The Disingenuity of our Government on Immigration

I believe that the future of Canada is in immigration. And not just some sort of namby-pamby utopian future vision, but the reality of just sustaining our economy and the standard of living we currently enjoy in this country. One only has to look across the ocean at the continuing economic meltdown in Europe to see the price countries pay for not continuing to develop and expand their economies.

Even in Canada we are already seeing major problems in some industries and areas. Have you tried to find a GP in Ontario recently?

The reality in Canada is that soon, without a real increase in immigration we will have some real economic problems. So it's more than a bit disheartening when on top of the roadblocks thrown up in front of immigrants when they arrive in Canada (and find that their skills and experience are worth far less than they are told before coming) our Federal government seems to be doing all it can to discourage immigrants from coming.

The most recent example is the story of funding cuts to settlement agencies in Ontario and British Columbia that broke just days before Christmas. (A bit of background here, settlement agencies are organizations that help newcomers adjust to life in Canada. They provide help in a variety of areas including: finding places to live, language and skills assessments and training, how to enter the Canadian job market.)

Now let me state clearly, I know that there are areas in which some settlement agencies could surely be more efficient and there is likely to be a good case that there are too many smaller agencies that would better serve their constituents if they were almagamated into larger organizations.

So, especially with the current, somewhat fragile state of the economy the idea of some cuts to funding and budgets for any group, including settlement agencies is not without merit. Sadly this sort of thinking wasn't the major reason put forward by CIC for the funding cuts and several elements of the way it has been handled in whole are at the very least eyebrow-raising. The most disturbing parts of the story are:

1. Lack of notification and dialogue - The agencies who did have their funding cut and/or dropped were informed by letter. There was no opportunity for discussion of what sorts of cuts would be needed for budget purposes, nor any discussion about what the needs "on the ground" actually are. There have been some vague claims by CIC that choices were made based on "number of clients served" but the actual objectives measured is not clear. It's frankly just arrogant to make choices of this nature without meaningful consultation with the groups and organizations who are actually on the front lines providing services.
2. The PR Spin Nonsense - The main excuse peddled for the cuts by Minister is that Ontario receives less immigrants than it used to so this money is being redistributed. There are multiple problems with statements like this but the primary one being that, everyone, including the Minister would be fully aware that (outside of Quebec) the place that immigrants settle is not necessarily the place that they first arrive. Newcomers are going to migrate to where the jobs and opportunities actually are in the country and not where the government might like them to be.
3. The Timing - There is a reason that these cuts were made in mid to late December and it isn't because CIC wanted to be known as the grinch who stole Christmas. The reason that these cuts were made when they were made is that late December is a good time to bury bad news. It's the one time of year when for many people it's hard to feel much outrage about any topic because we think of our friends, families, good times in the past and to come. Newspapers are filled with stories about kindness and generosity and there simply isn't much stomach for discussion of policies and serious plans. The fact is that if this story had broken in June you could expect to hear about it all summer but being that it was end of December it's almost dead and buried already.
4. The Follow Up - There has been little follow up from the CIC on any of this. Is this money going to be re-allocated as was implied by the Minister or is this just a straight cut? And if it will be re-allocated will it be to something sensible, like settlement agencies in other places or something irrational like more weapons for our borders to "protect" us from starving refugees? In what can only be described as sadly typical the only follow up from CIC thus far was a ham-handed attempt to stifle any further discussion of the cuts. This later turned out to be a "mistake" but either way doesn't really offer much hope when it comes to meaningful dialogue.

Again, I am not averse to budget cuts anywhere, including services for new immigrants even though I personally believe that these are pretty vital. But there is a big difference between that and an agenda of destroying settlement agencies and given the lack of honesty, and the heavy PR spin and timing used here it's hard to understand what other possible agenda there could be. Our government should be consulting and working with these agencies to help remove the obstacles from the paths of new immigrants. Our government should be open with its plan for sustaining the economy of this country either with or without more immigration.

It's really hard to see what the plan is here, or believe that the government is actually interested in any discussion of their plans or ideas or that they think there is any value in the experiences of those actually working with immigrants with these moves. I personally hope that the CIC takes some lessons from this episode and tries to be more proactive in engagement with those in the front lines although I'm sort of doubtful that will happen. But this behaviour is just short-sighted when it comes to the future of this country, and it's a little shameful as well.

Networking: The Diversity Disadvantage

A question I have been asked, from the time of my Monster years through the present at TalentOyster is "Do job boards really work?" and my answer has always been "yes". Okay, I know, no earth-shattering surprise but there is more to it.

Yes I know that job boards do work, but I'll also be the first to tell you that no single job board, or single talent source in general is the best answer to all of your hiring needs.

If you use just once source, be it a mainstream job board, recruiting agencies, networking or the classic ads in newspapers you can probably still fill all your roles but... with the looming talent crisis that's unlikely to stay true. Moreover talent shortage or not, using one source is a guarantee that you aren't filling your roles with the best available talent. Of course you do want your organization to have the best people so that means you need a holistic approach to hiring and that means drawing from multiple sources for your talent.

So in short, yes you should be using job boards both mainstream (like Monster) and niche (like TalentOyster) but you should also be using networking and recruiting agencies and other means you can to get a strong flow of candidates to your careers. This idea leads to the next question which is "When is enough, enough?", in other words if your organization is already using two candidate sources have you done enough?

This question is more difficult to answer then a simple yes or no response because it depends on a combination of what methods you are using and the candidate audience you are trying to attract. Specifically if you want to draw applications from diverse candidates you need a niche diversity job board like TalentOyster.

Why?

I often talk about how the diverse audience is often missed by mainstream media. For example for the majority of first and second generation Canadians the main, trusted new source is not a mainstream one but one specific to their own culture. It's not just newcomers though. A similar tenet holds true for other diversity groups like aboriginals, persons with disabilities and LGBTQ. I think we also tend to forget that being outside the "mainstream" isn't just limited to a person's source of news but extends to the network of friends and colleagues they may have. That seems a simple and somewhat obvious point but the implications for the hiring cycle are huge. It means that there is a candidate pool that not only isn't part of the traditional mainstream in hearing about and applying for jobs but is also "outside" the traditional networking circle.

I actually think that you can make a strong case that being outside of mainstream networking circles is the biggest disadvantage that diverse candidates face. You use job boards to advertise your roles and the benefits of employment with your company but the reality we are all aware of is that the candidates most likely to be hired are those who have been networked in. Being that that is the case what does that say for the chances of someone, no matter how qualified or experienced they may be, in finding a suitable role if they simply aren't connected to the same network that you are in?

To return to the question posed earlier, "when is enough, enough?" what this means is that if you are really interested in hiring diverse candidates, if you realize that the future of your company depends on it, you need a comprehensive, holistic hiring strategy. Knowing that Canada's diverse pool of hidden talent isn't just hidden on or by mainstream job boards but also by personal networking and recruiting agencies connected to them means that your strategy must also include a niche diversity job board. Enough is a combination of mainstream job boards, niche ones, recruiting agencies and networking in the balance that works for you.

Only by understanding why and how you make your hiring strategy complete will you be able to not only fill your roles, but also know that you are filling them with the best possible candidates.

New Immigrants and the Culture of Innovation

According to Royal Bank of Canada president Gordon Nixon, newcomers are "one of Canada's great competitive advantages". Other speakers at the innovation conference held at the MaRS centre in Toronto last week agreed. And so do we.

Why is this? For one thing newcomers will have, wherever they have come from, a different point of view, ideas and opinions and this helps to break up the "group-think" that is so stifling to innovation. Even more as Mr Nixon went on to say "This is a country that to a large degree has been built by newcomers willing to take risks" and that's a very notable point to consider. Newcomers to Canada are people who were willing to bet on a better life in Canada. They are people used to examining pros and cons of large life decisions and willing to take risks for what they see as opportunities and that is simply a mindset that coalesces well with innovation.

It's just another example of how adding diversity to your workforce, including newcomers to Canada, isn't just about "doing the right thing". It's really about making your business stronger. Sourcing from the widest possible talent pool, adding diverse experiences and encouraging a culture of innovation are all items with real bottom line impact.

Newcomers and unemployment

The Community Foundations of Canada recently reported that unemployment levels among university educated newcomers to Canada are four times higher than the national average. It's a pretty damning statistic.

Let's face it by itself the idea that new immigrants would have more trouble finding work isn't too surprising. Work experience is so vital in choosing the right candidate after all. But these are university graduates! And four times is quite a disparity at that level.

What this stat suggests more than anything is that many companies are not in fact hiring the best candidates for a job, but the ones that are the easiest to hire. Just like stopping for a drive through burger instead of making a sandwich, sometimes doing the quick and easy thing just seems okay but for your long term health it's simply a recipe for disaster. Sometimes when your hiring process includes a healthy serving of diversity it can take longer to complete, but the results are worth it.

Hiring someone based on the work they can actually do for you rather than just the fact that someone felt the name on the resume was more "familiar" is just a smart thing to do. Statistics though say that many companies simply aren't doing it.