Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Provincial Nominee Programs: A Note on Policy Implications and Future Research Needs

  • Published:
Journal of International Migration and Integration Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This note focuses on the rapidly evolving role of provinces in immigrant selection through Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs). While past years have seen their significant expansion and diversification, research and policy response seem to lag behind: literature on PNPs remains scarce. This note offers preliminary observations on the new dynamics in the immigration system arising as a result of the nominee programs. It sets out background on PNPs, situating them vis-à-vis federal skilled worker and Canadian Experience Class, outlines emerging trends, and discusses challenges associated with the increasingly complex policy landscape of the two-tiered immigrant selection system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. During 1990–1996, Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia received an average of 88% of newcomers; the average has fallen to 80% during 2000–2010.

  2. It should be noted that Quebec was the first province to seek greater control over immigrant selection and settlement and since the 1970s has negotiated progressively more extensive power on these matters.

  3. The number of newcomers received by the provinces' metropolises averaged at 1% of their total population during the past decade (for example, Toronto usually received 1.5–2% of its population; Montreal around 1% and Vancouver around 1.4%). Now, a similar dynamic is observed with respect to Winnipeg and Calgary. Statistics Canada, Population of census metropolitan areas, online http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo05a-eng.htm

  4. Quebec immigration program can be viewed as a third subsystem distinct from PNP due to Quebec's more extensive powers over immigration and settlement as well as different objectives (Canada-Quebec Accord 1991). However, its examination is beyond the scope of this paper.

  5. The points system assesses applicants on six selection factors: age, education, work experience, language proficiency, arranged employment, and adaptability. A certain number of points are awarded under each factor corresponding to the level of the applicant's qualifications or other characteristics. Applicants must accumulate at least 67 points as well as demonstrate at least 1 year of work experience in their occupation and availability of adequate settlement funds. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 76 (1).

  6. Previously, applicants were allowed to provide alternative evidence of language proficiency such as, for example, evidence of previous study or work in English or French or evidence of being a native speaker of English or French.

  7. Although the original cap was set at 200, it has been progressively increased between 1999 and 2001 (Seidle 2010, p. 5).

  8. In September 2010, Manitoba Premier has announced that some changes to MPNP are planned in 2011 to no longer require international students to have a job offer from a Manitoba employer for the purposes of nomination. Government of Manitoba (2010c). However, no changes have been implemented yet (communication with MPNP, 2011).

  9. Three other provinces have also adopted devolution arrangements: British Columbia has an arrangement similar to that of Manitoba's; Quebec has full control over settlement services and Alberta has a co-management agreement, under which CIC and Alberta government cooperated in the area of settlement services. Seidle 2010, p. 15–16.

  10. The applicant must be related to the family business owner or his/her spouse, common-law or conjugal partner as: a child, grandchild, sibling, niece or nephew, uncle or aunt.

  11. According to s. 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, a “dependent child,” in respect of a parent, means a child who

    (a) has one of the following relationships with the parent, namely

    (i) is the biological child of the parent, if the child has not been adopted by a person other than the spouse or common-law partner of the parent, or

    (ii) is the adopted child of the parent; and

    (b) is in one of the following situations of dependency, namely,

    (i) is less than 22 years of age and not a spouse or common-law partner,

    (ii) has depended substantially on the financial support of the parent since before the age of 22—or if the child became a spouse or common-law partner before the age of 22, since becoming a spouse or common-law partner—and, since before the age of 22 or since becoming a spouse or common-law partner, as the case may be, has been a student

    (A) continuously enrolled in and attending a post-secondary institution that is accredited by the relevant government authority, and

    (B) actively pursuing a course of academic, professional or vocational training on a full-time basis, or

    (iii) is 22 years of age or older and has depended substantially on the financial support of the parent since before the age of 22 and is unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition.

  12. For example, in 2008, 110,896 permanent residents settled in Ontario (CIC 2008a, b, c).

  13. Certain provincial regulation of immigration took place during the first decades after Confederation as well as since the 1970s in Quebec. In addition, provinces have traditionally played a role in immigrant integration through regulating such areas as education, professional regulation, social assistance, etc.

  14. Alboim recommended developing a national framework for PNPs, which would help provide greater “transparency, consistency and assurance that the programs are furthering both national and provincial objectives” (Alboim 2009, p. 36). Such a framework should establish baseline eligibility criteria, procedures, timelines and fees for all PNPs and provide for regular monitoring of PNPs and their economic and social outcomes (Alboim 2009, p. 57).

References

Legislation; federal - provincial agreements on immigration

  • Canada-Manitoba Immigration Agreement (June 2003)

  • Canada - Québec Accord Relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens (February 5, 1991)

  • Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001, c. 27 (IRPA).

  • Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.SOR/2002-227 (IRPR).

  • The British North America Act, 1867 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 (BNA) subsequently entitled the Constitution Act, 1867 by Item 1 of the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982, (U.K.) 1982, c. 11

  • The Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, (2001) S.C.J. No. 66

  • Worker Recruitment and Protection Act, S.M. 2008, c. 23

Secondary Sources

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe St. N, Oshawa, ON, L1H 7K4, Canada

    Sasha Baglay

Authors
  1. Sasha Baglay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sasha Baglay.

Additional information

The idea for this note has originated from the SSHRC grant application, and the author would like to acknowledge the contribution of Delphine Nakache, France Houle, Alexandra Dobrowolsky, and Pauline Gardiner Barber to the initial discussions of the topic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baglay, S. Provincial Nominee Programs: A Note on Policy Implications and Future Research Needs. Int. Migration & Integration 13, 121–141 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-011-0190-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-011-0190-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation