TO INVITE)
• No (2, ASK FOLLOW UP SO THAT YOU CAN EXPLAIN AND ATTEMPT TO CONVERT THE RECRUIT. IF STILL A REFUSAL, LOG THE CALL APPROPRIATELY)

P1a. Can you please tell me which item is causing you concern? (IF POSSIBLE TRY TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERN IF NOT THANK AND TERMINATE)

• Provided Name to facility (1, NQP1)
• Audio taping (2, NQP2)
• Video taping (3, NQP3)
• MRIA List (4, NQP4)

AS REQUIRED, ADDITIONAL INFO FOR THE INTERVIEWER:
Please be assured that this information is kept confidential and is strictly accessed and used by professional market research firm to review participation and prevent “professional respondents” from attending sessions. Research firms participating in MRIA’s Qualitative Central require your consent to be eligible to participate in the focus group - the system helps ensure the integrity of the research process.

AS REQUIRED, NOTE ABOUT MRIA:
The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association is a non-profit organization for marketing research professionals engaged in marketing, advertising, social, and political research. The Society's mission is to be the leader in promoting excellence in the practice of marketing and social research and in the value of market information.

Invitation:

Do you have a pen handy so that I can give you the address where the group will be held? It will be held at:

• Surrey, BC
  Sheraton Vancouver Guildford Hotel
  15269104 Ave, Surrey, BC, V3R 1N5
• Montreal, QC
  1610 Rue Ste-Catherine Ouest - Bureau 411, Montreal, QC, H3H 2S2
• Vancouver, BC
  CRC Research
  1398 W 7th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3W6
• Red Deer
  Sheraton Red Deer Hotel
  3310 50 Ave, Red Deer, AB T4N 3X9
• Winnipeg
  PRA Inc
  500-363 Broadway, Winnipeg, MB, R3C 3N9
• Halifax
  MQO
  1883 Upper Water street 3rd floor, Collins bank Building, Historic Properties Halifax
• Toronto (Groups 13, 14)
  CRC Research
  4950 Yonge Street, Suite 304, Toronto ON, M2N 6K1
• Mississauga
  ACCE Int.
  2575 Dunwin Drive, Mississauga, ON, L5L 3N9
• Brantford
  Brantford Convention Centre
  100 Market St S, Brantford, ON N3S 2E5
• Toronto (Groups 19, 20)
  Consumer Vision
  2 Bloor St West, 3rd fl, Toronto, ON M4W 3E2

We ask that you arrive fifteen minutes early to be sure you find parking, locate the facility and have time to check-in with the hosts. The hosts may be checking respondents’ identification prior to the group, so please be sure to bring some personal identification with you (for example, a driver’s license). If you require glasses for reading make sure you bring them with you as well.

As we are only inviting a small number of people, your participation is very important to us. If for some reason you are unable to attend, please call us so that we may get someone to replace you. You can reach us at [NUMBER] at our office. Please ask for [NAME]. Someone will also call you the day before to remind you about the discussion.

So that we can call you to remind you about the focus group or contact you should there be any changes, can you please confirm your name and contact information for me? [READ INFO AND CHANGE AS NECESSARY.]

First name:
Last Name:
Email:
Day time phone number:
Night time phone number:

If the respondent refuses to give his/her first or last name or phone number, please assure them that this information will be kept strictly confidential in accordance with the privacy law and that it is used strictly to contact them to confirm their attendance and to inform them of any changes to the focus group. If they still refuse THANK & TERMINATE.

French

REMARQUE : Les heures sont les heures locales de chaque région.
Recruter 10 personnes pour que 8 se présentent dans chaque groupe
Prime : 100 $ ou 125 $

Nom du répondant :
Numéro de téléphone (domicile) :
Numéro de téléphone (travail) :
Numéro de télécopieur :
Courriel :
Source d’échantillonnage (panel , aléatoire, client, référence)

Montréal, Québec
Jeudi 16 mars 2017
Groupe 1 : Arabe (Français), 17 h 30, 125 $ prime
Groupe 2 : Pop gén (Français), 19 h 30, 100 $ prime

Surrey, British Columbia
Samedi 18 mars 2017
Groupe 3 : Pop gén (English), 10 h, 100 $ prime
Groupe 4 : Punjabi, 12 h, 125 $ prime

Vancouver, British Columbia
Lundi 20 mars 2017
Groupe 5 : Mandarin, 17 h 30, 125 $ prime
Groupe 6 : Philippin, 19 h 30, 125 $ prime

Red Deer, Alberta
Mardi 21 mars 2017
Groupe 7 : Pop gén (Faible/moyen revenu), 17 h 30, 100 $ prime
Groupe 8 : Pop gén (Revenu élevé), 19 h 30, 100 $ prime

Winnipeg, Manitoba
Mercredi 22 mars 2017
Groupe 9 : Pop gén, 17 h 30, 100 $ prime
Groupe 10 : Philippin, 19 h 30, 125 $ prime

Halifax, Nova Scotia
Jeudi 23 mars 2017
Groupe 11 : Immigrants divers, 17 h 30, 125 $ prime
Groupe 12 : Pop gén, 19 h 30, 100 $ prime

Toronto, Ontario
Samedi 25 mars 2017
Groupe 13 : Cantonaise, 10 h, 125 $ prime
Groupe 14 : Pop gén, 12 h, 100 $ prime

Mississauga, Ontario
Lundi 27 mars 2017
Groupe 15 : Moyen Orient, 17 h 30, 125 $ prime
Groupe 16 : Punjabi, 19 h 30, 125 $ prime

Brantford, Ontario
Mardi 28 mars 2017
Groupe 17 : Pop gén (Faible/moyen revenu), 17 h 30, 100 $ prime
Groupe 18 : Pop gén (Revenu élevé), 19 h 30, 100 $ prime

Toronto, Ontario
Mercredi 29 mars 2017
Groupe 19 : Pays des Caraïbes, 17 h 30, 125 $ prime
Groupe 20 : Pays africains, 19 h 30, 125 $ prime

Bonjour. Je m’appelle [NOM] et je téléphone du groupe-conseil Quorus. Notre appel d’aujourd’hui vise à recruter des participants pour une discussion de groupe que nous menons pour le compte du gouvernement du Canada. Votre participation à cette recherche est entièrement volontaire. Votre décision ne changera en rien vos rapports avec le gouvernement.

Tous les renseignements recueillis, utilisés ou divulgués serviront uniquement aux fins de la recherche. Ils seront gérés conformément à la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels. La séance durera tout au plus deux (2) heures et vous recevrez un montant en argent pour votre participation. Ais-je votre permission pour vous poser quelques questions pour m’assurer que vous remplissez les conditions de participation, ou pour m’adresser à un autre membre de votre ménage?

• Oui (1 – Continuer)
• Non (2 – REMERCIER ET CONCLURE)

Q1. Est-ce que vous ou d’autres membres de votre ménage travaillez ou avez travaillé pour l’une ou l’autre de ces industries au cours des cinq (5) dernières années?

Études de marché ou marketing

• Oui, dans les 5 dernières années (1)
• Pas dans les 5 dernières années (2)
• Jamais (3)

Relations publiques ou médias (télévision, radio, presse écrite)

• Oui, dans les 5 dernières années (1)
• Pas dans les 5 dernières années (2)
• Jamais (3)

Publicité et communications

• Oui, dans les 5 dernières années (1)
• Pas dans les 5 dernières années (2)
• Jamais (3)

Employé d’un parti politique

• Oui, dans les 5 dernières années (1)
• Pas dans les 5 dernières années (2)
• Jamais (3)

Employé d’un ministère ou d’une agence du gouvernement fédéral ou provincial

• Oui, dans les 5 dernières années (1)
• Pas dans les 5 dernières années (2)
• Jamais (3)

SI A RÉPONDU « OUI » POUR LES 5 DERNIÈRES ANNÉES À L’UNE OU L’AUTRE DES CATÉGORIES, REMERCIER ET CONCLURE.

Q2. INDIQUER (NE PAS LIRE, Mélange 50/50):

• Homme (1)
• Femme (2)

Q3. Êtes-vous né au Canada ou à l’étranger?

• Canada (go to Q6)
• Autre pays (Continuer)
• Ne sait pas/refuse (REMERCIER ET CONCLURE)

Q4. Quel âge aviez-vous quand vous avez déménagé au Canada? (CONCLURE SI A DÉMÉNAGÉ AU CANADA À MOINS DE 14 ANS)

Q5. En quelle année êtes-vous arrive au Canada?

• De 2013 à 2017 : GROUPES 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 (minimum 5 par groupe)
• De 2007 à 2012 : GROUPES 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 (maximum 3 par groupe)
• De 2002 à 2006 : GROUPES 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 (maximum 2 par groupe)
• 2001 ou avant : GROUPES 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18
• Ne sait pas/refuse : REMERCIER ET CONCLURE

Q6. Nous aimerions nous entretenir avec des participants de différents groupes d’âge. Pour cela, pourriez-vous me dire votre âge exact? (RECRUTER UNE VARIÉTÉ DE 18 à 69 ANS)

• Moins de 18 ans (1, CONCLURE)
• 18 à 29 ans (2)
• 30 à 44 ans (3)
• 45 à 54 ans (4)
• 55 à 69 ans (5)
• 70 ans ou plus (6, CONCLURE)

SAUTER Q7 SI LE RÉPONDANT EST NÉ AU CANADA
Q7. Nous aimerions nous entretenir avec des personnes qui sont venues au Canada par différents moyens. J’aimerais savoir laquelle des descriptions suivantes correspond le mieux à votre statut juridique actuel au Canada. Soyez assuré encore une fois que cette information servira uniquement aux fins de la recherche. Êtes-vous…? (LIRE LA LISTE. SI LA RÉPONSE EST « IMMIGRANT ADMIS », CLASSER COMME RÉSIDENT PERMANENT. RECRUTER UNE VARIÉTÉ DE 1, 2 ET 3)

• un citoyen canadien (1)
• un résident permanent du Canada (y compris un immigrant admis) (2)
• un travailleur ou résident étranger temporaire (y compris un aide familial temporaire) (3)
• un réfugié (4, CONCLURE)
• un étudiant au Canada avec visa (5, CONCLURE)
• Ne sait pas/refuse (6, REMERCIER ET CONCLURE)

lang="fr"SAUTER Q8 SI LE RÉPONDANT EST NÉ AU CANADA
Q8. Quel est votre pays d’origine, c’est-à-dire celui où vous êtes né et duquel vous étiez résident permanent avant de venir au Canada? (NE PAS LIRE LA LISTE. RECRUTER UNE VARIÉTÉ DE PAYS POUR LES GROUPES DANS LESQUELS PLUSIEURS PAYS SONT VISÉS)

• Chine, Taiwan, Hong Kong (1, GROUPES 5 et 13)
• Inde, Pakistan (2, GROUPES 4 & 16)
• Philippines (3, GROUPES 6 et 10)
• Irak, Iran, Syrie, Maroc, Liban, Égypte, Libye, Algérie, Tunisie (4, GROUPE 15)
• Francophone : Liban, Maroc (5, GROUPE 1, RECRUTER 3 DE CHAQUE)
• Francophone : Algérie, Syrie, (6, GROUPE 1, RECRUTER 2 DE CHAQUE)
• Guyane, Haïti, Jamaïque, Trinité-et-Tobago, Bahamas, Barbade, Bermudes, Îles Vierges britanniques, Îles Caïmans, Cuba, République dominicaine, Grenade (7, GROUPE 19)
• Éthiopie, Kenya, Maurice, Nigéria, Somalie, Afrique du Sud, Érythrée, République fédérale du Cameroun, Côte d'Ivoire, République de Dem. du Congo (8, GROUPE 20)
• Autre (88, GROUPES 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18)

DEMANDER À TOUS
Q9. Dans votre ménage, combien y a-t-il de personnes qui gagnent un revenu? Veuillez vous inclure dans ce nombre.

• Une (ALLER À Q10)
• Deux (SAUTER À Q11)
• Trois (SAUTER À Q11)
• Quatre ou plus (SAUTER À Q11)

SI UN SEUL MEMBRE DU MÉNAGE GAGNE UN REVENU, DEMANDER :
Q10. Laquelle des catégories suivantes correspond le mieux à votre revenu personnel annuel total avant impôts en 2016? (LIRE, RECRUTER UNE VARIÉTÉ POUR LES GROUPES AUTRES QUE 8, 17 ET 18)

• Moins de 30 000 $ (GROUPES 7 et 18)
• 30 000 $ à 60 000 $ (GROUPES 7 et 18)
• 60 000 $ à 80 000 $ (GROUPES 7 et 18)
• 80 000 $ à 100 000 $ (GROUPES 8 et 17)
• 100 000 $ à 150 000 $ (GROUPES 8 et 17)
• 150 000 $ et plus (GROUPES 8 et 17)
• Ne sait pas/refuse (ALLER À Q10A)

SI LE RÉPONDANT REFUSE DE PRÉCISER SON REVENU PERSONNEL ET QU’IL EST RECRUTÉ POUR LES GROUPES 7, 8, 17 OU 18, DEMANDER :
10a. Votre revenu était-il supérieur ou inférieur à 80 000 $?

• Inférieur à 80 000 $ (1, GROUPS 7, 18)
• Supérieur à 80 000 $ (2, GROUPS 8, 17)
• Ne sait pas/refuse (9, REMERCIER ET CONCLURE)

DEMANDER À TOUS LES RÉPONDANTS DE MÉNAGE À REVENUS MULTIPLES
Q11. Laquelle des catégories suivantes correspond le mieux au revenue annuel total avant impôts de tous les membres de votre ménage en 2016? (LIRE, RECRUTER UNE VARIÉTÉ POUR LES GROUPES AUTRES QUE 7, 8, 17 ET 18)

• Moins de 30 000 $ (GROUPES 7 et 18)
• 30 000 $ à 60 000 $ (GROUPES 7 et 18)
• 60 000 $ à 80 000 $ (GROUPES 7 et 18)
• 80 000 $ à 100 000 $ (GROUPES 8 et 17)
• 100 000 $ à 150 000 $ (GROUPES 8 et 17)
• 150 000 $ et plus (GROUPES 8 et 17)
• Ne sait pas/refuse (ALLER À Q11A)

SI LE RÉPONDANT REFUSE DE PRÉCISER LE REVENU TOTAL ET QU’IL EST RECRUTÉ POUR LES GROUPES 7, 8, 17 OU 18, DEMANDER :
11a. Votre revenu était-il supérieur ou inférieur à 100 000 $?

• Inférieur à 100 000 $ (1, GROUPS 7, 18)
• Supérieur à 100 000 $ (2, GROUPS 8, 17)
• Ne sait pas/refuse (9, REMERCIER ET CONCLURE)

Q12. Quel est le plus haut niveau de scolarité que vous avez atteint? (NE PAS LIRE LA LISTE. RECRUTER UNE VARIÉTÉ.)

• Secondaire ou niveau inférieur (1)
• Diplôme d’études secondaires (2)
• Études collégiales/universitaires partielles (pas de diplôme) (3)
• Diplôme d’études collégiales ou universitaires (4)
• Études supérieures (5)

Q13. Quelle est votre situation d’emploi actuelle? (LIRE LA LISTE)

• Travailleur à temps plein (35 heures et plus)
• Travailleur à temps partiel (moins de 35 heures)
• Sans emploi, à la recherche d’un emploi (1 max. par groupe)
• Étudiant à temps plein (1 max. par groupe)
• Retraité (2 max. par groupe)
• Hors du marché du travail (p. ex., personne au foyer) (1 max. par groupe)

POSER LA Q.14 SI LE RÉPONDANT TRAVAILLE À TEMPS PLEIN OU À TEMPS PARTIEL. CONCLURE SI C’EST UNE EXCLUSION DE Q. 1.
Q14. Quelle est votre occupation actu?

• Type d’emploi :
• Type d’entreprise :

DEMANDER À TOUS CEUX NÉS EN CHINE, À TAIWAN OU À HONG KONG POUR LES GROUPES 5 ET 13.
Q15. Est-ce que vous parlez, lisez et comprenez le mandarin ou le cantonais?

• Oui, le mandarin (1, ALLER À Q16)
• Oui, le cantonais (2, ALLER À Q17)
• Non (3, REMERCIER ET CONCLURE)

Q16. Seriez-vous à l’aise de participer à une discussion de groupe entièrement en mandarin ou préféreriez-vous participer à une discussion en anglais?

• Oui, à l’aise en mandarin (1, GROUPE 5)
• Non, préfère l’anglais (2, REMERCIER ET CONCLURE)
• À l’aise en anglais comme en mandarin (SANS AIDE, 3, GROUPE 5)

Q17. Seriez-vous à l’aise de participer à une discussion de groupe entièrement en cantonais ou préféreriez-vous participer à une discussion en anglais?

• Oui, à l’aise en cantonais (1, GROUPE 13)
• Non, préfère l’anglais (2, REMERCIER ET CONCLURE)
• À l’aise en anglais comme en cantonais (SANS AIDE, 3, GROUPE 13)

DEMANDER À TOUS CEUX NÉS EN INDE OU AU PAKISTAN POUR LES GROUPES 4 ET 16.
Q18. Est-ce que vous parlez et comprenez le punjabi?

• Oui (1)
• Non (2, REMERCIER ET CONCLURE)

Q19. Seriez-vous à l’aise de participer à une discussion de groupe entièrement en punjabi ou préféreriez-vous participer à une discussion en anglais?

• Oui, à l’aise en punjabi (1, GROUPE 4 ET 16)
• Non, préfère l’anglais (2, REMERCIER ET CONCLURE)
• À l’aise en anglais comme en punjabi (SANS AIDE, 3, GROUPE 4 ET 16)

DEMANDER À TOUS LES RÉPONDANTS INVITÉS POUR LES GROUPES 6, 10, 11 15, 19, ET 20.
Q20. La séance se déroulera en anglais. Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous à l’aise de participer à une discussion entièrement en anglais? Êtes-vous…? (LIRE LA LISTE)

• Très à l’aise (1)
• Plutôt à l’aise (2)
• Pas très à l’aise (3, CONCLURE)
• Pas du tout à l’aise (4, CONCLURE)

DEMANDER À TOUS CEUX NÉS DANS LES PAYS ARABES FRANCOPHONES POUR LE GROUPE 1.
Q21. La séance se déroulera en français. Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous à l’aise de participer à une discussion entièrement en français? Êtes-vous…? (LIRE LA LISTE)

• Très à l’aise (1)
• Plutôt à l’aise (2)
• Pas très à l’aise (3, CONCLURE)
• Pas du tout à l’aise (4, CONCLURE)

DEMANDER À TOUS
Q22. Les participants aux discussions de groupe sont invités à exprimer leurs opinions. Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous à l’aise de vous exprimer devant d’autres personnes? Êtes-vous…? (READ LIST)

• Très à l’aise (1)
• Plutôt à l’aise (2)
• Pas très à l’aise (3, CONCLURE)
• Pas du tout à l’aise (4, CONCLURE)

Q23. Avez-vous déjà participé à une discussion de groupe ou une entrevue individuelle pour laquelle vous avez reçu un montant d’argent, ici ou ailleurs?

• Oui (1, MAXIMUM 6 PAR GROUPE)
• Non (2, SAUTER À Q27)

SI A RÉPONDU « OUI », DEMANDER :
Q24. À quand remonte votre dernière participation à une telle discussion ou entrevue? (CONCLURE SI C’EST DANS LES 6 DERNIERS MOIS)

Q25. À combien de discussions de groupe ou d’entrevues individuelles avez-vous participé au cours des cinq (5) dernières années? (PRÉCISER. SI PLUS DE 5, CONCLURE.)

Q26. Quels sont les sujets que vous avez abordés dans les discussions de groupe auxquelles vous avez participé au cours des deux (2) dernières années? (PRÉCISER. CONCLURE SI LE SUJET CONCERNAIT L’IMMIGRATION OU L’ÉTABLISSEMENT)

DEMANDER À TOUS
Q27. Nous invitons parfois les participants à remplir un questionnaire. Y a-t-il une raison qui vous empêcherait de le faire? Si vous avez besoin de lunettes de lecture, veuillez les apporter.

• OUI (1, CONCLURE)
• Non (2)
  REMARQUE : CONCLURE L’ENTRETIEN SI LE RÉPONDANT FOURNIT UNE RAISON COMME UN TROUBLE VISUEL OU AUDITIF, UN PROBLÈME DE LANGAGE ÉCRIT OU VERBAL, OU LA CRAINTE DE NE PAS POUVOIR COMMUNIQUER EFFICACEMENT.

Invitation

Comme je l’ai mentionné précédemment, la discussion de groupe aura lieu en soirée, le [DATE ET HEURE]. La séance durera deux (2) heures et les participants recevront [INSÉRER 100 $ POUR LES GROUPES 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17 ET 18 / INSÉRER 125 $ POUR LES GROUPES 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19 ET 20] pour leur temps. Acceptez-vous de participer?

• Oui (1, CONTINUER)
• Non (2, REMERCIER ET CONCLURE)

RENSEIGNEMENTS PERSONNELS

Merci d’avoir accepté de participer à la séance. Nous transmettrons votre nom aux hôtes afin qu’ils puissent procéder à votre inscription et vérifier votre identité dès votre arrivée. Les séances seront enregistrées sur bande audio ou vidéo. Nos chercheurs utiliseront les enregistrements pour rédiger leur rapport. Soyez assuré que ce matériel ne servira à aucune autre fin et sera détruit une fois le projet terminé. Dès que les groupes seront formés, votre nom sera transmis au système qualitatif central de l’Association de la recherche et de l’intelligence marketing (ARIM) en tant que participant au groupe de discussion. Vous ne recevrez aucune communication parce que votre nom figure sur la liste.

P1. Êtes-vous d’accord avec cette procédure?

• Oui (1, ALLER À L’INVITATION)
• Non (2, DEMANDER UN SUIVI POUR FOURNIR DES EXPLICATIONS ET TENTER DE CONVAINCRE LE RÉPONDANT. S’IL REFUSE TOUJOURS, CLASSER L’APPEL EN CONSÉQUENCE.)

P1a. Pouvez-vous me dire ce qui vous pose un problème? (SI C’EST POSSIBLE, TENTER D’APAISER LES INQUIÉTUDES. SI CELA NE RÉUSSIT PAS, REMERCIER LE RÉPONDANT ET CONCLURE.)

• Transmission du nom aux hôtes (1, NQP1)
• Enregistrement audio (2, NQP2)
• Enregistrement vidéo (3, NQP3)
• Liste de l’ARIM (4, NQP4)

INFORMATION ADDITIONNELLE POUR L’INTERVIEWEUR, AU BESOIN :
Soyez assuré que ces renseignements demeureront confidentiels. L’accès à ces renseignements et leur utilisation sont strictement réservés à l’entreprise d’études de marché professionnelle qui passera en revue le processus de recrutement pour empêcher des « répondants professionnels » de participer aux séances. Les entreprises de recherche faisant partie de la centrale qualitative de l’ARIM requièrent votre consentement pour que vous puissiez participer au groupe de discussion. Le système assure l’intégrité du processus de recherche.

AU BESOIN, DIRE CECI AU SUJET DE L’ARIM :
L’Association de la recherche et de l’intelligence marketing (ARIM) est un organisme sans but lucratif regroupant des professionnels de la recherche œuvrant dans les domaines du marketing, de la publicité et de la recherche sociale et politique. L’ARIM a pour mission de se tailler une place comme chef de file pour la promotion de l’excellence dans la pratique du marketing et de la recherche sociale, et la valeur de l’information sur les marchés.

Invitation :

Avez-vous un stylo pour noter l’adresse que je vais vous donner? La séance aura lieu au :

• Surrey, C.-B.
  Hôtel Sheraton Vancouver Guildford
  15269104 Ave, Surrey, C.-B., V3R 1N5
• Montréal, Québec
  1610, rue Sainte-Catherine Ouest, bureau 411 Montréal, QC, H3H 2S2
• Vancouver, C.-B.
  CRC Research
  1398 W 7th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3W6
• Red Deer, AB
  Hôtel Sheraton Red Deer
  3310 50 Ave, Red Deer, AB T4N 3X9
• Winnipeg, MB
  PRA Inc
  500-363 Broadway, Winnipeg, MB, R3C 3N9
• Halifax
  MQO
  1883 Upper Water street 3rd floor, Collins bank Building, Historic Properties Halifax
• Toronto (GROUPES 13,14)
  CRC Research
  4950 Yonge Street, bureau 304, Toronto ON, M2N 6K1
• Mississauga
  ACCE Int.
  2575 Dunwin Drive, Mississauga, ON, L5L 3N9
• Brantford
  Brantford Convention Centre
  100 Market St S, Brantford, ON N3S 2E5
• Toronto (GROUPES 19,20)
  CRC Research
  4950 Yonge Street, bureau 304, Toronto ON, M2N 6K1

Nous vous demandons de bien vouloir arriver 15 minutes avant l’heure prévue pour trouver du stationnement, localiser les locaux et vous présenter aux hôtes. Il se peut que ceux-ci vérifient l’identité des participants avant la séance. Assurez-vous d’apporter une pièce d’identité (comme un permis de conduire). Si vous utilisez des lunettes de lecture, apportez-les.

Étant donné que nous invitons un nombre restreint de participants, votre présence est très importante pour nous. Si vous ne pouvez participer à la séance pour une raison quelconque, veuillez nous en aviser pour que nous puissions vous remplacer. Vous pouvez nous joindre au [NUMÉRO]. Demandez à parler à [NOM]. Nous vous téléphonerons la veille de la séance en guise de rappel.

J’aimerais avoir votre nom, votre numéro de téléphone et votre adresse de courriel afin que nous puissions communiquer avec vous pour le rappel ou pour vous transmettre tout changement. [LIRE L’INFORMATION ET FAIRE LES CHANGEMENTS APPROPRIÉS, AU BESOIN.]

Prénom :
Nom :
Courriel :
Numéro de téléphone (jour) :
Numéro de téléphone (soirée) :

Si le répondant refuse de donner son prénom, son nom ou son numéro de téléphone, dites-lui que ces renseignements demeureront strictement confidentiels, conformément aux lois sur la protection des renseignements personnels et qu’ils serviront uniquement à le contacter pour confirmer sa présence et l’informer de tout changement. S’il refuse toujours, LE REMERCIER ET CONCLURE L’ENTRETIEN.

Moderation guides

English Moderation Guide – March 2017

INTRODUCTION (5 Minutes)

• Introduce moderator and welcome participants to the focus group.
  • As we indicated during the recruiting process, we are conducting focus group discussions on behalf of the Government of Canada.
• The discussion will last approximately 2 hours. Feel free to excuse yourself during the session if necessary.
• Explanation re:
  • Audio-taping – The session is being audio-taped for analysis purposes, in case we need to double-check the proceedings against our notes. These audio-tapes remain in our possession and will not be released to anyone without written consent from all participants.
  • One-way mirror – There are observers representing the government who will be watching the discussion from behind the glass.
  • It is also important for you to know that your responses today will in no way affect your dealings with the Government of Canada.
  • Confidentiality – Please note that anything you say during these groups will be held in the strictest confidence. We do not attribute comments to specific people. Our report summarizes the findings from the groups but does not mention anyone by name. The report can be accessed through the Library of Parliament or Archives Canada.
• Describe how a discussion group functions:
  • Discussion groups are designed to stimulate an open and honest discussion. My role as a moderator is to guide the discussion and encourage everyone to participate. Another function of the moderator is to ensure that the discussion stays on topic and on time.
  • Your role is to answer questions and voice your opinions. We are looking for minority as well as majority opinion in a focus group, so don't hold back if you have a comment even if you feel your opinion may be different from others in the group. There may or may not be others who share your point of view. Everyone's opinion is important and should be respected.
  • I would also like to stress that there are no wrong answers. We are simply looking for your opinions and attitudes. This is not a test of your knowledge. We did not expect you to do anything in preparation for this group.
• Please note that the moderator is not an employee of the Government of Canada and may not be able to answer some of your questions about what we will be discussing. If important questions do come up over the course of the group, we will try to get answers for you before you leave. (Moderator introduces herself/himself). Participants should introduce themselves, using their first names only.
• What are your main hobbies or pastimes?

WARM UP EXERCISE (10 MINUTES)

• What comes to mind when you think about Canada? Probe: Sources of pride
• [Immigrants] What made you choose Canada? What made you stay?

TOP OF MIND – ISSUES – 15 MINUTES

ALL PARTICIPANTS

• What are the challenges that are facing your community? [Immigrant Groups – Specify their Ethnocultural Community) (write on flip chart) [Annex A]
  • [Moderator will sum up the list provided – Will probe on those not mentioned after the participant top list is explored]
• What makes you say that? What specifically is the issue or concern here?
• Have you heard of any federal government action to address this issue?
• How is the federal government doing on this issue?

CANADA AND IMMIGRATION – 55 MINUTES

CANADA’S IMMIGRATION LEVELS/PRIORITIES

The Government uses an annual levels plan to determine which choices and priorities the Government should make when it comes to immigration. It is more than just the number of immigrants coming to Canada. [FACT SHEET FOR MODERATOR – Annex B]

• Number of immigrants – Too many/About right/Too few
  • And, why do you say (Too many/About right/Too few)?
  • Planning – Over several years?
• Immigration categories/priorities [Family, humanitarian/economic]
  • Economic/Humanitarian/Family
  • Difference between a refugee/migrant/asylum seeker
  • Could Canada give more weight in economic programs to Americans and other people who have American work experience? (Extra points within the Express Entry Application Process)
• Purpose of immigration: Thinking about Canada, what is the main purpose of immigration? (15 minutes)
  • PROBE: Economic/Humanitarian/National renewal/International obligations

BENEFITS/CHALLENGES OF IMMIGRATION

Next I would like to discuss the impact that immigration has on Canada. That is to say, what are the benefits and the challenges?
MODERATOR GOES TO FLIP CHART: Ok what are the benefits/challenges have you identified? How about the others, how do you feel about these?

PROBE

• Economic Prosperity
  • Address aging population/Fill labour market needs/New ideas/Innovation/Job creation
• Society/Cultural impact
  • Diverse society/Inspiration/On Canadian traditions
• Settlement /Integration
  • Welcoming newcomers/Supporting integration/Sense of belonging
  • Competition for resources/Community level/National level
• Canada’s reputation
  • Humanitarian obligations
  • Global competitiveness/as a country of choice for immigration
• Global competition: International students, workers and visitors (UK/USA/Australia). What makes Canada better?
• Labour market needs/aging population/economic needs
• Ability to adjust to changing and emerging global migration needs/economic needs (In times of crisis?)
• For immigrants/For Canada: Settlement/integration
• Generating a welcoming spirit rather than an atmosphere of suspicion or fear. (Other countries)

SETTLEMENT AND INTEGRATION

• [GEN POP] What does Canada do to help immigrants and refugees settle once they get here?
• [IMMIGRANTS] What does Canada do to help people in your community settle once they get here?
• What does integration mean to you? Probe: Social/Economic?
• How well is integration going? Probe: Drivers/barriers/suggestions. Probe: Syrian refugees
  • Probe: roles of others (province, municipality, businesses, etc.)
• [FACT SHEET FOR MODERATOR ON SETTLEMENT OUTCOMES] Annex C: Integration/Information on Settlement Services and Outcomes

CANADA AND THE USA – 15 MINUTES

• What have you heard recently about the Canada and USA border? Probe: Asylum seekers coming to CDN border
• [MODERATOR PROVIDES INFORMATION ON CURRENT SITUATION]
  • Annex D: FACTS ON The Safe Third Country Agreement (For moderator)
  • Annex E: Visual Aid on Asylum Program (Provide to participants)
• Let’s walk through the information that I just gave you.
• What do you think of the approach for refugees who make their own way to Canada and make an asylum claim here?
• What are Canada’s responsibilities?
• What impact does this have on Canada? Communities?
• Some say that the Safe Third Country Agreement should be suspended due to the recent changes in U.S. immigration policies. What do you think? What impact could this have on Canada?
• How should Canada manage this situation?

OATH OF CITIZENSHIP – GENERAL POPULATION GROUPS – 10 MINUTES

Opening statement/information to provide participants:

The Citizenship Act requires that persons 14 years or older who apply for a grant of citizenship must take the Oath to fulfill the final legal requirement to become a Canadian citizen. The requirement can be waived for minors and where an individual is unable to understand the significance of taking the Oath due to a mental disability.

• Have any of you heard of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? [A brief summary will be provided] One of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission involves modifying the current Oath of citizenship to include new language around treaties with Indigenous Peoples.
• I am going to give you a copy of the current Oath and the Oath as modified by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and I would like to get your feedback on the proposed changes. [Probe: clarity/ease of understanding/appropriate language level]

CLIENT SERVICE/DELIVERY OF PROGRAMS/INFORMATION – IMMIGRANT GROUPS – 10 MINUTES

• Before the group I asked you to fill out a sheet on where you get your information on policy, services and programs related to immigration, refugees and citizenship. Could you pass those forward? [Annex G]
• Thinking about social media, does anyone follow IRCC’s social media channels (Twitter, Facebook and YouTube)? (If yes) Why do you follow it? Is there anything that we are doing well or that could be improved?
• Next, I would like to discuss your perceptions or experiences with IRCC applications.
• Could you tell me a little about your experience with an IRCC application process? Anything that you would like to highlight? What did you find hardest? What (if anything) did you like?’ Anything that you have seen change for the better? Anything that you would like to see improved/enhanced?

PRIORITY FOR IRCC – 10 MINUTES

• We have discussed many aspects of immigration in Canada.
• What do you think is the main responsibility or focus for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada?

Thank participants

ANNEX A: ISSUES

• A shrinking middle class
• Ability of local businesses and industries to succeed
• An aging population
• Availability of affordable childcare options
• Availability of healthcare services
• Availability of jobs
• Availability of public transit
• Availability of services
• Cost of housing
• Crime
• Foreign Credential Recognition
• Homelessness
• Integrating immigrants into the community
• Language training
• Lack of cell phone coverage
• Level of Employment Insurance benefits for those who can’t find work
• Low high school graduation rates
• Poverty
• Preserving a clean environment
• Quality of roads and bridges
• Reliable broadband or high-speed Internet
• Settlement services for newcomers
• Traffic congestion
• Young people leaving for opportunities elsewhere

ANNEX B: IMMIGRATION LEVELS AND CATEGORIES INFORMATION

BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE MODERATOR:
The approach to the 2017 levels plan was guided by feedback from Canadians gathered over the summer months and from provinces and territories.

Immigration class: Economic
Includes applicants and accompanying family members in federal programs in the Express Entry system; the Provincial Nominee Program; business immigrants; caregivers; and skilled workers and business immigrants selected by Quebec

• 2016 target: 160,600
• 2017 target: 172,500

Immigration class: Family
Includes sponsored spouses, partners and children and parents and grandparents.

• 2016 target: 80,000
• 2017 target: 84,000

Immigration class: Refugees and Protected Persons
Includes both resettled refugees (government assisted and privately sponsored) as well as protected persons who become permanent residents

• 2016 target: 55,800
• 2017 target: 40,000

Immigration class: Humanitarian and Compassionate and Other
Includes persons selected on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, for reasons of public policy and in the Permit Holder Class.

• 2016 target: 3,600
• 2017 target: 3,500

Total

• 2016 target: 300,000
• 2017 target: 300,000

ANNEX C: INFORMATION ON SETTLEMENT SERVICES AND OUTCOMES

Background Information for Moderator

Key Points:

• Syrians are happy with their life in Canada.
• Their immediate and essential needs are being met.
• Integration rate is at about the same rate as refugee groups in the past
• Some Syrian refugees are already giving back to their communities
• Government sponsored tend to be less knowledgeable of Canada’s official languages
• Privately sponsored adult refugees tend to be more educated and knowledgeable of either French or English.
• Employment rates within one year of arrival: GARS – 10% and Privately sponsored 50%

Challenges:

• Still need some support and time to become accustomed to their new life in Canada
• Larger family sizes and housing
• Employment
• Social integration
• Youth
• Mental health
• The impact on local support systems, is underway

Income support

• Income support was provided for the refugee’s first year in Canada.
• Those requiring support after 12 months may apply for provincial/territorial social assistance.

Going Ahead

• The department will build on the lessons learned and apply them to future resettlement initiatives.

Information needs:

• Canada Orientation Abroad information sessions to help them prepare for life in Canada.

Facts on the issue:

• As Quebec is responsible for its own resettlement and settlement services, this information pertains to Syrian refugees who are outside of Quebec.

ANNEX D: FACTS ON THE SAFE THIRD COUNTRY AGREEMENT

• The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States (U.S.) is part of the U.S.–Canada Smart Border Action Plan.
• Under the Agreement, refugee claimants are required to request refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in, unless they qualify for an exception to the Agreement.
• The Agreement helps both governments better manage access to the refugee system in each country for people crossing the Canada–U.S. land border. The two countries signed the Agreement on December 5, 2002, and it came into effect on December 29, 2004.
• To date, the U.S. is the only country that is designated as a safe third country by Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
• The Agreement does not apply to U.S. citizens or habitual residents of the U.S. who are not citizens of any country (“stateless persons”).
• Since the 1980s, countries around the world have been using safe third country-type agreements as a way to address pressures on domestic asylum systems from the continued growth of global migration. In the mid-1990s, the United Nations Refugee Agency expressed support for these types of agreements.

ANNEX E: VISUAL AID ON ASYLUM PROGRAM

The picture is a visual aid used to describe the asylum program within Canada. It contains two images: one of road signs indicating where the bridge to Canada is and a second of people crossing the Canada-U.S. border on foot in the winter. The following text is included:

• In-Canada Asylum Program for people making asylum claim from within Canada.
  • Asylum claims – Individuals crossing a land border into Canada to make an asylum claim: Impact of Safe Third Country Agreement
  • Individuals come into Canada through a designated port of entry at a land border and make an asylum claim
    • With Safe Third Country Agreement
      • CBSA assessment determines if individuals can enter Canada. Some individuals are inadmissible (e.g, serious criminality)
      • Safe Third Country Agreement applies unless individuals qualify for an exception which is most often family ties in Canada
      • If no exception, individuals are returned to the U.S. to seek refugee protection there
      • Rationale is that individuals should seek protection in the first safe country they land in
      • If deemed eligible to make an asylum claim, able to access support/interim health services
      • Successful asylum claims lead to protected person status and individuals can then apply for permanent resident status
    • Without the Safe Third Country Agreement
      • CBSA assessment determines if individuals can enter Canada. Some individuals are inadmissible (e.g, serious criminality).
      • Would be unable to stop anyone from making an asylum claim at a land border
      • If determined eligible to make an asylum claim, able to access support/interim health services
      • A successful asylum claim leads to protected person status and individuals can then apply for permanent resident status
  • Individuals crossing illegally from USA into Canada at a land border (i.e., not entering Canada through a designated port of entry)
    • Individual illegally crosses into Canada (i.e., walks across a field into Canada)
    • RCMP may or may not be able to intercept and issue warning
    • Once in Canada, arrested by the RCMP, transferred to the CBSA for an immigration examination
    • Individuals may make an asylum claim
    • Safe Third Country Agreement does not apply as person did not enter through a port of entry
    • Individuals cannot be returned to the U.S.
    • If the individual is eligible to make an asylum claim, most are released pending an Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada hearing.
    • If deemed eligible to make an asylum claim, able to access support/interim health services
    • Successful claim leads to protected person status and individuals can then apply for permanent resident status

ANNEX F: OATH OF CITIZENSHIP

Current Oath
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Information from the Truth and Reconciliation Report: Recommendations
In order to redress the legacy of residential schools and advance the process of Canadian reconciliation, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission made several recommendations, including modification to the Oath of Citizenship to reflect Treaties with Indigenous Peoples and changes to the Canadian citizenship study guide. Related to the Oath of Citizenship, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission had the following Call to Action.

Newcomers to Canada
94. We call upon the Government of Canada to replace the Oath of Citizenship with the following:

Proposed Oath
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada including Treaties with Indigenous Peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

ANNEX G : PRE-SESSION PARTICIPANT EXERCISE

Where do you get your information on policy, services and programs related to immigration, refugees and citizenship? Please be as accurate as possible – for instance, if you use the Internet, please specify the website, if it is from a newspaper, which one? Etc.

Please write legibly! The moderator will be collecting these during the session.

French Moderation Guide – March 2017

INTRODUCTION (5 Minutes)

• Présentation du modérateur et mot de bienvenue pour les participants au groupe de discussion.
  • Comme nous l’avons mentionné au cours du processus de recrutement, nous menons des discussions de groupe pour le compte du gouvernement du Canada.
• La séance durera environ deux (2) heures. N’hésitez pas à quitter la salle durant la séance, au besoin.
• Explications à fournir :
  • Enregistrement audio : La séance est enregistrée sur bande audio pour des fins d’analyse et de comparaison avec les notes que nous aurons prises. Les enregistrements demeureront en notre possession. Ils ne seront sous aucun prétexte transmis à des tiers, sans le consentement écrit de tous les participants.
  • Miroir d’observation : Des représentants du gouvernement observeront la séance de l’autre côté du miroir.
  • Il est important de souligner que vos réponses d’aujourd’hui ne modifieront d’aucune façon vos rapports avec le gouvernement du Canada.
  • Confidentialité : Veuillez noter que tout ce que vous direz durant la séance demeurera strictement confidentiel. Nous n’attribuerons aucun commentaire aux participants. Notre rapport contiendra un résumé des séances de groupe. Aucun nom ne sera mentionné. Ce document pourra être consulté à la Bibliothèque du Parlement ou à Archives Canada.
• Description du déroulement de la séance :
  • Les groupes de discussion ont pour but de favoriser une discussion ouverte et sincère. Comme modérateur, mon rôle consiste à orienter la discussion et à encourager la participation de tous. Je dois aussi m’assurer que personne ne s’écarte du sujet et que tout se déroule selon l’horaire prévu.
  • Votre rôle consiste à répondre aux questions et à exprimer vos opinions. Nous voulons recueillir toutes les opinions, aussi bien minoritaires que majoritaires. N’hésitez pas à vous exprimer, même si vous croyez avoir une opinion différente des autres participants. Il se peut que d’autres partagent votre avis ou que personne d’autre ne le partage. Toutes les opinions sont importantes et il est important de les respecter.
  • Je tiens aussi à souligner qu’il n’y a pas de mauvaises réponses. Nous voulons simplement connaître vos opinions. Ceci n’est pas un test de connaissances. Vous n’aviez rien à préparer pour la séance.
• Il est important de noter que le modérateur n’est pas un employé du gouvernement du Canada. Il se peut qu’il ne soit pas en mesure de répondre à toutes vos questions. Si des questions importantes sont soulevées durant la discussion, nous essaierons d’obtenir des réponses avant votre départ. (Le modérateur ou la modératrice se présente.) Les participants sont invités à se présenter, en donnant uniquement leur prénom.
• Quels sont vos principaux loisirs ou passe-temps?

EXERCICE DE RÉCHAUFFEMENT (10 minutes)

• Qu’est-ce qui vous vient à l’esprit quand vous pensez au Canada? Sonder : Quelles sont vos raisons d’en être fier?
• [Immigrants] Pourquoi avez-vous choisi le Canada? Pourquoi êtes-vous resté?

PRINCIPAUX ENJEUX – 15 MINUTES

TOUS LES PARTICIPANTS

• Quels sont les problèmes auxquels est confrontée votre communauté? [Immigrants : Préciser la communauté ethnoculturelle) (Noter les réponses au tableau) (Annexe A)
  • [Le modérateur résume la liste. Une fois qu’elle a été passée en revue, il tente d’obtenir de l’information sur des problèmes qui n’ont pas été mentionnés.]
• Pourquoi dites-vous cela? Quel est précisément le problème ou la préoccupation?
• Avez-vous entendu parler d’une mesure prise par le gouvernement fédéral pour résoudre ce problème?
• Que pensez-vous des efforts du gouvernement fédéral pour résoudre ce problème?

LE CANADA ET L’IMMIGRATION – 55 MINUTES

NIVEAUX D’IMMIGRATION ET PRIORITÉS DU CANADA

Le gouvernement utilise un plan annuel des niveaux d’immigration pour faire ses choix et établir ses priorités en matière d’immigration. Ce plan ne se limite pas au nombre d’immigrants qui arrivent au Canada. [FICHE DESCRIPTIVE POUR LE MODÉRATEUR – Annexe B]

• Nombre d’immigrants – Excessif/suffisant/insuffisant
  • Pourquoi dites-vous qu’il est (excessif/suffisant/insuffisant)?
  • Planification – Sur plusieurs années?
• Catégories d’immigration et priorités [regroupement familial, immigration économique, circonstances d’ordre humanitaire]
  • Immigration économique/circonstances d’ordre humanitaire/regroupement familial
  • Distinction entre un réfugié, un migrant et un demandeur d’asile
  • Le Canada devrait-il accorder une plus grande importance aux Américains et à toutes les personnes possédant une expérience de travail en sol américain dans les programmes économiques? (Points supplémentaires dans le processus de demande d’Entrée Express)
• Objectif de l’immigration : Quel est le principal objectif de l’immigration pour le Canada? (15 minutes)
  • SONDER : Caractère économique, humanitaire, renouvellement national, obligations internationales

AVANTAGES ET INCONVÉNIENTS DE L’IMMIGRATION

J’aimerais maintenant discuter des répercussions de l’immigration sur le Canada, c’est-à-dire des avantages et des inconvénients.
LE MODÉRATEUR NOTE LES RÉPONSES AU TABLEAU : Quels sont les avantages et les inconvénients auxquels vous pensez? Qu’en est-il des autres? Qu’en pensez-vous?

SONDER

• Prospérité économique
  • Vieillissement de la population/besoins du marché du travail/nouvelles idées/innovation/création d’emplois
• Impact sociétal et culturel
  • Diversification de la société/inspiration/traditions canadiennes
• Établissement et intégration
  • Accueil des nouveaux arrivants/soutien à l’intégration/sentiment d’appartenance
  • Rivalité pour les ressources, à l’échelle locale et nationale
• Réputation du Canada
  • Obligations humanitaires
  • Compétitivité mondiale/pays de choix pour l’immigration
• Compétitivité mondiale : étudiants, travailleurs et visiteurs étrangers (Royaume-Uni, États-Unis, Australie). En quoi le Canada est-il meilleur que les autres?
• Besoins du marché du travail/vieillissement de la population/besoins économiques
• Capacité de s’adapter aux besoins changeants et nouveaux en matière de migration mondiale et d’économie (en temps de crise?)
• Pour les immigrants/pour le Canada : Établissement et intégration
• Favoriser un esprit d’accueil plutôt qu’un sentiment de méfiance ou de crainte (autres pays)

ÉTABLISSEMENT ET INTÉGRATION

• [POPULATION EN GÉNÉRAL] Que fait le Canada pour aider les immigrants et les réfugiés à s’établir une fois qu’ils sont ici?
• [IMMIGRANTS] Que fait le Canada pour aider les membres de votre communauté à s’établir une fois qu’ils sont ici?
• Que signifie l’intégration pour vous? Sonder : sociale/économique
• Comment se déroule l’intégration? Sonder : catalyseurs/obstacles/suggestions. Sonder les réfugiés syriens
  • Sonder : rôles d’autres intervenants, ex. province, municipalité, entreprises, etc.
• [FICHE DESCRIPTIVE DU MODÉRATEUR SUR L’ÉTABLISSEMENT DES NOUVEAUX ARRIVANTS] Annexe C : Information sur les services d’établissement et les résultats

LE CANADA ET LES ÉTATS-UNIS – 15 MINUTES

• Qu’avez-vous entendu récemment au sujet de la frontière canado-américaine? Sonder : Les demandeurs d’asile qui se présentent à la frontière canadienne.
• [LE MODÉRATEUR FOURNIT DE L’INFORMATION SUR LA SITUATION ACTUELLE.]
  • Annexe D : FAITS concernant l’Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs (pour le modérateur)
  • Annexe E : Aide visuelle sur le Programme d’octroi de l’asile (à distribuer aux participants)
• Regardons ensemble l’information que je viens de vous distribuer.
• Que pensez-vous de l’approche pour les réfugiés qui arrivent au Canada par leurs propres moyens et font une demande d’asile?
• Quelles sont les responsabilités du Canada?
• Quelles sont les répercussions sur le Canada? Sur les collectivités?
• Certains sont d’avis que l’Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs devrait être suspendue en raison des récents changements apportés aux politiques d’immigration des États-Unis. Qu’en pensez-vous? Quelles pourraient être les répercussions sur le Canada?
• De quelle façon le Canada devrait-il gérer la situation?

SERMENT DE CITOYENNETÉ – GROUPES DE LA POPULATION EN GÉNÉRAL – 10 MINUTES

Énoncé d’ouverture/information pour les participants :

La Loi sur la citoyenneté stipule que toute personne de 14 ans et plus qui présente une demande de citoyenneté doit prêter serment afin de remplir sa dernière obligation juridique pour devenir citoyen canadien. Cette obligation peut être supprimée dans le cas des personnes mineures et de celles qui ne peuvent pas comprendre ce que signifie prêter serment, en raison d’une incapacité mentale.

• Avez-vous entendu parler de la Commission de vérité et réconciliation du Canada? [Une brève description sera fournie.] Une des recommandations de la Commission de vérité et réconciliation consiste à modifier le serment de citoyenneté actuel pour inclure une nouvelle disposition au sujet des traités avec les peuples autochtones. La Commission recommande, entre autres, de remplacer le serment de citoyenneté actuel par un nouveau qui inclut une référence aux Autochtones.
• Je vais vous remettre une copie du serment actuel et du serment tel que modifié par la Commission de vérité et réconciliation du Canada. J’aimerais avoir vos commentaires sur les changements proposés. SONDER : langage clair / facile à comprendre / niveau de langage approprié

SERVICES AUX CLIENTS/EXÉCUTION DES PROGRAMMES/INFORMATION – GROUPES D’IMMIGRANTS – 10 MINUTES

• Avant la séance, je vous avais demandé de noter sur une feuille les sources que vous consultez pour obtenir de l’information sur les politiques, les services et les programmes liés à l’immigration, aux réfugiés et à la citoyenneté. Pouvez-vous me les remettre? [Annexe G]
• Est-ce que certains parmi vous suivent les médias sociaux d’Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada (Twitter, Facebook et YouTube)? (Si c’est le cas) Pourquoi les suivez-vous? Que font-ils de bien et que devrait-on améliorer?
• J'aimerais maintenant parler de vos perceptions ou de vos expériences avec les processus de demande d'IRCC.
• Pourriez-vous me décrire votre expérience avec un processus de demande d'IRCC? Aimeriez-vous souligner quoi que ce soit? Qu'avez-vous trouvé le plus difficile? Qu'avez-vous aimé? Avez-vous remarqué des changements positifs? Y a-t-il quoi que ce soit qui devrait être amélioré, selon vous?

PRIORITÉ POUR IRCC – 10 MINUTES

• Nous avons discuté de nombreux aspects de l’immigration au Canada.
• Selon vous, quelle est la principale responsabilité ou l’objectif prioritaire d’Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada?

Remercier les participants.

ANNEXE A : LES ENJEUX

• Une classe moyenne dont la taille diminue sans cesse
• La capacité de réussite des entreprises et industries locales
• La population vieillissante
• L’accès à des services de garde abordables
• L’accès aux soins de santé
• Les possibilités d’emploi
• L’accès au transport en commun
• La disponibilité des services
• Le coût du logement
• La criminalité
• La reconnaissance des titres de compétence étrangers
• L’itinérance/li>
• L’intégration des immigrants dans la collectivité
• La formation linguistique
• Le manque de réseaux de téléphonie cellulaire
• Le montant des prestations d’assurance-emploi pour ceux qui ne peuvent pas se trouver un emploi
• Le faible taux d’obtention du diplôme d’études secondaires
• La pauvreté
• La préservation d’un environnement propre
• La qualité des routes et des ponts
• La fiabilité de la connexion Internet haute vitesse
• Les services d’établissement pour les nouveaux arrivants
• La congestion routière
• Les jeunes qui quittent le pays pour chercher de meilleurs débouchés ailleurs

ANNEXE B : NIVEAUX D’IMMIGRATION ET CATÉGORIES

RENSEIGNEMENTS GÉNÉRAUX POUR LE MODÉRATEUR
L’approche adoptée pour établir le plan des niveaux de 2017 a été orientée par les commentaires formulés par les Canadiens et recueillis au cours de l’été, et par les provinces et territoires.

Catégorie d’immigration : Immigration économique
Cette catégorie comprend les demandeurs et les membres de leur famille qui les accompagnent dans le cadre des programmes fédéraux du système Entrée express et du Programme des candidats des provinces; les gens d’affaires immigrants; les aides familiaux; les travailleurs qualifiés et les gens d’affaires immigrants sélectionnés par le Québec.

• Cible en 2016 : 160 600
• Cible en 2017 : 172 500

Catégorie d’immigration : Regroupement familial
Cette catégorie comprend les époux, les conjoints de fait, les partenaires conjugaux, les enfants, les parents et les grands-parents parrainés.

• Cible en 2016 : 80 000
• Cible en 2017 : 84 000

Catégorie d’immigration : Refugiés et personnes protégées
Cette catégorie comprend les réfugiés réinstallés (pris en charge par le gouvernement ou parrainés par le secteur privé) ainsi que les personnes protégées qui deviennent résidents permanents.

• Cible en 2016 : 55 800
• Cible en 2017 : 40 000

Catégorie d’immigration : Personnes admises pour des raisons humanitaires et d’autres raisons
Cette catégorie comprend les personnes choisies pour des raisons d’ordre humanitaire ou pour des raisons d’intérêt public et les titulaires de permis.

• Cible en 2016 : 3 600
• Cible en 2017 : 3 500

TOTAL

• Cible en 2016 : 300 000
• Cible en 2017 : 300 000

ANNEXE C : INFORMATION SUR LES SERVICES D’ÉTABLISSEMENT ET LES RÉSULTATS

Renseignements généraux pour le modérateur

Éléments clés :

• Les Syriens sont satisfaits de leur nouvelle vie au Canada.
• Leurs besoins immédiats et essentiels sont comblés.
• Le taux d’intégration est semblable au taux d’intégration antérieur des réfugiés.
• Certains réfugiés syriens redonnent déjà à leurs collectivités.
• Les réfugiés pris en charge par le gouvernement connaissent moins les langues officielles du Canada.
• Les réfugiés adultes parrainés par le secteur privé sont plus scolarisés et connaissent le français ou l’anglais.
• Les taux d’emploi un an après l’arrivée au Canada : réfugiés pris en charge par le gouvernement = 10 % et ceux parrainés par le secteur privé = 50 %

Défis :

• Les réfugiés ont besoin de soutien et de temps supplémentaires pour s’habituer à leur nouvelle vie au Canada.
• Les familles sont nombreuses et leurs besoins en matière de logement plus grands
• L’emploi
• L’intégration sociale
• Les jeunes
• La santé mentale
• Les répercussions sur les systèmes de soutien à l’échelle locale

Soutien du revenu

• Les réfugiés reçoivent un soutien du revenu durant leur première année au Canada.
• Ceux qui ont besoin d’un soutien supplémentaire au terme des 12 premiers mois peuvent faire une demande d’aide sociale dans leur province ou territoire.

L’avenir

• Le Ministère mettra à profit les leçons retenues pour élaborer les prochaines initiatives en matière d’établissement.

Besoins d’information :

• Des séances d’orientation canadienne à l’étranger seront offertes pour aider les futurs arrivants à se préparer à leur vie au Canada.

Les faits :

• Puisque le gouvernement du Québec est responsable de ses propres services d’établissement et de réinstallation, cette information a trait aux réfugiés syriens à l’extérieur du Québec.

ANNEXE D : LES FAITS CONCERNANT L’ENTENTE SUR LES TIERS PAYS SÛRS

• L’Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs conclue entre le Canada et les États-Unis fait partie intégrante du Plan d’action sur la frontière intelligente.
• En vertu de l’Entente, les demandeurs d’asile doivent demander la protection du premier pays sûr où ils entrent, à moins d’être visés par une exception à l’Entente.
• L’Entente permet aux deux gouvernements de mieux gérer l’accès au système d’octroi de l’asile dans les deux pays pour les personnes qui traversent la frontière canado-américaine. Les deux pays ont signé l’Entente le 5 décembre 2002. Celle-ci est entrée en vigueur le 29 décembre 2004.
• À ce jour, les États-Unis représentent le seul pays désigné comme tiers pays sûr par le Canada en vertu de la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés.
• L’Entente ne s’applique pas aux citoyens américains ou aux résidents habituels des États-Unis qui ne sont citoyens d’aucun pays (les « apatrides »).
• Depuis les années 1980, de nombreux pays utilisent des ententes semblables à celles sur les tiers pays sûrs pour réduire la pression exercée sur les systèmes d’octroi de l’asile nationaux par la croissance continue de la migration à l’échelle mondiale. Au milieu des années 1990, le Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés a exprimé son appui à l’égard de telles ententes.

ANNEXE E : AIDES VISUELLE SUR LE PROGRAMME D’OCTROI DE L’ASILE

The picture is a visual aid used to describe the asylum program within Canada. It contains two images: one of road signs indicating where the bridge to Canada is and a second of people crossing the Canada-U.S. border on foot in the winter. The following text is included:

• Programme d’octroi de l’asile au Canada pour les personnes qui présentent une demande d’asile à partir du Canada
  • Demandes d’asile – Des individus traversent la frontière pour venir au Canada et faire une demande d’asile : impact de l’Entente des tiers pays sûrs
  • Des individus entrent au Canada par un port d’entrée désigné à la frontière et font une demande d’asile.
    • Avec l’Entente des tiers pays sûrs
      • Évaluation par l’ASFC pour déterminer si les individus peuvent entrer au Canada. Certains (comme ceux ayant commis des crimes graves) sont inadmissibles.
      • L’Entente des tiers pays sûrs s’applique, à moins que les individus puissent se prévaloir d’une exception, comme des liens familiaux au Canada.
      • Si aucune exception ne s’applique, les individus sont rapatriés aux États-Unis, où ils pourront demander la protection des réfugiés.
      • Le principe de base est que les individus doivent demander la protection dans le premier pays sûr où ils sont arrivés.
      • S’ils sont admissibles à la demande d’asile, ils auront accès aux services de soutien et aux soins de santé provisoires.
      • Tout individu dont la demande d’asile est acceptée reçoit le statut de personne protégée et peut faire une demande de résident permanent.
    • Sans l’Entente des tiers pays sûrs
      • Évaluation par l’ASFC pour déterminer si les individus peuvent entrer au Canada. Certains (comme ceux ayant commis des crimes graves) sont inadmissibles.
      • On ne peut empêcher quiconque de présenter une demande d’asile à la frontière.
      • S’ils sont admissibles à la demande d’asile, les individus auront accès aux services de soutien et aux soins de santé provisoires.
      • Tout individu dont la demande d’asile est acceptée reçoit le statut de personne protégée et peut faire une demande de résident permanent.
  • Des individus traversent illégalement la frontière canado-américaine (ailleurs qu’à un port d’entrée désigné)
    • Des individus traversent illégalement la frontière pour entrer au Canada (p. ex., traversent un champ jusqu’au Canada).
    • La GRC pourrait ou non les intercepter et émettre un avertissement.
    • Une fois au Canada, ils sont en état d’arrestation et la GRC les transfère à l’ASFC pour un contrôle de l’immigration.
    • Les individus peuvent présenter une demande d’asile.
    • L’Entente des tiers pays sûrs ne s’applique pas puisque les individus ne sont pas passés par un port d’entrée.
    • Les individus ne peuvent pas être rapatriés aux États-Unis.
    • S’ils sont admissibles à la demande d’asile, la majorité d’entre eux seront libérés en attente d’une audience devant la Commission de l’immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada.
    • S’ils sont admissibles à la demande d’asile, les individus auront accès aux services de soutien et aux soins de santé provisoires.
    • Tout individu dont la demande d’asile est acceptée reçoit le statut de personne protégée et peut faire une demande de résident permanent.

ANNEXE F : SERMENT DE CITOYENNETÉ

Serment actuel
Je jure (ou j’affirme solennellement) que je serai fidèle et porterai sincère allégeance à Sa Majesté la reine Elizabeth Deux, Reine du Canada, à ses héritiers et à ses successeurs, que j’observerai fidèlement les lois du Canada et que je remplirai loyalement mes obligations de citoyen canadien.

Recommandations du rapport de la Commission de vérité et réconciliation
Afin de réparer les séquelles laissées par les pensionnats autochtones et faire avancer le processus de réconciliation au Canada, la Commission de vérité et réconciliation du Canada a formulé plusieurs recommandations, dont la modification du serment de citoyenneté pour inclure les traités avec les peuples autochtones, et des changements au guide sur la citoyenneté canadienne. En ce qui concerne le serment de citoyenneté, la Commission de vérité et réconciliation a lancé cet appel à l’action :

Nouveaux arrivants au Canada
94. Nous demandons au gouvernement du Canada de remplacer le serment de citoyenneté par ce qui suit :

Serment propose
Je jure (ou j’affirme solennellement) que je serai fidèle et porterai sincère allégeance à Sa Majesté la reine Elizabeth Deux, Reine du Canada, à ses héritiers et à ses successeurs, que j’observerai fidèlement les lois du Canada, y compris les traités conclus avec les Autochtones au Canada, et que je remplirai loyalement mes obligations de citoyen canadien.

ANNEXE G : EXERCICE À FAIRE AVANT LA SÉANCE

Quelles sources consultez-vous pour obtenir de l’information sur les politiques, les services et les programmes en matière d’immigration, de réfugiés et de citoyenneté? Soyez le plus précis possible. Par exemple, si vous utilisez l’Internet, veuillez indiquer le ou les sites web, si ce sont les journaux, dites-nous lesquels, et ainsi de suite.

Prenez soin d’écrire lisiblement ! Le modérateur récupérera les feuilles durant la séance.

Cantonese Moderation Guide – March 2017

引言（5分鐘）

• 介紹主持人，歡迎參與者光臨焦點小組。
  • 正如我們在招募過程中所指出的，我們是代表加拿大政府舉行焦點小組討論。
• 討論將持續大約2小時。必要時可以隨時中途離開會場。
• 說明：
  • 錄音 – 討論會將錄音，供分析之用，以便我們核對會議記錄與筆記。這些錄音帶將由我們掌管，未經所有參與者書面同意，不會向任何人披露。
  • 單向鏡 – 政府代表會在鏡子後面旁觀討論。
  • 另外您應瞭解，您今天的回答不會在任何方面影響到您與加拿大政府的往來。
  • 保密 – 請注意，您在這些小組中的發言將會嚴格保密。我們不會將發言歸於特定人員的名下。我們的報告將匯總討論結果，但不會提及任何人的姓名。透過議會圖書館或加拿大檔案館可以查閱報告。
• 說明討論小組的運作方式：
  • 討論小組旨在激發開放坦誠的討論。身為主持人，我的任務是指導討論，鼓勵人人參與。主持人的另一個作用是確保討論緊扣主題，準時開始和結束。
  • 你們的任務是回答問題，發表意見。在焦點小組中，我們不僅聽取大多數人的意見，也聽取少數人的意見，因此，即便您感到您的意見可能與小組中的其他人不同，也請暢所欲言。其他人可能與您有共鳴，也可能沒有。每個人的意見都很重要，應該受到尊重。
  • 我還要強調的是，答案沒有對錯。我們只想瞭解您的意見及態度，而不是測試您的知識。我們並不要求您為此次小組討論作任何準備。
• 請注意，主持人並非加拿大政府雇員，不一定能回答您對討論議題所提出的某些問題。如果在討論過程中出現了重要問題，我們將儘量在您離開之前取得答案。（主持人作自我介紹）參與者應作自我介紹，僅提及各自的名字。
• 您的主要業餘愛好或業餘活動是什麼？

熱身活動（10分鐘）

• 您想到加拿大時，首先進入腦海的是什麼？探討：自豪的源泉
• [移民] 您為什麼選擇加拿大？您為什麼留在加拿大？

首要問題 – 15分鐘

所有參與者

• 您的社區面臨哪些挑戰？[移民小組 – 說明其族裔文化社區）（寫在活動會議板上）（附錄A）
  • [主持人將歸納所提供的清單 – 在探討參與者的首要清單之後，再探究未曾提到的問題]
• 您為什麼這麼說？具體的問題或顧慮是什麼？
• 您是否聽說聯邦政府將採取措施解決這一問題？
• 聯邦政府正在如何處理這一問題？

加拿大和移民 – 55分鐘

政府採用年度配額計劃來確定政府應在移民方面有哪些選擇及優先，而不僅僅只是進入加拿大的移民人數而已。[主持人資料便覽 – 附錄B]

• 移民人數 – 太多/正好/太少
  • 您為什麼說（太多/正好/太少）？
  • 規劃 – 今後數年？
• 移民類別/優先 [家庭、人道主義/經濟]
  • 經濟/人道主義/家庭
  • 難民/移民/尋求庇護者的區別
  • 加拿大能否在經濟移民計劃上向美國人和有美國工作經歷的其他人傾斜？（在移民快速通道申請程 序中加分）
• 移民目的：移民加拿大的主要目的是什麼？（15分鐘）
  • 探討： 經濟/人道主義/國家更新/國際義務

移民的好處/挑戰

接下來我想討論移民對加拿大的影響。也就是說有哪些好處及挑戰？
主持人來到活動會議板前：好吧，您認為有哪些好處/挑戰呢？其他人怎麼樣，您對這些有什麼感受呢？

探討

• 經濟繁榮
  • 解決人口老齡化/填補勞動力市場的需要/新思想/創新/創造就業機會
• 社會/文化影響
  • 多元化社會/啟發/對加拿大傳統的影響
• 安居/融合
  • 歡迎新移民/支持融合/歸屬感
  • 爭搶資源/社區層面/國家層面
• 加拿大的聲譽
  • 人道主義義務
  • 全球競爭力/作為移民首選國
• 全球競爭：國際學生、工人及遊客（英國/美國/澳洲）。為什麼加拿大更好？
• 勞動力市場需求/老齡化人口/經濟需要
• 在危機時期）能否適應不斷變化、不斷湧現的全球遷移需要/經濟需要？
• 對移民/對加拿大：安居/融合
• 形成歡迎的心態，而非懷疑或恐懼的氛圍。（其他國家）

安居與融合

• [一般居民] 移民和難民入境後，加拿大如何幫助他們安居？
• [移民] 加拿大如何幫助人們入境後在您的社區安居？
• 融合對您意味什麼？探討：社會/經濟？
• 融合進行得如何？探討：推動因素/障礙/建議？
• 這裡介紹一些關於安居的事實。[供主持人使用的安居結果資料便覽] 附錄C：融合/關於安居服務與結果的資訊
• 您有什麼想法/反應？

加拿大及美國 – 15分鐘

• 關於加美邊境，您最近聽到什麼？探討：尋求庇護者來到加拿大邊境
• [主持人提供關於目前情況的資訊]
  • 附錄D： 《安全第三國協定》相關事實（供主持人使用）
  • 附錄E： 關於庇護計劃的視覺材料（提供給參與者）
• 讓我們看一下剛才發給大家的資料。
• 您對這兩種體系有什麼看法（難民從海外被重新安置到加拿大/難民自行來到加拿大並在加拿大提出庇護申請）？
• 加拿大的責任是什麼？
• 這對加拿大有什麼影響？對社區呢？
• 有人說，由於美國移民政策最近發生的變化，《安全第三國協定》應暫緩執行。您怎麼看？這對加拿大會有什麼影響？
• 加拿大應如何處理這種情況？

入籍誓言 – 一般居民小組 – 10分鐘

開場白/提供給參與者的資訊

加拿大公民法規定，凡年滿14歲的公民申請人必須進行入籍宣誓，這是成為加拿大公民須履行的最後一項法律要求。未成年人可免除這項要求，因精神殘障而無法理解宣誓意義者也可免除。

• 您曾聽說過真相與和解委員會嗎？[提供簡要介紹] 真相與和解委員會所提建議之一涉及修改目前的公民誓言，在誓言中寫入與原住民協議相關的新措辭。
• 我將發給你們一份目前所用的誓言及真相與和解委員會建議修改的誓言，希望聽到你們對擬議修改的內容有何看法。

客戶服務/計劃的提供/資訊 – 移民組 – 10分鐘

• 在討論前，我請你們填寫一張表格，說明您從哪裡獲悉有關移民、難民及入籍的政策、服務與計劃？請您傳過去好嗎？
• 關於社交媒體，有沒有人關注IRCC的社交媒體頻道（Twitter、Facebook及YouTube）？（如果回答有）您為什麼關注該頻道？我們在哪些方面做得好，哪些方面有待改進？
• 接下來，我想討論大家對IRCC申請的瞭解或是經驗。
• 你們能告訴我一些在IRCC申請過程中的體驗嗎？有沒有哪些方面想要著重談的？您覺得最難的是什麼？您喜歡哪些方面（如過有喜歡的話）？看到哪些好的改變？哪些方面希望有所改進/加強？

IRCC的優先任務 –10分鐘

• 我們討論了加拿大移民的許多方面。
• 您認為加拿大移民、難民和公民部的主要責任或重點是什麼？

感謝參與者

附錄A：問題

• 中產階級不斷縮小
• 當地企業和產業取得成功的能力
• 人口老齡化
• 有無可負擔的托兒選擇
• 有無醫療保健服務
• 有無就業機會
• 有無公共交通
• 有無服務
• 住房費用
• 犯罪
• 外國資歷認可
• 無家可歸
• 移民融入社區
• 語言訓練
• 沒有手機訊號
• 找不到工作者享有的就業保險福利水準
• 中學畢業率低
• 貧困
• 保護清潔的環境
• 道路及橋樑的品質
• 可靠的寬頻或高速網際網路
• 新移民安居服務
• 交通堵塞
• 年輕人離鄉去他處尋找機會

附錄B：移民配額及類別資訊

供主持人使用的背景資訊：
2017配額計劃是在暑期各省及地區的加拿大人提供反饋的指導下制定的。

移民類別 : 經濟
包括快速通道系統聯邦計劃申請人及隨行家屬；省級提名計劃；商業移民；看護者；以及魁北克甄選的技術及商業移民

• 2016年目標 : 160,600
• 2017年目標 : 172,500

移民類別 : 家庭
包括擔保的配偶、伴侶、子女、父母和（外）祖父母

• 2016年目標 : 80,000
• 2017年目標 : 84,000

移民類別 : 難民及受保護人士
包括重新安置的難民（政府援助和私人資助）以及成為永久居民的受保護人士

• 2016年目標 : 55,800
• 2017年目標 : 40,000

移民類別 : 人道主義、恩恤及其他
包括基於人道主義及恩恤理由、公共政策原因而入選以及許可證持有者類別的人士。

• 2016年目標 : 3,600
• 2017年目標 : 3,500

總計

• 2016年目標 : 300,000
• 2017年目標 : 300,000

附錄C：關於安居服務與結果的資訊

供主持人使用的背景資訊

要點：

• 敘利亞人對自己在加拿大的生活很滿意。
• 他們的當前基本需求得到滿足。
• 融合率與過去難民群體基本相同。
• 一些敘利亞難民已經在回饋社區。
• 政府資助的難民對加拿大官方語言往往所知不多。
• 私人資助的成年難民往往教育程度較高，法語或英語掌握較好。
• 抵境一年之內就業率：政府資助的難民 – 10%，私人資助的難民 - 50%

挑戰：

• 仍需要一定的支援與時間來適應加拿大新生活
• 家庭人口多及住房
• 就業
• 社會融合
• 青少年
• 心理健康
• 正在對當地支援系統產生影響

收入補助

• 為難民在加拿大的第一年提供生活補助。
• 12個月後需要補助者，可申請省級/地區級社會援助。

展望未來

• 該部將吸取經驗教訓，將其運用於未來的重新安置措施。

資訊需求：

• 加拿大入境前介紹(Canada Orientation Abroad)資訊會，幫助他們為加拿大的生活做好準備。

相關事實：

• 因魁北克省設有自己的重新安置及安置服務，這一資訊僅關乎魁北克省以外的敘利亞難民。

附錄D：《安全第三國協定》相關事實

• 加美之間簽訂的《安全第三國協定》是加美智慧邊境行動計劃的組成部分。
• 根據該協定，難民申請人必須在其抵達的第一個安全國家提出難民保護申請，除非他們有資格不受該協定約束。
• 該協定幫助兩國政府更好管理跨越加美邊境的人士使用兩國的難民體系。兩國於2002年12月5日簽訂該協定，2004年12月29日起生效。
• 迄今為止，美國是加拿大根據《移民和難民保護法》指定為安全第三國的唯一國家。
• 該協定不適用於美國公民和並非任何一個國家之公民的美國慣常居民（「無國籍人士」）。
• 自二十世紀八十年代以來，世界各國已使用安全第三國協定，來應對全球遷徙的持續增長給國內庇護系統帶來的壓力。二十世紀九十年代中期，美國難民署表示支持這類協定。

附錄E：關於庇護計劃的視覺資料

The picture is a visual aid used to describe the asylum program within Canada. It contains two images: one of road signs indicating where the bridge to Canada is and a second of people crossing the Canada-U.S. border on foot in the winter. The following text is included:

• 加拿大國內庇護計劃: 在加拿大境內提出庇護申請者。
  • 庇護申請:申請者穿越陸地邊境，進入加拿大，提出庇護申請：《安全第三國協定》的影響
  • 申請者通過陸地邊境的指定入境口岸進入加拿大，並提出庇護申請
    • 有《安全第三國協定》
      • CBSA評估決定申請者能否進入加拿大。有些申請者不被允許入境（比如嚴重犯罪行為）
      • 《安全第三國協定》適用，除非申請者有資格按例外情況處理，這種例外情況往往是在加拿大有家庭聯繫
      • 如果沒有例外情況，則申請者將被送回美國，在美國尋求難民保護
      • 其依據是個人應在登陸的第一個安全國家尋求保護
      • 如果被認為有資格提出難民申請，則可獲補助/臨時保健服務
      • 個人成功申請到庇護，可獲得受保護人士身份，然後申請永久居民身份
    • 無《安全第三國協定》
      • CBSA評估決定申請者能否進入加拿大。 有些申請者不被允許入境（比如嚴重犯罪行為).
      • 無法阻止申請者在陸地邊境提出庇護申請
      • 如果被認定有資格提出難民申請，則可獲補助/臨時保健服務
      • 申請者成功申請到庇護，可獲得受保護人士身份，然後申請永久居民身份
  • 個人在陸地邊境從美國非法進入加拿大（即不是通過指定的入境口岸進入美國）
    • 申請者非法進入加拿大（即步行穿過田野進入加拿大）
    • RCMP不一定能夠攔截並提出警告
    • 一旦進入加拿大，被RCMP逮捕，移交CBSA進行移民審查
    • 申請者可以提出庇護申請
    • 因申請者未通過入境口岸進入加拿大，因此不適用《安全第三國協定》
    • 不能將申請者送回美國
    • 如果申請者有資格提出庇護申請，大多數人會被釋放，等候加拿大移民和難民委員會聆訊。
    • 如果被認為有資格提出難民申請，則可獲補助/臨時保健服務
    • 個人成功申請到庇護，可獲得受保護人士身份，然後申請永久居民身份

附錄F：入籍誓言

目前誓言
我宣誓（或確認），我將忠誠於並效忠於加拿大女王伊莉莎白二世陛下、其後嗣及繼任者，並將切實遵守加拿大的法律，履行作為加拿大公民的責任。

真相與和解報告的資訊：建議
為糾正寄宿學校的遺留問題，推進加拿大和解進程，真相與和解委員會提出若干建議，包括修改公民誓言，以反映《原住民條約》並更改加拿大公民學習指南的內容。關於公民誓言，真相與和解委員會呼籲採取以下行動。

加拿大新移民
94. 我們呼籲加拿大政府以下列文字替代入籍誓言：

擬議誓言
我宣誓（或確認），我將忠誠於並效忠於加拿大女王伊莉莎白二世陛下、其後嗣及繼任者，並將切實遵守加拿大的法律，包括《原住民條約》，履行作為加拿大公民的責任。

Mandarin Moderation Guide – March 2017

简介（5分钟）

• 介绍主持人并欢迎参加者参加焦点小组。
  • 如我们在招募过程中指出的那样，我们是在代表加拿大政府开展焦点小组讨论。
• 讨论将持续约2个小时。如有必要，您可在讨论期间随意离开。
• 说明：
  • 录音——讨论将为分析目的而录音以便我们在必要时再次根据我们的笔记核对讨论记录。这些录音将由我们持有且未经所有参加者同意不会发给任何人。
  • 单向镜——有代表政府的观察员，他们将在玻璃后面观察讨论。
  • 您今天的反应不以任何方式影响您与加拿大政府的关系。您知道这一点也很重要。
  • 保密——请注意：您在这些小组中说的任何话均将予以最严格的保密。我们不指出某意见是具体哪个人提出的。我们的报告总结小组的讨论结果但是并不提到任何人的姓名。报告可通过议会图书馆或加拿大档案馆查阅。
• 描述讨论组如何运作：
  • 讨论组的设置旨在促进开诚布公的讨论。作为主持人，我的作用是引导讨论并鼓励大家踊跃参加讨论。主持人的另一个作用是确保讨论围绕主题并按时进行。
  • 您的任务是回答问题并表达自己的意见。在焦点小组中，我们既希望听到少数意见也希望听到多数意见。因此，即便您觉得自己的意见可能跟小组中其他人的不同，您也不要不表达自己的意见。可能有人也可能没有人赞同您的观点。每个人的观点都重要，都应得到尊重。
  • 我还想强调，没有错误的回答。我们只是想了解您的意见和态度。这不是在测试您的知识。我们没期望您为这个小组讨论做什么准备。
• 请注意：主持人不是加拿大政府的雇员，可能无法回答您关于我们所讨论事情的一些问题。如果在小组讨论过程中出现重要问题，那么我们将努力在您离开之前为您找到答案。（主持人介绍自己。）参加者应当介绍自己，只用“名字”。
• 您的主要爱好或消遣活动是什么？

预热（10分钟）

• 想到加拿大时，您脑海中会出现什么？调查：自豪感的来源
• 【移民】什么让您选择加拿大？什么让您留下来？

首先想到的问题——15分钟

• 您的社区正在面临什么挑战？【移民组——指出其民族文化社区（写在挂图上）】【附件A】
  • 【主持人将总结参加者列出的挑战——将在探讨参加者列出的最重要挑战之后探讨那些尚未提到的挑战】
• 您为什么那样说？这里的问题或担忧具体是什么？
• 您听说过解决这一问题的什么联邦政府行动吗？
• 联邦政府在如何处理这个问题？

加拿大和移民——55分钟

加拿大移民配额/优先顺序

政府使用年度配额计划来确定政府在移民方面的选择和优先顺序。配额计划不仅仅是来到加拿大的移民的数量。【主持人的情况简报——附件B】

• 移民的数量——太多/合适/太少
  • 您为什么这样说（太多/合适/太少）？
  • 规划——几年的？
• 移民类别/优先顺序【家庭、人道主义/经济】
  • 经济/人道主义/家庭
  • 难民/移民/寻求庇护者之间的区别
  • 加拿大可以在经济类移民计划中更多地考虑美国人和有美国工作经验的其他人吗？（快速通道申请过程中的加分点）
• 移民的目的移民到加拿大的主要目的是什么？（15分钟）
  • 调查：经济/人道主义/国家重建/国际义务

移民的好处/挑战

接下来我想讨论移民对加拿大的影响。也就是说，好处和挑战是什么？
主持人走到挂图处：您发现的好处/挑战是什么？有其他的吗？您对这些好处/挑战感觉如何？

调查

• 经济繁荣
  • 应对人口老化/填补劳动力市场需求/新理念/创新/创造就业机会
• 社会/文化影响
  • 多元社会/启示/加拿大传统
• 安置/融合
  • 欢迎新来者/支持融合/归属感
  • 资源竞争/社区层面/国家层面
• 加拿大的声誉
  • 人道主义义务
  • 全球竞争力/作为移民国家选项
• 全球竞争：国际学生、工人和访客（英国/美国/澳大利亚）。什么让加拿大变得更好？
• 劳动力市场需求/人口老化/经济需要
• 能够适应变化中和新出现的全球移民需求/经济需要（在危机时期吗？）
• 对于移民/对于加拿大：安置/融合
• 营造欢迎新来者的气氛，而不是怀疑或恐惧气氛。（其他国家）

安置和融合

• 【一般人群】移民和难民到达后，加拿大做了什么来立即帮助他们？
• 【移民】安置在您社区的人到达后，加拿大做了什么来立即帮助他们？
• 融合对您来说意味着什么？调查：社会方面/经济方面？
• 融合进行得如何？调查：推动因素/障碍/建议
• 如下为关于安置的一些介绍。【为主持人提供的安置结果概况】附件C：融合/关于安置服务和结果的信息
• 您的想法/反应是什么？

加拿大和美国——15分钟

• 关于加拿大和美国边境，您最近听说过什么？调查：来到加拿大边境的寻求庇护者
• 【主持人介绍当前情况】
  • 附件D：《安全第三国协议》简介（为主持人提供）
  • 附件E：庇护计划的直观介绍（向参加者提供）
• 我们看一下我刚给您的信息。
• 您觉得这两个系统（来自海外而重新安置的难民/自己来到加拿大并寻求庇护的人）怎么样？
• 加拿大的责任是什么？
• 这对加拿大有什么影响？对社区呢？
• 有人说，由于美国移民政策最近有变动，应暂停《安全第三国协议》。您如何看？这可能对加拿大有什么影响？
• 加拿大应如何处理这种情况？

公民誓言——一般人群——10分钟

开场说明/向参加者提供的信息：

《公民法》要求：年满14周岁的公民身份申请人必须宣誓遵守成为加拿大公民的最终法律要求。未成年人和由于智力低下而无法理解宣誓意义的人可免于遵守这一要求。

• 您们中有人听说过真相与和解委员会吗？【将提供概述】真相与和解委员会的建议之一涉及修改目前在公民身份申请中使用的誓词，加入与原住民的条约相关的表述。
• 我将向您提供一份当前的誓词和真相与和解委员会修改后的誓词。我想了解您对该委员会的改动有什么看法。

客户服务/计划落实/信息——移民组——10分钟

• 在小组讨论开始前，我请您填写了一张表，指出您从哪里得知与移民、难民和公民身份相关的政策、服务和计划。您可以把那表传过来吗？
• 有人关注加拿大移民、难民及公民部的社交媒体（推特、脸谱和YouTube）吗？（如果“有”）您为什么关注？我们在哪些方面做得不错或需要改进？
• 接下来我想讨论您关于向移民、难民及公民部申请的感受或经历。
• 关于向移民、难民及公民部申请的过程，您能介绍一点儿您的经历吗？有什么您想强调的吗？您觉得什么最难？您喜欢哪些方面（如有）？有什么您发现已经改进的吗？有什么您希望看到改进/强化的吗？

移民、难民及公民部的优先顺序——10分钟

• 我们已经讨论了移民加拿大的许多方面。
• 您认为移民、难民及公民部的主要责任或重点是什么？

感谢参加者

附件A：问题

• 中产阶级萎缩
• 当地企业和行业能够取得成功
• 人口老龄化
• 有负担得起的儿童保育服务
• 有医疗服务
• 有工作
• 有公共交通
• 有服务
• 住房成本
• 犯罪
• 海外资历认证
• 无家可归
• 移民融入社区
• 语言培训
• 手机覆盖面不足
• 无法找到工作的人享受失业保险福利的程度
• 高中毕业率较低
• 贫困
• 保持干净环境
• 道路和桥梁的质量
• 可靠的宽带或高速互联网
• 新来者的安置服务
• 交通堵塞
• 年轻人前往其他地方寻找机会

附件B：移民配额和类别信息

为主持人提供的背景信息：
2017年配额计划是根据夏季从不同省份和地区的加拿大人那里收集的反馈制定的。

移民类别 : 经济类移民
包括快速通道制度中联邦计划下的申请人和随行家属；省提名计划；商业移民；照管者；魁北克省遴选的熟练工人和商业移民

• 2016年目标 : 160,600
• 2017年目标 : 172,500

移民类别 : 家庭类移民
包括有担保的配偶、伴侣和孩子以及父母和祖父母

• 2016年目标 : 80,000
• 2017年目标 : 84,000

移民类别 : 难民和受保护人士
包括重新安置的难民（政府援助的和私人担保的）以及成为永久居民的受保护人士

• 2016年目标 : 55,800
• 2017年目标 : 40,000

移民类别 : 人道主义和同情及其他类
包括按照公共政策而由于人道主义和同情遴选、属于许可持有者类别的人。

• 2016年目标 : 3,600
• 2017年目标 : 3,500

合计

• 2016年目标 : 300,000
• 2017年目标 : 300,000

附件C：关于安置服务和结果的信息

为主持人提供的背景信息

要点：

• 叙利亚人认为他们在加拿大的生活很幸福。
• 他们的迫切需求和基本需求均得到满足。
• 融合率与以前的难民相同
• 一些叙利亚难民已经在回馈自己的社区
• 政府援助的难民往往不太懂加拿大的官方语言
• 私人担保的成年难民大多受过良好教育并通晓法语或英语。
• 到加拿大一年之内的就业率：政府援助的难民：10%，私人担保的难民：50%

挑战：

• 仍然需要一些支持和时间来适应他们在加拿大的新生活
• 家庭规模和住房更大
• 就业
• 社会融合
• 青年
• 心理健康
• 对当地支持制度的影响正在持续

收入支持

• 难民进入加拿大第一年期间享受收入支持。
• 12个月后请求支持的人可申请省/地区社会援助。

后续行动

• 移民、难民及公民部将吸取经验教训并将其运用到将来的重新安置举措中。

信息需求：

• 在国外举行的加拿大情况介绍会帮助他们为在加拿大的生活做准备。

备注：

• 由于魁北克省自行负责其重新安置和安置服务，此信息仅适用于魁北克省以外的叙利亚难民。

附件D：《安全第三国协议》简介

• 加拿大和美国之间的《安全第三国协议》是“美国--加拿大智能边境行动计划”的一部分。
• 根据该协议，声称自己是难民的人须在其到达的第一个安全国申请难民保护，除非其符合该协议的例外情况。
• 该协议有助于两国政府更好地处理穿越加拿大--美国陆地边境的人在每个国家的难民制度利用情况。两国于2002年12月5日签署该协议，该协议于2004年12月29日生效。
• 截至目前，美国是加拿大根据《移民和难民保护法》指定为安全第三国的唯一国家。
• 该协议不适用于美国公民或不属于任何国家公民（“无国籍人”）的美国常住居民。
• 自20世纪80年代以来，世界各国已将安全第三国类型的协议用于应对全民移民持续增多给国内庇护制度带来的压力。20世纪90年代中期，联合国难民署表示支持这种协议。

附件E: 庇护项目视觉图示

The picture is a visual aid used to describe the asylum program within Canada. It contains two images: one of road signs indicating where the bridge to Canada is and a second of people crossing the Canada-U.S. border on foot in the winter. The following text is included:

• 加拿大国内的庇护项目针对在加拿大国内提出庇护申请的人们
  • 庇护申请– 穿越陆地边境进入加拿大后提出庇护申请的个人: 《安全第三国协议》的影响
  • 个人通过陆地边境上的指定地点进入加拿大并提出庇护申请
    • 执行《安全第三国协议》
      • 加拿大边境服务局（CBSA）评估决定这些个人是否可以进入加拿大，有些人不能入境（例如，严重的刑事犯罪）
      • 如果没有人符合例外条件（符合例外条件的人大多数是有亲属在加拿大），《安全第三国协议》生效
      • 如果没有例外情况，这些个人将被送回美国去寻求难民保护
      • 理由是个人应该在他们进入的第一个安全国家寻求庇护
      • 如果被判定可以申请庇护，就可以获得协助/临时医疗服务
      • 庇护申请成功后可获得被庇护人身份，这些人可以随后申请永久居民身份
    • 不执行《安全第三国协议》
      • 加拿大边境服务局（CBSA）评估决定这些个人是否可以进入加拿大，有些人不能入境（例如，严重的刑事犯罪）
      • 不能阻止任何人在陆上边境提出庇护申请
      • 如果被判定可以申请庇护，就可以获得协助/临时医疗服务
      • 庇护申请成功后可获得被庇护人身份，这些人可以随后申请永久居民身份
  • 个人非法从美国跨越陆地边境进入加拿大（例如，没有在指定的地点进入加拿大）
    • 个人非法穿越进入加拿大（例如，穿过一块地进入加拿大）
    • 皇家骑警可能或不能进行拦截并警告
    • 一旦进入加拿大，皇家骑警进行抓捕，移交给加拿大边境服务局进行移民审查
    • 个人可以提出庇护申请
    • 《安全第三国协议》无效，因为这些人没有通过指定地点进入
    • 这些人不会被送回美国
    • 大多数可以提出庇护申请者会被释放，等待加拿大移民和难民委员会的听证会
    • 如果被判定可以申请庇护，就可以获得协助/临时医疗服务
    • 庇护申请成功后可获得被庇护人身份，这些人可以随后申请永久居民身份

附件F: 公民誓词

当前誓词
谨此宣誓（或声明）本人将忠实并效忠于加拿大女王伊丽莎白二世女王陛下及其继位人和继承人，并将忠实信守加拿大法律，履行加拿大公民之义务。

来自《真相及和解报告》的信息：建议
为了解决寄宿学校的遗留问题和促进加拿大人民的和解，真相及和解委员会提出了几项建议，其中包括修改公民誓词，以体现和原住民签订的条约，修订加拿大公民知识指南。就公民誓词，真相及和解委员会发出以下行动倡议。

加拿大新移民
94.我们呼吁加拿大政府把公民誓词换成以下词句:

建议誓词
谨此宣誓（或声明）本人将忠实并效忠于加拿大女王伊丽莎白二世女王陛下及其继位人和继承人，并将忠实信守加拿大法律，包括和原住民签署的条约，履行加拿大公民之义务。

Punjabi Moderation Guide – March 2017

ਜਾਣ ਪਛਾਣ- ੫ (5) ਮਿੰਟ

• ਫੋਕਸ ਗਰੁੱਪ ਦੇ ਸੰਚਾਲਕ, ਅਤੇ ਹਿੱਸਾ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਾਂ ਦਾ ਸਵਾਗਤ
  • ਭਰਤੀ ਪ੍ਰਕਿਰਿਆ (ਰਿਕਰੂਟਮੈਂਟ) ਦੌਰਾਨ ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਗਈ ਸੀ ਕੇ ਇਹ ਚਰਚਾ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੀ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਤਰਫ਼ੋਂ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਜਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ.
• ਚਰਚਾ ਲਗਭਗ 2 ਘੰਟੇ ਚਲੇਗੀ. ਚਰਚਾ ਸੈਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਜੇ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਮਹਿਸੂਸ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਸੁਵਿਧਾਵਾਂ ਦਾ ਇਸਤੇਮਾਲ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ.
• ਵਿਆਖਿਆ
  • ਆਡੀਓ-ਟੇਪ- ਇਹ ਚਰਚਾ ਵਿਸ਼ਲੇਸ਼ਣ ਦੇ ਮਕਸਦ ਨਾਲ ਆਡੀਓ ਟੱਪੇ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ, ਜੇਕਰ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਨਾਲ ਲਾਏ ਜਾ ਰਹੇ ਲਿਖਣ ਨੋਟਸ ਨੂੰ ਬਾਅਦ ਵਿਚ ਮਿਲਣ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਪਾਵੇ ਤੇ ਇਸ ਦਾ ਇਸਤੇਮਾਲ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਵੇਗਾ. ਇਹ ਆਡੀਓ-ਟੇਪ ਸਾਡੇ ਕਬਜ਼ੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਰਹੇਗਾ ਅਤੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਹਿੱਸਾ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਲਿਖਤੀ ਸਹਿਮਤੀ ਤੋਂ ਬਗੈਰ ਕਿਸੇ ਨੂੰ ਜਾਰੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਵੇਗਾ.
  • ਇਕ ਤਰਫਾ ਸ਼ੀਸ਼ਾ- ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੇ ਕੁਜ ਸਰਕਾਰੀ ਸੰਚਾਲਕ ਇਸ ਚਰਚਾ ਨੂੰ ਇਕ ਤਰਫਾ ਸ਼ੀਸ਼ੇ ਦੇ ਉਸ ਤਰਫ਼ੋਂ ਦੇਖ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ.
  • ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਲਈ ਇਹ ਜਾਣਨਾ ਮਹੱਤਵਪੂਰਨ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਅੱਜ ਦੀ ਚਰਚਾ ਵਿਚ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਗਏ ਜਵਾਬ ਕਿਸੇ ਵੀ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਅਤੇ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੀ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਵਿਚਲੇ ਵਰਤਾ ਵਿਚ ਕਿਸੇ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਦਾ ਅਸਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾਉਣਗੇ.
  • ਗੁਪਤਤਾ - ਕਿਰਪਾ ਕਰਕੇ ਨੋਟ ਕਰੋ, ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਜਵਾਬ ਗੁਪਤ ਰਾਖੇ ਜਾਣਗੇ. ਅਸੀਂ ਕੋਈ ਵਿਅਕਤੀਗਤ ਟਿੱਪਣੀ ਦਾ ਖੁਲਾਸਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਾਂਗੇ. ਸਾਡੀ ਰਿਪੋਰਟ ਗਰੁੱਪ ਖੁਲਾਸੇ ਨੂੰ ਸੰਖੇਪ ਕਰਦੀ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਕੋਈ ਵੀ ਨਾਮ ਦੇ ਕੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਵੀ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਨੂੰ ਜ਼ਿਕਰ ਨਹੀ ਕਰਦੀ. ਇਹ ਰਿਪੋਰਟ ਸੰਸਦ ਦੇ ਲਾਇਬ੍ਰੇਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਆਰਕਾਈਵ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਇਸਤੇਮਾਲ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ.
• ਦੱਸੋ ਕੀ ਇਹ ਚਰਚਾ ਗਰੁੱਪ ਕਿਸ ਤਰਾ ਕਮ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ
  • ਇਹ ਚਰਚਾ ਗਰੁੱਪ ਇੱਕ ਖੁੱਲੀ ਅਤੇ ਇਮਾਨਦਾਰ ਚਰਚਾ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰੋਤਸਾਹਿਤ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ. ਇੱਕ ਸੰਚਾਲਕ ਦੇ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਮੇਰੀ ਭੂਮਿਕਾ ਇਸ ਚਰਚਾ ਦੀ ਅਗਵਾਈ ਕਰਨਾ ਅਤੇ ਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਹਿੱਸਾ ਲੈਣ ਲਈ ਉਤਸ਼ਾਹਿਤ ਕਰਨਾ ਹੈ. ਸੰਚਾਲਕ ਦਾ ਇਕ ਹੋਰ ਕਾਮ ਹੈ; ਇਸ ਚਰਚਾ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਸ਼ੇ ਤੇ ਰੱਖਣਾ ਅਤੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਸਿਰ ਪੂਰਾ ਕਰਨਾ.
  • ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਭੂਮਿਕਾ ਆਪਣੇ ਵਿਚਾਰਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਆਵਾਜ਼ ਕਰਨਾ ਅਤੇ ਸਵਾਲਾਂ ਦੇ ਜਵਾਬ ਦੇਣਾ ਹੈ. ਇਸ ਚਰਚਾ ਗਰੁੱਪ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਘੱਟ ਗਿਣਤੀ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ- ਨਾਲ ਬਹੁਮਤ ਰਾਏ ਦੀ ਵੀ ਤਲਾਸ਼ ਹੈ, ਇਸ ਲਈ ਜੇਕਰ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਇੱਕ ਟਿੱਪਣੀ ਵੀ ਸਮੂਹ ਨਾਲੋਂ ਵੱਖ ਹੈ, ਤਾਂ ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਜਰੂਰ ਜਾਹਿਰ ਕਰੋ. ਬਾਕੀ ਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਟਿੱਪਣੀਆਂ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਨਾਲੋਂ ਵੱਖ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀਆਂ ਨੇ. ਹਰ ਕਿਸੇ ਦੀ ਰਾਏ ਮਹੱਤਵਪੂਰਨ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਉਸ ਦੀ ਇੱਜ਼ਤ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ.
  • ਇਹ ਜਾਣਨਾ ਮਹੱਤਵਪੂਰਨ ਹੈ ਕੇ ਕੋਈ ਜਵਾਬ ਗਲਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ. ਅਸੀਂ ਕੇਵਲ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਰਵਈਏ ਨੂੰ ਜਾਣਨਾ ਹੈ. ਇਹ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਗਿਆਨ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰੀਖਿਆ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ. ਅਸੀਂ ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਇਸ ਗਰੁੱਪ ਲਈ ਕਿਸੇ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਦੀ ਤਿਆਰੀ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਕੋਈ ਉਮੀਦ ਨਹੀਂ ਕੀਤੀ.
• ਕਿਰਪਾ ਕਰਕੇ ਯਾਦ ਰੱਖੋ ਕਿ ਸੰਚਾਲਕ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੀ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਦਾ ਮੁਲਾਜ਼ਮ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਅੱਜ ਦੀ ਚਰਚਾ ਵਿਚ ਉਹ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਕੁਜ ਸਵਾਲਾਂ ਦੇ ਜਵਾਬ ਦੇਣ ਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ. ਜੇਕਰ ਚਰਚਾ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਕੋਈ ਅਹਿਮ ਸਵਾਲ ਆਉਂਦੇ ਨੇ, ਤੇ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਜਾਣ ਤੋਂ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਲਈ ਜਵਾਬ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਪੂਰੀ ਕੋਸ਼ਿਸ਼ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਵੇਗੀ. (ਸੰਚਾਲਕ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕਰੇ). ਹਿੱਸਾ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਭਾਗੀਦਾਰ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ, ਸਿਰਫ ਆਪਣੇ ਪਹਿਲੇ ਨਾਮ ਵਰਤ ਕੇ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕਰਨ.
• ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਮੁਖ ਸ਼ੋਂਕ ਕਿ ਹਨ.

ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤੀ ਗੱਲਬਾਤ ੧੦ (10) ਮਿੰਟ

• ਜਦ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੋਚਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਮਨ ਵਿਚ ਸਬ ਤੋਂ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਕੀ ਆਉਂਦਾ ਹੈ. ਪੜਤਾਲ: ਹੰਕਾਰ/ਮਾਣ ਦੇ ਸ੍ਰੋਤ
• [ਪਰਵਾਸੀ] ਤੁਸੀਂ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੀ ਚੋਣ ਕਿਉਂ ਕੀਤੀ? ਕਿਸ ਚੀਜ਼ ਨੇ ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਇਥੇ ਰਹਿਣ ਲਈ ਪ੍ਰੇਰਿਤ ਕੀਤਾ?

ਮਨ ਦੇ ਸਿਖਰ ਦੇ ਮੁੱਦੇ – ੧੫ (15) ਮਿੰਟ

ਸਾਰੇ ਭਾਗੀਦਾਰ

• ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਭਾਈਚਾਰੇ ਨੂੰ ਕਿਸ ਤਰਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਚੁਣੌਤੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਸਾਹਮਣਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਪੈ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ? [ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀ ਗਰੁੱਪ - ਨਿਰਧਾਰਤ ਨਸਲੀ ਭਾਈਚਾਰੇ (ਕਮਿਊਨਿਟੀ) ਦਾ ਜਿਕਰ ਕਰੋ) (ਉਲਟ ਚਾਰਟ (ਫਿਲਿਪ ਚਾਰਟ) ਤੇ ਲਿਖੋ [ਅੰਨੇਸ 'ਅ']
  • [ਸੰਚਾਲਕ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਸੂਚੀ ਨੂੰ ਸੰਖੇਪ ਕਰੇਗਾ - ਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਾਂ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਜ਼ਿਕਰ ਕੀਤੀ ਗਈ ਚੋਟੀ ਦੀ ਸੂਚੀ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਰਹਿ ਗਏ ਵਿਚਾਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਪੜਤਾਲ ਕਰੇਗਾ]
• ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਇਹ ਕਹਿਣ ਦੇ ਕੀ ਕਾਰਣ ਹਨ? ਇਥੇ ਖਾਸ ਮੁੱਦਾ ਜਾ ਚਿੰਤਾ ਕੀ ਹੈ?
• ਇਸ ਮੁੱਦੇ ਨੂੰ ਹੱਲ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਕਦੇ ਫੈਡਰਲ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਦੀ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੁਣਿਆ ਹੈ.
• ਫੈਡਰਲ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਇਸ ਮੁੱਦੇ 'ਤੇ ਕੀ ਕਰ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ?

ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਅਤੇ ਆਵਾਸ – ੫੫ (55) ਮਿੰਟ

ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦਾ ਆਵਾਸ ਪੱਧਰ / ਤਰਜੀਹ

ਆਵਾਸ ਨੂੰ ਲੈ ਕੇ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਸਾਲਾਨਾ ਯੋਜਨਾ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਲੱਗੇ ਕਈ ਸਤਰਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਤਜਵੀਜ਼ ਦੇਂਦੀ ਹੈ. ਇਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਤਜਵੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਸਿਰਫ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਆਉਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਗਿਣਤੀ ਹੀ ਨਹੀਂ, ਬਲਕਿ ਹੋਰ ਵੀ ਕਈ ਸਤਰ ਹਨ. [ਸੰਚਾਲਕ ਲਈ ਤੱਥ ਸ਼ੀਟ - ਅੰਨੇਸ ਬੀ]

• ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਗਿਣਤੀ - ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੇ /ਸਹੀ ਹੈ / ਬਹੁਤ ਘੱਟ
  • ਅਤੇ, ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਇਹ ਕਹਿਣ ਦਾ ਕਾਰਣ (ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੇ / ਸਹੀ ਹੈ / ਬਹੁਤ ਘੱਟ)?
  • ਯੋਜਨਾ - ਕਈ ਸਾਲ ਤੱਕ?
• ਆਵਾਸੀ ਵਰਗ / ਤਜਵੀਜ਼ [ਪਰਿਵਾਰ, ਮਨੁੱਖੀ / ਆਰਥਿਕ]
  • ਆਰਥਿਕ / ਮਾਨਵਤਾ ਵਾਦੀ/ ਪਰਿਵਾਰ
  • ਸ਼ਰਣਾਰਥੀ / ਪਰਵਾਸੀ / ਪਨਾਹ ਮੰਗਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਦੇ ਵਿਚਕਾਰ ਅੰਤਰ.
  • ਅਮਰੀਕੀ ਲੋਕ ਅਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਲੋਕ ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਅਮਰੀਕਾ ਵਿਚ ਕੰਮ ਦਾ ਤਜਰਬਾ ਹੈ, ਓਨਹਾ ਨੂੰ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਆਰਥਿਕ ਪ੍ਰੋਗਰਾਮ ਵਿੱਚ ਬਹੁਤਾ ਮਹੱਤਵ ਦੇ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ? (ਐਕਸਪ੍ਰੈਸ ਐਂਟਰੀ ਅਰਜ਼ੀ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਵਾਧੂ ਅੰਕ)
• ਆਵਾਸ ਦੇ ਮਕਸਦ: ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦਾ ਆਵਾਸ ਦਾ ਮੁੱਖ ਮਕਸਦ ਕੀ ਹੈ? (੧੫ [15] ਮਿੰਟ)
  • ਪੜ ਤਾਲ: ਆਰਥਿਕ / ਮਾਨਵਤਾ ਵਾਦੀ / ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਨਵੀਨੀਕਰਣ/ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਫਰਜ਼

ਆਵਾਸ ਦੀਆਂ ਚੁਣੌਤੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਲਾਭ

ਹੁਣ ਅਸੀਂ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਉੱਤੇ ਆਵਾਸ ਦੇ ਅਸਰ ਬਾਰੇ ਚਰਚਾ ਕਰਾਂਗੇ. ਆਵਾਸ ਦੇ ਲਾਭ ਅਤੇ ਚੁਣੌਤੀਆਂ ਕੀ ਹਨ?
ਸੰਚਾਲਕ ਫਿਲਿਪ ਚਾਰਟ ਤੇ ਜਾਵੇ: ਤੁਸੀਂ ਕਿਹੜੇ ਲਾਭ/ਚੁਣੌਤੀ ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਦੀ ਪਛਾਣ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ? ਬਾਕੀ ਸਾਰੇ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਕੀ ਮਹਿਸੂਸ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋ?

ਪੜਤਾਲ

• ਆਰਥਿਕ ਖੁਸ਼ਹਾਲੀ
  • ਬਿਰਧ ਆਬਾਦੀ ਦੀ ਸਮੱਸਿਆ/ ਕਿਰਤ ਬਜ਼ਾਰ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਭਰਨਾ/ ਨਵੇਂ ਵਿਚਾਰ / ਆਵਿਸ਼ਕਾਰ/ਨੌਕਰੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਸ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਟੀ
• ਸਮਾਜਕ/ ਸਭਿਆਚਾਰਕ ਅਸਰ
  • ਵਿਵਿਧ ਸਮਾਜ / ਪ੍ਰੇਰਨਾ / ਕਨੇਡੀਅਨ ਪਰੰਪਰਾ
• ਵੱਸਣਾ/ ਏਕੀਕਰਨ
  • ਨਵੇਂ ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਸਵਾਗਤ / ਏਕੀਕਰਨ ਵਿਚ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ / ਆਪਣੇਪਨ ਦੀ ਭਾਵਨਾ
  • ਸਾਧਨਾ ਲਈ ਮੁਕਾਬਲਾ/ ਭਾਈਚਾਰੇ ਦੇ ਪੱਧਰ ਤੇ/ਕੌਮੀ ਪੱਧਰ
• ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੀ ਸਾਖ
  • ਮਾਨਵਤਾ ਵਾਦੀ ਫਰਜ਼
  • ਗਲੋਬਲ ਮੁਕਾਬਲੇਬਾਜ਼ੀ /ਆਵਾਸ ਲਈ ਚੁਣਿੰਦਾ ਦੇਸ਼
• ਗਲੋਬਲ ਮੁਕਾਬਲਾ: ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਵਿਦਿਆਰਥੀ, ਕਾਰਜ ਕਰਤਾ ਅਤੇ ਸੈਲਾਨੀ (ਯੂ ਕੇ / ਅਮਰੀਕਾ / ਆਸਟ੍ਰੇਲੀਆ). ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਨੂੰ ਕੀ ਬਿਹਤਰ ਬਣਾ ਦਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ?
• ਲੇਬਰ ਮਾਰਕੀਟ ਦੀਆਂ ਲੋੜਾਂ/ / ਬਿਰਧ ਆਬਾਦੀ ਆਰਥਿਕ ਲੋੜ
• ਗਲੋਬਲ ਆਵਾਸੀ ਲੋੜਾਂ/ ਆਰਥਿਕ ਲੋੜਾਂ (ਸੰਕਟ ਦੇ ਸਮੇ ਵਿਚ?) ਦੇ ਅਨੁਕੂਲ ਬਦਲਣ ਦੀ ਸਮਰਥਾ
• ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀਆਂ ਲਈ / ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਲਈ: ਵੱਸਣਾ/ ਏਕੀਕਰਨ
• ਸ਼ੱਕ ਜ ਡਰ ਦੇ ਮਾਹੌਲ ਦੀ ਬਜਾਏ, ਸਵਾਗਤ ਦਾ ਮਾਹੌਲ ਬਣਾਉਣਾ. (ਹੋਰ ਦੇਸ਼)

ਵੱਸਣਾ ਅਤੇ ਏਕੀਕਰਨ

• [ਆਮ ਅਬਾਦੀ] ਜਦ ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀ ਅਤੇ ਸ਼ਰਣਾਰਥੀ ਇਥੇ ਆ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ ਤਾਂ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਓਨਹਾ ਨੂੰ ਵੱਸਣ ਲਈ ਕਿਵੇਂ ਮਦਦ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ?
• [ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀ] ਜਦ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਭਾਈਚਾਰੇ ਦੇ ਲੋਕ ਇਥੇ ਆ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ ਤਾਂ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਓਨਹਾ ਨੂੰ ਵੱਸਣ ਵਿਚ ਕਿਵੇਂ ਮਦਦ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ?
• ਏਕੀਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਲਈ ਕੀ ਮਤਲਬ ਹੈ? ਪੜਤਾਲ: / ਸਮਾਜਿਕ, ਆਰਥਿਕ?
• ਏਕੀਕਰਨ ਕਿੰਨੀ ਚੰਗੀ ਤਰਾ ਹੋ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ? ਪੜਤਾਲ: ਹੁਲਾਰੇ / ਰੁਕਾਵਟ / ਸੁਝਾਅ
• ਇਥੇ ਵਸੇਬੇ 'ਤੇ ਕੁਝ ਤੱਥ ਹਨ. [ਵਸੇਬੇ ਦੇ ਨਤੀਜੇ ਵਾਲੀ ਤੱਥ ਸ਼ੀਟ ਸੰਚਾਲਕ ਲਈ ਹੈ]
• ਅੰਨੇਸ ਸੀ : ਏਕੀਕਰਨ / ਵਸੇਬਾ ਸੇਵਾ ਅਤੇ ਨਤੀਜੇ' ਤੇ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ
• ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਵਿਚਾਰ / ਪ੍ਰਤਿਕਰਮ ਕੀ ਹਨ?

ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਅਤੇ ਅਮਰੀਕਾ - ੧੫ (15) ਮਿੰਟ

• ਕੀ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਹਾਲ ਹੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਅਤੇ ਅਮਰੀਕਾ ਦੀ ਸਰਹੱਦ ਦੇ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੁਣਿਆ ਹੈ? ਪੜਤਾਲ: ਪਨਾਹ ਮੰਗਣ ਵਾਲਿਆਂ ਦਾ ਸੀ. ਡੀ .ਐਨ ਸਰਹੱਦ ਤੇ ਆਉਣਾ?
• [ਸੰਚਾਲਕ ਮੌਜੂਦਾ ਸਥਿਤੀ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਾਉਂਦਾ ਹੈ]
  • ਅੰਨੇਸ ਡੀ: ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਤੀਜਾ ਦੇਸ਼ ਸਮਝੌਤੇ 'ਤੇ ਤੱਥ (ਸੰਚਾਲਕ ਲਈ)
  • ਅੰਨੇਸ ਈ: ਸ਼ਰਣ ਪ੍ਰੋਗਰਾਮ 'ਤੇ ਵਿਜ਼ੂਅਲ ਏਡ (ਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਾਂ ਲਈ)
• ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਗਈ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਤੇ ਚਰਚਾ ਕਰੀਏ.
• ਤੁਸੀਂ ਇਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੋਨੋਂ ਵਿਵਸਥਾਵਾਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਕਿ ਸੋਚਦੇ ਹੋ (ਵਿਦੇਸ਼ ਤੋਂ ਆ ਕੇ ਇਥੇ ਵਸੇ ਸ਼ਰਣਾਰਥੀ / ਜਿਹੜੇ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਆਪੇ ਆ ਕੇ ਇਥੇ ਪਨਾਹ ਦਾ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕਰਨ)?
• ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੀਆਂ ਕੀ ਜ਼ਿੰਮੇਵਾਰੀਆਂ ਹਨ?
• ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਉੱਤੇ ਇਸ ਦਾ ਕੀ ਅਸਰ ਪੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ? ਭਾਈਚਾਰਾ?
• ਕੁਝ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦਾ ਕਹਿਣਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਤੀਜੇ ਦੇਸ਼ ਸਮਝੌਤੇ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਚ ਹਾਲ ਵਿਚ ਆਈ ਅਮਰੀਕੀ ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀ ਨੀਤੀ ਵਿਚ ਤਬਦੀਲੀ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨ ਮੁਅੱਤਲ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ. ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਕੀ ਲੱਗਦਾ ਹੈ? ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਤੇ ਇਸ ਦਾ ਕਿ ਅਸਰ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ?
• ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਨੂੰ ਇਸ ਸਥਿਤੀ ਵਿਚ ਕੀ ਪਰਬੰਧ ਕਰਨੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ?

ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਦੀ ਸਹੁੰ --ਜਨਰਲ ਆਬਾਦੀ ਗਰੁੱਪ - - ੧੦ (10) ਮਿੰਟ

ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤੀ ਬਿਆਨ / ਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ

ਜੋ ਕਿ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ੧੪ (14) ਸਾਲ ਜਾਂ ਵੱਧ ਉਮਰ ਦੇ ਹੋਣ, ਜੋ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਲਈ ਅਰਜ਼ੀ ਦੇਣ, ਓਨਹਾ ਤੋਂ ਸਿਟੀਜ਼ਨਸ਼ਿਪ ਐਕਟ ਦੀ ਆਖਰੀ ਲੋੜ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਸਹੁੰ ਚੁੱਕਣ ਦੀ ਹੈ. ਇਹ ਲੋੜ ਨਬਾਲਗ਼ਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਮਾਨਸਿਕ ਅਪੰਗਤਾ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨ ਸਹੁੰ ਚੁੱਕਣ ਦੀ ਮਹੱਤਤਾ ਨੂੰ ਸਮਝਣ ਲਈ ਅਸਮਰਥ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਲਈ ਮੁਆਫ਼ ਹੈ.

• ਤੁਸੀਂ ਤਰੁੱਠ ਐਂਡ ਰਿਕਨਸਿਲੀਏਸ਼ਨ ਕਮਿਸ਼ਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੁਣਿਆ ਹੈ? [ਇੱਕ ਸੰਖੇਪ ਸਾਰ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਵੇਗਾ] ਤਰੁੱਠ ਅਤੇ ਰਿਕਨਸਿਲੀਏਸ਼ਨ ਕਮੀਸ਼ਨ ਦੀ ਇਕ ਸੁਝਾਓ ਇਹ ਵੀ ਹੈ ਕੀ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਦੀ ਮੌਜੂਦਾ ਸਹੁੰ ਵਿਚ ਦੇਸੀ (ਇੰਡਿਜਿਨਿਅਸ) ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਤਅਿਹਮ ਦੇ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਨਵ ਭਾਸ਼ਾ ਸ਼ਾਮਿਲ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਵੇ.
• ਮੈਂ ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਮੌਜੂਦਾ ਅਤੇ ਤਰੁੱਠ ਐਂਡ ਰਿਕਨਸਿਲੀਏਸ਼ਨ ਕਮਿਸ਼ਨ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਸੋਧੀਆਂ ਤਬਦੀਲੀਆਂ ਵਾਲੀ ਸਹੁੰ ਦੀ ਇਕ ਕਾਪੀ ਦੇਣ ਲਈ ਜਾ ਰਹੀ ਹਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਮੈਂ ਪ੍ਰਸਤਾਵਿਤ ਤਬਦੀਲੀ 'ਤੇ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਵਾਂਗੀ.

ਅਸਾਮੀ ਸੇਵਾ / ਪ੍ਰੋਗਰਾਮ ਦੀ ਅਦਾਇਗੀ/ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ - ਪਰਵਾਸੀ ਗਰੁੱਪ – ੧੦ (10) ਮਿੰਟ

• ਗਰੁੱਪ ਨੂੰ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਇਕ ਸ਼ੀਟ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਗਈ ਸੀ ਜਿਸ ਵਿਚ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਨੀਤੀ, ਆਵਾਸ, ਸ਼ਰਣਾਰਥੀ ਅਤੇ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਨਾਲ ਸਬੰਧਿਤ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਪ੍ਰੋਗਰਾਮ ਦੀ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਦੇ ਸਰੋਤ ਲਿਖੇ ਸਨ? ਕਿਰਪਾ ਕਰਕੇ ਉਹ ਸ਼ੀਟ ਮੈਨੂੰ ਦੇ ਦਿਓ.
• ਸੋਸ਼ਲ ਮੀਡੀਆ ਦੀ ਗੱਲ ਕਰੀਏ ਤੇ ਆਈ. ਆਰ. ਸੀ ਸੀ. ਨੂੰ ਕੋਈ ਸਮਾਜਿਕ ਮੀਡੀਆ ਦੇ ਚੈਨਲ (ਟਵਿੱਟਰ, ਫੇਸਬੁੱਕ ਅਤੇ ਯੂ ਟੂਬ) ਤੇ ਪਹੁੰਚ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ? (ਜੇਕਰ ਹਾਂ) ਤੁਸੀਂ ਇਸ ਦੀ ਪਹੁੰਚ ਕਿਉ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋ? ਅਸੀਂ ਕੀ ਅੱਛਾ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਕੀ ਸੁਧਾਰ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ?
• ਅੱਗੇ, ਮੈ ਆਈ ਰ ਸੀ ਸੀ ਦੀ ਅਰਜ਼ੀ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਬੋਧ ਜਾਂ ਅਨੁਭਵ ਬਾਰੇ ਚਰਚਾ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੁੰਦੀ ਹਾਂ.
• ਤੁਸੀਂ ਅਰਜ਼ੀ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਤਜਰਬੇ ਬਾਰੇ ਦੱਸ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ? ਤੁਹਾਡਾ ਤਜਰਬਾ ਕਿਵੇਂ ਰਿਹਾ? ਕੋਈ ਐਸੀ ਮੁਖ ਗੱਲ ਜਿਸ ਤੇ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਚਾਨਣਾ ਪਾਉਣਾ ਚਾਹੁੰਦੇ ਹੋਵੋ? ਸਾਰੇ ਤਜਰਬੇ ਵਿਚ ਸਬ ਤੋਂ ਔਖਾ ਕੀ ਸੀ? (ਕੁਝ ਵੀ, ਜੇ) ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਕੀ ਪਸੰਦ ਆਇਆ? ਤੁਸੀਂ ਕਿਸੇ ਵੀ ਚੀਜ਼ ਨੂੰ ਬੇਹਤਰੀ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਤਬਦੀਲ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਵੇਖਿਆ? ਕਿਸੇ ਚੀਜ਼ ਵਿਚ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਸੁਧਾਰ ਵੇਖਣਾ ਚਾਹੁੰਦੇ ਹੋ?

ਆਈ. ਆਰ. ਸੀ. ਸੀ. ਦੀ ਤਰਜੀਹ - ੧੦ (10) ਮਿੰਟ

• ਅਸੀਂ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਪਰਵਾਸ ਦੇ ਕਈ ਪਹਿਲੂਆਂ ਤੇ ਚਰਚਾ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ.
• ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਕੀ ਲੱਗਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਆਈ. ਆਰ. ਸੀ. ਸੀ. ਦੀ ਮੁੱਖ ਜ਼ਿੰਮੇਵਾਰੀਆਂ ਕੀ ਹਨ?

ਹਿੱਸਾ ਲੈਣ ਲਈ ਧੰਨਵਾਦ

ਅੰਨੇਸ ਅ: ਮੁੱਦੇ

• ਮੱਧ ਵਰਗ ਵਿਚ ਘਾਟਾ
• ਸਥਾਨਕ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਉਦਯੋਗ ਕਾਮਯਾਬ ਹੋਣ ਦੀ ਯੋਗਤਾ
• ਬਿਰਧ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਆਬਾਦੀ
• ਕਿਫਾਇਤੀ ਬਾਲ ਸੰਭਾਲ ਦੀ ਉਪਲੱਬਧਤਾ
• ਸਿਹਤ ਸੰਭਾਲ ਦੀ ਉਪਲੱਬਧਤਾ
• ਨੌਕਰੀ ਦੀ ਉਪਲੱਬਧਤਾ
• ਜਨਤਕ ਆਵਾਜਾਈ ਦੀ ਉਪਲੱਬਧਤਾ
• ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਦੀ ਉਪਲੱਬਧਤਾ
• ਰਿਹਾਇਸ਼ ਦੀ ਲਾਗਤ
• ਅਪਰਾਧ
• ਵਿਦੇਸ਼ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਣ ਪੱਤਰ ਦੀ ਪਛਾਣ
• ਬੇਘਰੀ
• ਭਾਈਚਾਰੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀ ਏਕੀਕਰਨ
• ਭਾਸ਼ਾ ਦੀ ਸਿਖਲਾਈ
• ਸੈਲ ਫੋਨ ਦੀ ਕਵਰੇਜ ਦੀ ਘਾਟ
• ਜਿੰਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਕਮ ਨਾ ਮਿਲੇ ਓਨਹਾ ਲਈ ਰੋਜ਼ਗਾਰ ਬੀਮਾ ਦੇ ਪੱਧਰ.
• ਘੱਟ ਹਾਈ ਸਕੂਲ ਗ੍ਰੈਜੂਏਸ਼ਨ ਦਰ
• ਗ਼ਰੀਬੀ
• ਸਾਫ਼ ਵਾਤਾਵਰਣ ਦਾ ਰੱਖ ਰਖਾਵ
• ਸੜਕਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਪੁਲਾਂ ਦੀ ਗੁਣਵੱਤਾ
• ਭਰੋਸੇ ਯੋਗ ਬਰਾਡ ਬੈਂਡ ਜਾਂ ਤੇਜ ਗਤੀ ਇੰਟਰਨੈੱਟ
• ਨਵੇਂ ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਵੱਸਣ ਦੀ ਮਦਦ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ
• ਆਵਾਜਾਈ ਭੀੜ
• ਨੌਜਵਾਨਾਂ ਦਾ ਮੌਕੇ ਲਈ ਕੀਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਜਾਣਾ

ਅੰਨੇਸ ਬੀ: ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀ ਪੱਧਰ ਅਤੇ ਵਰਗਾਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ

ਸੰਚਾਲਕ ਲਈ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ:
ਗਰਮੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਮਹੀਨਿਆਂ ਵਿਚ ਵੱਖ ਵੱਖ ਸੂਬੇ ਅਤੇ ਰਾਜ ਖੇਤਰਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਕੈਨੇਡੀਅਨਜ਼ ਨੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਟਿੱਪਣੀ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਸੀ, ਜਿਸ ਦੇ ਅਧਾਰ ਤੇ ੨੦੧੭ (2017) ਦੀ ਯੋਜਨਾ ਤਿਆਰ ਕੀਤੀ ਗਈ.

ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀ ਵਰਗ : ਆਰਥਿਕ
ਫੈਡਰਲ ਪ੍ਰੋਗਰਾਮ ਦੇ ਐਕਸਪ੍ਰੈਸ ਐਂਟਰੀ ਸਿਸਟਮ ਵਿਚ ਬਿਨੈਕਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਪਰਿਵਾਰ ਦੇ ਜੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਿਲ ਹਨ ; ਸੂਬਾ/ਪ੍ਰੋਵਿੰਸ਼ੀਅਲ ਨਾਮਿਨੀ ਪ੍ਰੋਗਰਾਮ; ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀ; ਸੰਭਾਲ ਕਰਤਾ; ਅਤੇ ਹੁਨਰਮੰਦ ਕਾਮੇ ਅਤੇ ਕਿਊਬੈਕ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਚੁਣੇ ਹੋਏ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਪਰਵਾਸੀ.

• ੨੦੧੬ ਦਾ ਟੀਚਾ : ੧੬੦,੬੦੦
• ੨੦੧੭ ਦਾ ਟੀਚਾ : ੧੭੨,੫੦੦

ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀ ਵਰਗ : ਪਰਿਵਾਰ
ਇਸ ਵਿਚ ਪਤਨੀ/ ਪਤੀ ਅਤੇ ਬਚੇ ਅਤੇ ਮਾਪੇ ਅਤੇ ਦਾਦਾ/ਦਾਦੀ , ਨਾਨਾ/ਨਾਨੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ.

• ੨੦੧੬ ਦਾ ਟੀਚਾ : ੮੦,੦੦੦
• ੨੦੧੭ ਦਾ ਟੀਚਾ : ੮੪,੦੦੦

ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀ ਵਰਗ : ਸ਼ਰਨਾਰਥੀ ਅਤੇ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ
ਦੋਨੋ ਵਸੇ ਹੋਏ ਸ਼ਰਨਾਰਥੀ (ਸਰਕਾਰੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਅਤੇ ਨਿੱਜੀ ਪ੍ਰਾਯੋਜਿਤ) ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਨਾਲ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਸਥਾਈ ਵਸਨੀਕ ਬਣਦੇ ਹਨ

• ੨੦੧੬ ਦਾ ਟੀਚਾ : ੫੫,੮੦੦
• ੨੦੧੭ ਦਾ ਟੀਚਾ : ੪੦,੦੦੦

ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀ ਵਰਗ : ਮਾਨਵੀ ਅਤੇ ਹਮਦਰਦੀ ਦੇ ਅਤੇ ਹੋਰ
ਇਸ ਵਿਚ ਮਾਨਵੀ ਅਤੇ ਹਮਦਰਦੀ ਦੇ ਆਧਾਰ 'ਤੇ ਚੁਣਿਆ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ, ਨੀਤੀ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨ ਚੁਣੇ ਹੋਏ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਅਤੇ ਪਰਮਿਟ ਹੋਲਡਰ ਕਲਾਸ ਵਾਲੇ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ.

• ੨੦੧੬ ਦਾ ਟੀਚਾ : ੩, ੬੦੦
• ੨੦੧੭ ਦਾ ਟੀਚਾ : ੩, ੫੦੦

ਜੋੜ

• ੨੦੧੬ ਦਾ ਟੀਚਾ : ੩੦੦,੦੦੦
• ੨੦੧੭ ਦਾ ਟੀਚਾ : ੩੦੦,੦੦੦

ਅੰਨੇਸ ਸੀ : ਏਕੀਕਰਨ / ਵਸੇਬਾ ਸੇਵਾ ਅਤੇ ਨਤੀਜੇ' ਤੇ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ

ਸੰਚਾਲਕ ਲਈ ਪਿੱਠਭੂਮੀ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ

ਮੁੱਖ ਨੁਕਤੇ:

• ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਵਿਚ ਆ ਕੇ ਸਿਰਿਨ ਲੋਕ ਆਪਣੀ ਜ਼ਿੰਦਗੀ ਵਿਚ ਖ਼ੁਸ਼ਹਾਲ ਹਨ
• ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਤਤਕਾਲੀ ਅਤੇ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਲੋੜਾਂ ਪੂਰੀਆਂ ਹੋ ਰਹੀਆਂ ਹਨ
• ਏਕੀਕਰਣ ਦਰ ਲਗਭਗ ਪਿਛਲੇ ਸ਼ਰਨਾਰਥੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਮਿਲਦੀ ਹੈ
• ਕੁਝ ਸੀਰੀਅਨ ਸ਼ਰਣਾਰਥੀਆਂ ਨੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਭਾਈਚਾਰੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਯੋਗਦਾਨ ਪਾਣਾ ਸ਼ੁਰੂ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਹੈ
• ਸਰਕਾਰ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਪ੍ਰਾਯੋਜਿਤ ਕੀਤੇ ਗਏ ਲੋਕ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੀ ਕਿਸੇ ਸਰਕਾਰੀ ਭਾਸ਼ਾ ਦੇ ਘੱਟ ਗਿਆਨਵਾਨ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ
• ਨਿਜੀ ਪ੍ਰਾਯੋਜਿਤ ਬਾਲਗ ਸ਼ਰਣਾਰਥੀ ਵੱਧ ਪੜ੍ਹੇ ਲਿਖੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਅੰਗਰੇਜ਼ੀ ਜਾਂ ਫ੍ਰੈਂਚ ਦਾ ਗਿਆਨ ਵੀ ਰੱਖਦੇ ਹਨ
• ਪਹੁੰਚਣ ਦੇ ਇੱਕ ਸਾਲ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਰੁਜ਼ਗਾਰ ਦੀ ਦਰ: ਗਾ ਆ ਰ ਸ - 10% ਅਤੇ ਨਿਜੀ ਪ੍ਰਾਯੋਜਿਕ 50%

ਚੁਣੌਤੀਆਂ :

• ਅਜੇ ਵੀ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਵਿਚ ਆਪਣੇ ਨਿਜੀ ਜੀਵਨ ਦੇ ਆਦਿ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ ਸਹਿਯੋਗ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ.
• ਵੱਡਾ ਪਰਿਵਾਰ ਅਕਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਰਿਹਾਇਸ਼
• ਰੁਜ਼ਗਾਰ
• ਸਮਾਜਿਕ ਏਕੀਕਰਨ
• ਨੌਜਵਾਨ
• ਦਿਮਾਗੀ ਸਿਹਤ
• ਸਥਾਨਕ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਸਿਸਟਮ ਦਾ ਅਗਾਮੀ ਅਸਰ

ਆਮਦਨ ਸਹਿਯੋਗ

• ਸ਼ਰਣਾਰਥੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਪਹਿਲੇ ਸਾਲ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਆਮਦਨ ਸਹਿਯੋਗ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਗਿਆ.
• ੧੨ ਮਹੀਨੇ ਬਾਅਦ ਜਿਹੜੇ ਲੋੜ ਨੂੰ ਸਹਿਯੋਗ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ ਉਹ ਸੂਬੇ/ ਖੇਤਰੀ ਸਮਾਜਿਕ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦੇ ਲਈ ਅਰਜ਼ੀ ਦੇ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ.

ਅੱਗੇ ਜਾਣਾ

• ਵਿਭਾਗ ਸਬਕ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਕਰ ਕੇ ਮਿਲੀਆਂ ਸਿੱਖਿਆਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਭਵਿੱਖ ਪੁਨਰ ਵਸੇਬਾ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਤੇ ਲਾਗੂ ਕਰੇਗਾ.

ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ

• ਵਿਦੇਸ਼ ਵਿਚ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਸਤਿਥੀ ਤੇ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਜ਼ਿੰਦਗੀ ਲਈ ਤਿਆਰ ਕਰੇਗੀ.

ਮੁੱਦੇ 'ਤੇ ਤੱਥ

• ਕਿਊਬਿਕ ਆਪਣੇ ਪੁਨਰ ਵਸੇਬਾ ਅਤੇ ਵੱਸਣ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਲਈ ਆਪ ਜ਼ਿੰਮੇਵਾਰ ਹੈ, ਇਹ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਨੂੰ ਸੀਰੀਆ ਦੇ ਸ਼ਰਣਾਰਥੀ ਜੋ ਕਿਊਬਿਕ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਹਨ ਨਾਲ ਸਬੰਧਿਤ ਹੈ.

ਅੰਨੇਸ ਡ : ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਤੀਜਾ ਦੇਸ਼ ਸਮਝੌਤੇ 'ਤੇ ਤੱਥ

• ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਅਤੇ ਸੰਯੁਕਤ ਰਾਜ ਅਮਰੀਕਾ (ਯੂ ਐਸ) ਦੇ ਵਿਚਕਾਰ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਤੀਜੇ ਦੇਸ਼ ਸਮਝੌਤਾ , ਅਮਰੀਕਾ-ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਸਮਾਰਟ ਬਾਰਡਰ ਐਕਸ਼ਨ ਪਲਾਨ ਦਾ ਹਿੱਸਾ ਹੈ.
• ਸਮਝੌਤੇ ਤਹਿਤ, ਜਦ ਤੱਕ ਸ਼ਰਣਾਰਥੀ ਸਮਝੌਤੇ ਦੇ ਅਪਵਾਦ ਲਈ ਯੋਗ ਨਹੀਂ ਹਨ, ਦਾਵੇਦਾਰ ਸ਼ਰਣਾਰਥੀ, ਜਿਸ ਦੇਸ਼ ਵਿਚ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਪਹੁੰਚਣਗੇ ਉਸ ਵਿਚ ਸ਼ਰਨਾਰਥੀ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਆ ਲਈ ਬੇਨਤੀ ਕਰਨਗੇ.
• ਇਹ ਸਮਝੌਤਾ ਦੋਨੋ ਸਰਕਾਰਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ-ਯੂ. ਐਸ ਪਾਰ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਸ਼ਰਨਾਰਥੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਬੇਹਤਰ ਪ੍ਰਬੰਧ ਕਰਨ ਲਾਇ ਮਦਦ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ. ਸਮਝੌਤੇ ਤੇ ਦੋਨੋ ਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਨੇ ਦਸੰਬਰ ੫ ੨੦੦੨ ਨੂੰ ਦਸਤਖਤ ਕੀਤੇ ਸਨ ਅਤੇ ੨੯ ਦਸੰਬਰ, ੨੦੦੪ ਨੂੰ ਇਹ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਇਆ.
• ਅੱਜ ਦੀ ਮਿਤੀ ਵਿਚ, ਅਮਰੀਕਾ ਇਕੱਲਾ ਦੇਸ਼ ਹੈ, ਜੋ ਕਿ ਇਮੀਗ੍ਰੇਸ਼ਨ ਅਤੇ ਰਿਫਿਊਜੀ ਪ੍ਰੋਟੈਕਸ਼ਨ ਐਕਟ ਤਹਿਤ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਨੇ ਇੱਕ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਤੀਜੇ ਦੇਸ਼ ਦੇ ਰੂਪ ਵਿੱਚ ਮਨੋਨੀਤ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੈ.
• ਇਹ ਸਮਝੌਤਾ ਅਮਰੀਕਾ ਦੇ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਅਮਰੀਕਾ ਦੇ ਆਦਤ ਵਸਨੀਕ, ਜੋ ਕਿਸੇ ਵੀ ਦੇਸ਼ ਦੇ ਨਾਗਰਿਕ ਨਹੀ ਹਨ("ਸਟੇਟਲੈੱਸ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ"), ਤੇ ਲਾਗੂ ਨਹੀ ਹੈ.
• ੧੯੮੦ ਤੋਂ ਲੈ ਕੇ, ਗਲੋਬਲ ਮਾਈਗਰੇਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਚਲਦੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੇ ਦੇਸ਼ ਘਰੇਲੂ ਸ਼ਰਣ ਸਿਸਟਮ ਤੇ ਦਬਾਅ ਦੇ ਹੱਲ ਵਿਚ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਤੀਜੇ ਦੇਸ਼-ਕਿਸਮ ਸਮਝੌਤੇ ਵਰਤ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ. ਮੱਧ-1990 ਵਿੱਚ, ਸੰਯੁਕਤ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰ ਸ਼ਰਨਾਰਥੀ ਏਜੰਸੀ ਨੇ ਇਸ ਕਿਸਮ ਦੇ ਸਮਝੌਤੇ ਲਈ ਸਹਿਯੋਗ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਗਟਾਵਾ ਕੀਤਾ ਸੀ.

ਅੰਨੇਸ ਈ: ਸ਼ਰਣ ਪ੍ਰੋਗਰਾਮ 'ਤੇ ਵਿਜ਼ੁਅਲ ਏਡ

The picture is a visual aid used to describe the asylum program within Canada. It contains two images: one of road signs indicating where the bridge to Canada is and a second of people crossing the Canada-U.S. border on foot in the winter. The following text is included:

• ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਪਨਾਹ ਦਾ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਿਆਂ ਲਈ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਵਿਚਲਾ ਸ਼ਰਣ ਪ੍ਰੋਗਰਾਮ.
  • ਸ਼ਰਣ ਦਾਅਵੇ- ਸਰਹੱਦ ਪਾਰ ਕਰ ਕੇ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਆਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਵੇਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਪਨਾਹ ਦਾ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕਰਨਾ: ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਤੀਜੇ ਦੇਸ਼ ਸਮਝੌਤੇ ਦਾ ਅਸਰਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਵਿਚ
  • ਨਿਰਧਾਰਤ ਪੋਰਟ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਆ ਕੇ ਸ਼ਰਨ ਦਾ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਨੇ.
    • ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਤੀਜੇ ਦੇਸ਼ ਸਮਝੌਤੇ ਨਾਲ
      • ਸੀਬੀਐਸਏ ਨਿਰਧਾਰਣ ਇਹ ਨਿਰਧਾਰਤ ਕਰਦੀ ਹੈ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਦਾ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਾਖਲਾ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ. ਕੁਝ ਵਿਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਵੇਸ਼ ਨਹੀਂ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ (ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਗੰਭੀਰ ਅਪਰਾਧੀ)
      • ਜਦ ਤੱਕ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਇੱਕ ਅਪਵਾਦ ਲਈ ਯੋਗ ਹੈ, ਉਸ ਤੇ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਤੀਜੇ ਦੇਸ਼ ਸਮਝੌਤਾ ਲਾਗੂ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ. ਅਪਵਾਦ ਅਕਸਰ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਪਾਰਿਵਾਰਿਕ ਸਬੰਧ ਹੋਣਾ ਹੈ.
      • ਜੇਕਰ ਅਪਵਾਦ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਨੂੰ ਯੂ ਐਸ ਵਿਚ ਸ਼ਰਣਾਰਥੀ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਆ ਲੈਣ ਲਾਇ ਵਾਪਿਸ ਭੇਜ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ
      • ਤਰਕ ਇਹ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਉਸ ਦੇਸ਼ ਵਿਚ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਆ ਸ਼ਰਨ ਲਵੇ ਜਿਸ ਵਿਚ ਉਹ ਪਹਿਲਾ ਪਹੁੰਚਿਆ ਹੋਵੇ
      • ਜੇ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਪਨਾਹ ਦਾ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਯੋਗ ਮੰਨਿਆ ਜਾਵੇ, ਸਹਿਯੋਗ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ / ਅੰਤਰਿਮ ਦੀ ਸਿਹਤ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਮਿਲਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ
      • ਸਫਲ ਸ਼ਰਣ ਦਾਅਵੇ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਨੂੰ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਦਰਜਾ ਦਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਉਹ ਸਥਾਈ ਨਿਵਾਸੀ ਰੁਤਬੇ ਲਈ ਅਰਜ਼ੀ ਦੇ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ
    • ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਤੀਜੇ ਦੇਸ਼ ਸਮਝੌਤੇ ਤੋਂ ਬਗੈਰ
      • ਸੀਬੀਐਸਏ ਨਿਰਧਾਰਣ ਇਹ ਨਿਰਧਾਰਤ ਕਰਦੀ ਹੈ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਦਾ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਾਖਲਾ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ. ਕੁਝ ਵਿਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਵੇਸ਼ ਨਹੀਂ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ (ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਗੰਭੀਰ ਅਪਰਾਧੀ)
      • ਜ਼ਮੀਨ ਸਰਹੱਦ 'ਤੇ ਪਹੁੰਚ ਕੇ ਜੇ ਕਿ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਪਨਾਹ ਦਾ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕਰੇ ਤਾਂ ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਰੋਕਣ ਲਈ ਅਸਮਰੱਥ ਹੋਵਾਂਗੇ
      • ਜੇ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਪਨਾਹ ਦਾ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਯੋਗ ਮੰਨਿਆ ਜਾਵੇ, ਸਹਿਯੋਗ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ / ਅੰਤਰਿਮ ਦੀ ਸਿਹਤ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਮਿਲਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ
      • ਸਫਲ ਸ਼ਰਣ ਦਾਅਵੇ ਵਾਲੇ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਜੋ ਕੀ ਬੇਕ਼ਾਨੂਨੀ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਨਾਲ ਯੂ. ਐਸ. ਏ ਤੋਂ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਵਿਚ ਜ਼ਮੀਨੀ ਸਰਹੱਦ ਤੋਂ ਦਾਖ਼ਲ ਜੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ (ਨਾਮਜ਼ਦ ਸਰਹੰਦ ਤੋਂ ਦਾਖਲ ਨਾ ਹੋ ਕੇ), ਉਸ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਨੂੰ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਦਰਜਾ ਦਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਉਹ ਸਥਾਈ ਨਿਵਾਸੀ ਰੁਤਬੇ ਲਈ ਅਰਜ਼ੀ ਦੇ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ.
  • ਕਿਸੇ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਦਾ ਗੈਰ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਨਾਲ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਵਿਚ ਪ੍ਰਵੇਸ਼ ਕਰਨਾ (ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਕਿਸੇ ਖੇਤ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਵਿਚ ਆ ਜਾਣਾ)
    • ਆਰਸੀਐਮਪੀ ਰੋਕਣ ਜਾਂ ਚੇਤਾਵਨੀ ਦੇਣ ਯੋਗ ਨਾ ਹੋ ਸਕੇ.
    • ਇੱਕ ਵਾਰ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਆ ਗਏ ਤਾਂ ਆਰਸੀਐਮਪੀ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਗ੍ਰਿਫਤਾਰ ਕਰ ਕੇ, ਕਿਸੇ ਇਮੀਗ੍ਰੇਸ਼ਨ ਪ੍ਰੀਖਿਆ ਲਈ ਸੀਬੀਐਸਏ ਨੂੰ ਸੌੰਪ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ
    • ਵਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਸ਼ਰਨਾਰਥ ਦੀ ਅਰਜ਼ੀ ਦੇ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ
    • ਜੇਕਰ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਨਿਰਧਾਰਤ ਪੋਰਟ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਪ੍ਰਵੇਸ਼ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਦਾ ਤਾਂ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਤੀਜਾ ਦੇਸ਼ ਸਮਝੌਤਾ ਲਾਗੂ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੁੰਦਾ
    • ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਯੂ ਐਸ ਏ ਨੂੰ ਮੁੜ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਕਦੇ
    • ਜੇ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਪਨਾਹ ਦਾ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਯੋਗ ਹੈ, ਜ਼ਿਆਦਾਤਰ ਸਭ ਨੂੰ ਇਮੀਗ੍ਰੇਸ਼ਨ ਅਤੇ ਰਿਫੁਜੀ ਬੋਰਡ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੀ ਸੁਣਵਾਈ ਬਕਾਇਆ ਕਰ ਕੇ ਛੱਡ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ
    • ਜੇ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਪਨਾਹ ਦਾ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਯੋਗ ਮੰਨਿਆ ਜਾਵੇ, ਸਹਿਯੋਗ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ / ਅੰਤਰਿਮ ਦੀ ਸਿਹਤ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਮਿਲਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ
    • ਸਫਲ ਸ਼ਰਣ ਦਾਅਵੇ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਨੂੰ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਦਰਜਾ ਦਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਉਹ ਸਥਾਈ ਨਿਵਾਸੀ ਰੁਤਬੇ ਲਈ ਅਰਜ਼ੀ ਦੇ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ

ਅੰਨੇਸ ਐਫ: ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਦੀ ਸਹੁੰ

ਮੌਜੂਦਾ ਸਹੁੰ
ਮੈਂ ਸਹੁੰ ਲੈਂਦਾ/ਲੈਂਦੀ ਹਾਂ (ਜਾਂ ਨਿਸ਼ਚਿਤ ਕਰਦੀ/ਕਰਦਾ ਹਾਂ) ਕੀ ਮੈਂ ਰਾਣੀ ਐਲਿਜ਼ਾਬੈੱਥ II, ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੀ ਰਾਣੀ, ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਵਾਰਿਸ, ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਵਫ਼ਾਦਾਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਸੱਚੀ ਨਿਸ਼ਠਾ ਰੱਖਾਂਗਾ/ਰੱਖਾਂਗੀ, ਅਤੇ ਮੈਂ ਵਫ਼ਾਦਾਰੀ ਨਾਲ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੇ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਾਂਗਾ/ਕਰਾਂਗੀ ਅਤੇ ਇੱਕ ਕਨੇਡੀਅਨ ਨਾਗਰਿਕ ਦੇ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਮੇਰੇ ਫਰਜ਼ ਨੂੰ ਪੂਰਾ ਕਰਾਂਗੀ/ਕਰਾਂਗੀ.

ਤਰੁੱਠ ਐਂਡ ਰਿਕਨਸਿਲੀਏਸ਼ਨ ਕਮੀਸ਼ਨ ਦੀ ਰਿਪੋਰਟ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ: ਸੁਝਾਅ
ਰਿਹਾਇਸ਼ੀ ਸਕੂਲ ਦੀ ਵਿਰਾਸਤ ਅਤੇ ਕਨੇਡੀਅਨ ਰਿਕਨਸਿਲੀਏਸ਼ਨ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਕਿਰਿਆ ਨੂੰ ਅੱਗੇ ਵਧਾਉਣ ਲਈ, ਤਰੁੱਠ ਐਂਡ ਰਿਕਨਸਿਲੀਏਸ਼ਨ ਕਮੀਸ਼ਨ ਨੇ ਕਈ ਸੁਝਾਅ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਸਨ. ਓਨਹਾ ਵਿਚ ਇਕ ਸੁਝਾਅ ਇਹ ਵੀ ਸੀ ਕੇ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਸਹੁੰ ਨੂੰ ਦੇਸੀ (ਇੰਡਿਜਿਨਿਅਸ) ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਤਅਿਹਮ ਦੇ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਤਬਦੀਲ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਵੇ. ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਦੀ ਸਹੁੰ ਨਾਲ ਸੰਬੰਧਿਤ, ਤਰੁੱਠ ਐਂਡ ਰਿਕਨਸਿਲੀਏਸ਼ਨ ਕਮਿਸ਼ਨ ਨੇ ਹੇਠ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਪ੍ਰਸ੍ਤਾਵਿਤ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ.

ਨਵੇਂ ਪ੍ਰਵਾਸੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਵਿਚ ਆਉਣਾ
੯੪ ਅਸੀਂ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੀ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਤਾ ਸਹੁੰ ਵਿਚ ਹੇਠ ਲਿਖੀਆਂ ਤਬਦੀਲੀਆਂ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਸੱਦਾ ਦਿੰਦੇ ਹਾਂ

ਪ੍ਰਸਤਾਵਿਤ ਸਹੁੰ
ਮੈਂ ਸਹੁੰ ਲੈਂਦਾ/ਲੈਂਦੀ ਹਾਂ (ਜਾਂ ਨਿਸ਼ਚਿਤ ਕਰਦੀ/ਕਰਦਾ ਹਾਂ) ਕੀ ਮੈਂ ਰਾਣੀ ਐਲਿਜ਼ਾਬੈੱਥ II, ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੀ ਰਾਣੀ, ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਵਾਰਿਸ, ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਵਫ਼ਾਦਾਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਸੱਚੀ ਨਿਸ਼ਠਾ ਰੱਖਾਂਗਾ/ਰੱਖਾਂਗੀ, ਅਤੇ ਮੈਂ ਵਫ਼ਾਦਾਰੀ ਨਾਲ ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਦੇ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਦੀ ਅਤੇ ਦੇਸੀ (ਇੰਡਿਜਿਨਿਅਸ) ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਹੋਈ ਤਅਿਹਮ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਾਂਗਾ/ਕਰਾਂਗੀ, ਅਤੇ ਇੱਕ ਕਨੇਡੀਅਨ ਨਾਗਰਿਕ ਦੇ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਮੇਰੇ ਫਰਜ਼ ਨੂੰ ਪੂਰਾ ਕਰਾਂਗੀ/ਕਰਾਂਗੀ.