Year: 2012

  • Parenting and discipline across cultures

    From the CERIS (Centre of Excellence in Research in Immigration and Settlement) website, a post about parenting across cultures, as discussed in a television show, featuring CERIS Director Dr. Mehru Ali on parenting and discipline across cultures):
    “Ali talked to TVO Parents about the cultural aspect of parenting and discipline in a Canadian context. In an expert panel to introduce a new TVO series The Slap, Dr. Ali shared her perspective and research on parenting and the situation that newcomers find themselves in a new society with potentially different norms. She emphasized that cultural norms greatly differ among groups and that we must consider the diversity of parents before judging one type of discipline over another”.
    Ali comes in at about six minutes into the video. She addresses the discipline issue of hitting children. Increasingly, physically hitting a child is becoming unacceptable but Ali says we need to “consider” different parenting styles. Ali wavers on whether physical force is ever warranted but says the key principle is to keep the child protected.  My question is how do we reconcile types of discipline, though, with Canadian norms and laws? The host of the show cites that about 20 countries have banned corporal punishment. Canada, as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Article 19 (see below), have a legal obligation to protect children from physical violence, whether it’s from a parent or not.
    Article 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.”

  • What's next for immigrantchildren.ca?

    immigrantchildren.ca wants to know what you want to know!
    Please take our very short poll on the future of immigrantchildren.ca.

    Thank you for your participation. It is greatly appreciated!

  • ANCIE Bulletin: Gender roles

    The latest e-Bulletin from AMSSA‘s (Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Services Agencies of BC) ANCIE (AMSSA’s Newcomer Child Information Exchange) explores gender roles.
    The bulletin discusses sex vs. gender, introduces the concept of gender analysis, and how gender and migration intersect for children and youth and results in inequalities – and offers research on gender inequities in the school system, including these findings from recent research:

    Gender construction in schools can create very distinct notions of what it means to be a man and a woman, with polarized attributes for femininity and masculinity;
    Across most countries, boys continue to dominate classroom time and space, a practice that seems to create subdued girls and creates perceived differences between men and women;
    In many countries academic performance of boys and girls is converging, but when it comes to fields of study and work there is still clustering by gender;
    The curriculum, especially sex education, continues to center on biological features and refuses to acknowledge social dimensions of adolescent sexuality;
    The peer culture of a classroom contributes powerfully to classroom dynamics and the focus of either gender towards academics;
    Most public education policies fail to recognize the socialization role of schools. (Stromquist, 2007).

    As in all e-Bulletins, there is a useful list of additional related resources.

  • Immigrant parent-child separation, York University study call for participants

    York University’s Infant and Child Mental Health Lab, in collaboration with Aisling Discoveries Child and Family Centre are conducting a study to better understand the needs and issues related to parent-child separation.
    The study is inviting GTA African, Caribbean, Chinese and South Asian mothers and children to participate in a home visiting program. Parents and children must have experienced a separation of at least one year and are now reunited.
    For more information, contact Natasha Whitfield at nwhit@yorku.ca, or at 416-736-2100, ext. 33406.

    Immigrant family separation study recruitment flyer

  • The language challenge from Maytree Canada

    Yesterday I attended a local community forum, Dialogue on Diversity: Immigrant Civic Participation, sponsored by the Waterloo Immigration Partnership, Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The event was MC’d by Lucia Harrison, ED of the Kitchener-Waterloo Multicultural Centre. The keynote speaker was the President of the Maytree Foundation, Ratna Omidvar.
    Omidvar used her time well, bringing Alan Broadbent’s Three I’s of Integration (Investment, Intentionality, Instruments) to our attention, the Maytree’s Five Good Ideas project, to name only two. But it was her discussion about the language we use in Canada when discussing immigration that really caught my interest. We talk about multiculturalism, interculturalism, multiversalism, and the dreaded by almost all – tolerance.
    Omidvar always has enlightening and thought provoking things to say about immigration and settlement, but I want to focus on a challenge she posed to those of us attending the forum. With regard to language, Omidvar proposed that the word integration is problematic – that is somehow diminishes the newcomer by subsuming her into the Other, new world she is settling in, that the accommodations made are made by the newcomer. Inclusion however is, according to Omidvar, a 2-way street and one that welcomes the participation of the newcomer (which was the point of the event: how to engage newcomer participation).
    Those who come from the early learning and child care and family support sector have long been advocates of the word – and concept – of inclusion. For us, inclusion has always meant that ‘everyone belongs’: families with children with special needs, families and children living in poverty, Aboriginal children and families, immigrant and refugee children and families, urban children and families, rural children and families, children and families living in Northern and remote communities, etc. All children share the same rights of participation (see UN Convention on the Rights of the Child). So, we like this move in the immigrant/settlement community towards the language of inclusion. What do you think?
    A number of years ago, the Laidlaw Foundation commissioned a series of reports on social inclusion for marginalized groups. It’s a joy to share these (PDFs) once again in the hopes they are useful in furthering the discussion about immigrant/newcomer inclusion (1 co-written by Omidvar):

    Social Inclusion, Anti-Racism and Democratic Citizenship, Anver Saloojee (2003)
    Immigrant Settlement and Social Inclusion in Canada, Ratna Omidvar and Ted Richmond (2003)
    Social Inclusion as Solidarity: Re-thinking the Child Rights Agenda, Michael Bach (2002)
    Social Inclusion for Canadian Children through Early Childhood Education and Care, Martha Friendly and Donna Lero (2002)

    These papers addressing inclusion among marginalized and disadvantaged groups can help us support and promote the language of inclusion for newcomer children and their families. I urge you to re-visit them.

  • Call for papers: Children and war

    Call for Papers: “Children and War: Past and Present”. 2nd international and multidisciplinary conference, July 10-12, 2013 at the University of Salzburg, Austria. Organized by the University of Salzburg and the University of Wolverhampton, in association with the United Nations Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict.
    From the Forced Migration listserv:
    “This conference is planned as a follow-up to the first conference, which took place at the University of Salzburg in 2010. It will continue to build on areas previously investigated, and also open up new fields of academic enquiry.
    “All research proposals which focus on a topic and theme related to ‘Children and War’ are welcome, ranging from the experience of war, flight, displacement and resettlement, to relief, rehabilitation and reintegration work, gender issues, persecution, trafficking, sexual violence, trauma and amnesia, the trans-generational impact of persecution, individual and collective memory, educational issues, films and documentaries, artistic and literary approaches, remembrance and memorials, and questions of theory and methodology. Specific conference themes anticipated are:
    – Children as victims, witnesses and participants in armed conflict
    – Holocaust, genocide and forced labour
    – Deportation and displacement, refugees and asylum seekers
    – War crimes, trials and human rights
    “A special focus will be on the ‘Changing nature of armed conflict and its impact on children’. In the past two decades, UN reports, including the 1996 study by Graça Machel and its 10-year review, noted with concern that the character and tactics of armed conflict are changing, creating new and unprecedented threats to children. Characteristics of the changing nature of warfare include the blurring of lines between military and civilian targets, the use of new technologies and the absence of clear battlefields and identifiable opponents. Extensive research is needed to deal with challenges emerging from this context, including the use of children as suicide bombers, the deliberate targeting of traditional safe havens such as schools and hospitals, the detention and prosecution of children associated with armed groups, and terrorism and the use of counter-terrorism measures (for more information, please see the ‘Note by OSRSG-CAAC’).
    “Please send an abstract of 200-250 words, together with biographical background information of 50-100 words by *31 July 2012* to: J.D.Steinert@wlv.ac.uk. All proposals are subject to a review process. Successful candidates will be informed in October 2012 and will be asked to send in their papers by the end of April 2013 for distribution among conference participants on a CD. Further information will be made available in due time. The organizers intend to publish a selection of conference papers”.
    For more information, please contact J.D.Steinert@wlv.ac.uk.

  • Update: On new shores immigrant children conference

    The deadline for papers has been extended to March 30th for Dr. Susan Chuang’s fifth On New Shores conference. It will be held October 25-26 in Toronto.
    From the call for papers: “The goal of the conference is to bring together various stakeholders (academia, community, and governmental sectors) to collectively examine and discuss the various forms of social support (informal, formal) by families, communities, and governmental agencies to promote subjective and family well-being for immigrant and refugee children, youth, and families. Discussions of social capital and protective factors will also be addressed. Researchers from various disciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology, social work, education, anthropology, business) are welcomed. Community service providers and governmental agencies are encouraged to present work on research, effective programs, social issues, and challenges.
    “Leading scholars from various disciplines will be presenting, including: Robert Bradley, Xinyin Chen, Catherine Costigan, David Este, Jo Ann Farver, Uwe Gielen, William Jankowiak, Deborah Johnson, Jay Mancini, Luis Moll, Felix Neto, Catherine Tamis-LeMonda, Vappu Tyyska, Fons van de Vijver and more! National and local organizations will also be presenting!”
    Submission deadline is March 30th. All proposals must be submitted to Dr. Susan S. Chuang by email (schuang@uoguelph.ca), accompanied by a ons submission form”.

  • "I don't feel human" ~ The plight of young refugees and migrants in the UK

    The Children’s Society is a UK-based charity that is “committed to helping vulnerable and disadvantaged young people, including safeguarding children in care and young runaways”. The Children’s Society campaigns and research seek to influence policy on and give voice to marginalized children, including young refugees. In February, they released a report on the state of young refugees and migrants in the UK. From the announcement:

    In “I don’t feel human”, we examine available data on the extent and impact of destitution, and speak to young migrants and the people who work to support them. The report sets out the devastating impact being destitute has on children, young people and families.
    “This is an issue for young people who come to seek protection in the UK alone but have been refused asylum and so are left in limbo.
    “Having fled danger in their country of birth, these young people are exposed to danger and harm in this country because they are excluded from support and accommodation. They remain hidden from view and have to survive with minimal resources.
    “This is also an issue for children in migrant families who may not have an asylum claim but who become destitute for various reasons including domestic violence and family breakdown. Yet due to immigration restrictions they are unable to access support and their parents are not allowed to work in order to pull them out of poverty”.

  • Jason Kenney’s Convoluted Contradictions

    Among other avenues, the 1977 Citizenship Act grants the right to citizenship to persons born in Canada. But if immigration and citizenship minister Jason Kenney gets his way, that right may soon be quashed. Kenney is proposing that there be no more automatic citizenship status for babies born on Canadian soil to foreign mothers. Jason Kenney is the cabinet minister who is regularly applauded for really understanding his portfolio. A sizeable and vocal number of Canadians – and among them, many new Canadians – support the many changes he has brought forward to strengthen Canadian citizenship. He has challenged human traffickers and unscrupulous immigration consultants. He has demonstrated in these and in other actions that Canada cares about human rights. As Kenney has stated, “we must protect the values of Canadian citizenship and must take steps against those who cheapen it”.
    In 2007 Kenney amended the rules to allow for immediate Canadian citizenship status for babies adopted from a foreign country by a Canadian parent. Previously, Canadians who adopted internationally had to apply for the child’s citizenship status through the lengthy and arduous permanent residence process. This change ostensibly minimized the differential status between children born in Canada and children adopted into Canada. Equality rights triumphed and the move to ensure all children of Canadians (however they were begot) had equal rights in the form of Canadian citizenship was widely celebrated. How could we argue against loving Canadian prospective parents wanting Canadian citizenship rights for “their” child? Rights to live equally and freely and under the protection of human rights.
    The majority of children who migrate to Canada for adoption purposes are from China. China has one of the world’s worst records for human rights – and, specifically, child rights. Yet last week, news headlines screamed that “Chinese women are gaming the system” by having their babies in Canada; with plans to secure some possible future as sponsored family members.
    In a statement to Sun News on February 22, 2012, Kenney spokesperson Candice Malcolm said “We are aware of crooked consultants who encourage pregnant women to illegally travel to Canada to give birth and gain access to Canada’s considerable benefits”. These same babies, were they born in China and relinquished for adoption to Canadians, would be warmly welcomed by the federal government and given immediate citizenship status and rights.
    Kenney’s proposed changes would deny citizenship to babies born on Canadian soil but would confer automatic citizenship rights to children born on foreign soil.
    Is contradiction now a Canadian value?

  • The Drummond Commission recommendations on immigration (and the missed opportunities to address immigrant children/families)

    There has been much examination and discussion of the recommendations of the recently released Drummond Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services (struck by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Finance Minister Dwight Duncan). immigrantchildren.ca notes that the Commission has lost the opportunity to highlight and promote the importance of addressing both the needs of immigrant families with young children – and the contribution that immigrant parents can make to the Ontario economy if these needs are supported.
    In the introduction, “The Economic Importance of Immigration”, the Drummond report says:
    “By attracting skilled workers from abroad, Ontario can better address potential labour-market shortages. Maintaining labour-force growth, aided by successful immigrants, can help sustain Ontario’s long-term economic growth”.
    immigrantchildren.ca believes that immigrant parents may be able to contribute economically by participating in the labour force, but only if they are secure in their child care arrangements. Current federal initiatives for child care are almost absent. There is an opportunity for the federal government to partner with the provinces to ensure that culturally appropriate child care is made available to newcomers.
    This introduction ends with the bold statement: “In short, future trends in immigration and the degree to which Ontario can successfully integrate new arrivals into the province’s labour market and social fabric will have a significant effect on Ontario’s fiscal fortunes”. The Drummond report makes a case for ensuring that social supports are in place for immigrants in order for them to contribute to the economy through labour force participation. Child care is one such social support. We wonder how it was overlooked.

    In the Commission’s section on immigration, seven recommendations are made. With respect to each of the recommendations, immigrantchildren.ca has some initial thoughts. We invite more discussion, debate and comment. (Drummond report recommendations in bold, with comments in italics following).
    Recommendation 10-1: Develop a position on immigration policies that is in the province’s best economic and social interests. Present this position to the federal government with the expectation that, as the largest recipient of immigrants in Canada, Ontario’s interest will be given considerable weight in federal policy development.
    What is in the best interest is the development of fully funded culturally appropriate child care system that will support immigrant parents’ participation in the labour force. The federal government should, alongside, develop federal policy on child care for newcomer families that meets the needs not only of the national economy, but the social benefits of immigrant parents participation in the workforce if there is acceptable child care available, affordable and accessible to newcomers.
    Recommendation 10-2: Catalyze national discussions on immigration policy as the successful integration of immigrants is critical for Canada’s and Ontario’s economic futures.
    Few programs support integration better than community-based early learning and child care programs. Situated in public schools (as proposed in the full day kindergarten program of the McGuinty government), culturally appropriate child care for newcomer children – indeed, for all children – is a key catalyst to promotion of Canadian values and an optimal welcoming point for children and parents alike.
    Recommendation 10-3: Advocate the federal government for a greater provincial role in immigrant selection to ensure that the level and mix of immigrants coming to Ontario is optimized to support economic prosperity and improve outcomes for immigrants. Barring success, advocate for an expanded Provincial Nominee Program.
    The PNP might also explore age of the children of immigrants recruited through it. If Canada and Ontario are to thrive, the “level and mix” of immigrants must include children from birth to age eight and a PNP is well positioned to address this gap.
    Recommendation 10-4: Press the federal government to be more transparent in its refugee policies and practices and to compensate Ontario for the costs of providing additional social supports to refugees and refugee claimants.
    In our discussions and recommendations for ‘culturally appropriate child care’, it must be noted that refugee children have significantly different needs than children of immigrants who choose to emigrate. Services and supports for refugee children and youth must be developed with these specific needs in mind.
    Recommendation 10-6: Streamline and integrate provincially delivered integration and settlement services for recent immigrants with Employment Ontario.
    Within the discussion for recommendations 5 & 6 is found the statement “Two of the key drivers of labour-market success for immigrants are a working knowledge of one of Canada’s official languages and educational credentials that are accepted by regulatory bodies and potential employers”. While immigrantchildren.ca would agree that language and credentials are key, the Drummond report misses the mark by neglecting to consider the importance of child care for any working parent.
    Recommendation 10-7: Advocate for devolving federal immigrant settlement and training programs to the province…
    Again, we would argue that any settlement funding agreement with the federal government should include start-up and ongoing funds for child care.
    ~
    The Commission cites a number of studies in its report including one by Mr Drummond himself that clearly articulates and recognizes the value of high quality child care. See D. Drummond, and F, Fong, “The Changing Canadian Workplace”, TD Economics, TD Bank Financial Group, 2010.

    “…the higher incidence of part-time employment is caused, in part, by the cultural notion that women remain the primary caretaker of a family. As such, full-time employment is most likely not an option for many women as this would imply foregoing time to tend to household responsibilities. This also speaks to the poor state of childcare options available to many Canadians. Among comparative advanced nations in the OECD, Canada spends the smallest share of its GDP on early childhood education and care (ECEC) for those aged 0-6. At just 0.25% of GDP, this is extremely distant from the 1.5%-2% range spent by the Scandinavian countries. And since ECEC spending falls under provincial jurisdiction, the 0.25% figure is an aver- age across the provinces and is likely skewed by the heavy subsidization in Quebec where, for example, the $7 per day childcare provides for many lower income parents. Hence, regardless of the fact that Canada has one of the highest female participation rates in the world, participation in childcare services for children under the age of 3 is only in the middle of the pack among the OECD”.

    Another report cited by the Commission is Fernando Mata, “The Non-Accreditation of Immigrant Professionals in Canada: Societal Dimensions of the Problem”, Department of Canadian Heritage, 1999:

    “A recent example is a survey of the accreditation problems faced by immigrant women in the nursing, teaching and social work professions in partnership with the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women in Canada (NOIVMWC). The report coming out from the survey revealed that immigrant women with professional degrees, in addition to the common problems faced by male counterparts, were more negatively affected by “lack of services and resources in the areas of childcare and language training”.

    The Commission rightfully relied on a careful examination of the literature in addition to its consultations. The literature findings, including Mr. Drummond’s own work, clearly sees the value of a system of high quality early learning and child care as an employment support and a support to integration of newcomers, but it failed to include child care as a recommendation to the people of Ontario. As such, it has failed immigrant families.