Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Immigration Federalism in Canada: Provincial and Territorial Nominee Programs (PTNPs)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Immigration Regulation in Federal States

Part of the book series: International Perspectives on Migration ((IPMI,volume 9))

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the devolution of selection of economic immigrants in Canada as occurred through the establishment of Provincial and Territorial Nominee Programs (PTNPs). While for most of the twentieth century there was one set of federally prescribed and administered selection criteria, since the 1990s, provinces/territories were given an opportunity to develop their own selection requirements and nominate for immigration candidates that were considered of the most benefit for their local needs. This has resulted in great diversity of PTNPs with reportedly more than 50 different provincial/territorial streams and categories that vary not only among themselves, but also compared to federal selection programs. Although this diversity is generally welcomed and PTNPs are considered largely effective in attracting and retaining immigrants, questions arise with respect to both policy coherence and implications for migrants. The latter issue is the primary focus of this chapter. We evaluate the advantages/disadvantages of PTNPs for immigrants by concentrating on three questions: (a) do PTNPs expand immigration opportunities and what applicants (skilled or low-skilled workers) are they likely to benefit the most? (b) is the application process accessible and transparent? (c) is there a clear avenue of redress for applicants rejected by provincial authorities? As we show, PTNPs increase opportunities for skilled applicants—who are also primarily targeted through federal streams—to settle permanently in Canada, and they provide some lower-skilled applicants with a unique access to permanent residency. In that sense, it can be said that PTNPs are working to the benefit of applicants of all skill levels. However, PTNPs come with serious limitations (difficulty navigating these programs, an increased dependence on employers, limited appeal options). Thus, the likely impact of PTNPs on non-citizens is mixed. However, given the increasing importance of PTNPs within the Canadian immigration landscape, more research on the concrete costs and benefits of PTNPs for non-citizens is needed.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the mid 1990s, some Canadian provinces took advantage of the federal government’s offer to develop devolved immigration settlement and integration services and agreements. Thus, according to the existing federal/provincial agreements, Manitoba and British Columbia could manage their own language training and jobs programs for newcomers using federal funds. However, in April 2012, the federal government announced that it will resume management of settlement services in British Columbia (effective April 2014) and Manitoba (effective April 2013), noting that “integration of newcomers is a nation-building responsibility”. Manitoba Premier delivered a stinging public rebuke in response, claiming the federal government was attempting to destroy a successful program that has brought thousands immigrants to Manitoba since its inception in the 1990s. Manitoba Immigration Minister also deplored the fact that this “unilateral decision” had been made “without consultation” with the province (Owen 2012).

  2. 2.

    In Canada, National Occupational Classification (NOC) is a standard that classifies and describes all occupations in the Canadian labour market according to skill types and skill levels: “0” type are senior and middle-management occupations; “A” level are professional occupations; “B” level are technical and skilled trade occupations; and “C” and “D” levels are occupations requiring lower levels of formal training. Low-skill occupations are those defined as requiring skills classified at the NOC C and D levels.

  3. 3.

    The first Canada-Québec immigration agreement signed in 1971 allowed Québec to have representatives in Canadian embassies abroad. The 1975 agreement provided that Québec officials could conduct interviews with applicants and make recommendations to visa officers. The 1978 Cullen-Couture agreement gave Québec—where immigration became a particularly hot issue under the separatist government of René Levesque—a right to select immigrants subject only to federal medical, criminality and security checks. At that point, Quebec adopted its own points system, which differed from the federal points system in a number of respects. The most recent 1991 Canada-Quebec Accord maintained Quebec’s powers of immigrant selection and expanded its authority in the area of reception and integration services (Young 1991).

  4. 4.

    Immigration Act, s. 7, 109(1). The 2002 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) maintained this power in section 8(1).

  5. 5.

    This program was launched in 2013 and is limited to 3,000 admissions in the first year.

  6. 6.

    Although the three provinces continue being major newcomer destinations, more recent settlement patterns started to exhibit some changes. For example, the share of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta has increased from 9 % of the total annual intake in 2000 to 22 % in 2011. At the same time, the number of newcomers destined for Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia has declined from 89 % in 2000 to 74 % in 2011 (CIC 2012). In the past 5 years, Toronto’s share in new admissions has been dropping, while settlement in western cities such as Calgary, Edmonton, Regina and Saskatoon was increasing (Jedwab 2008; CIC 2012).

  7. 7.

    Agreement for Canada-British Columbia Co-Operation on Immigration (April 5, 2004), Annex C: Provincial Nominees, s. 3.1–3.15, Canada-Manitoba Immigration Agreement (June 2003), Annex B Provincial Nominees, ss. 5.1–5.15; The Canada-Ontario Immigration Agreement (November 21, 2005), Annex C Pilot Provincial Nominee Program, ss. 4.1–4.15; Canada-New Brunswick Agreement on Provincial Nominees (January 2005), ss. 5.1–5.15, 6.1–6.2; Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement on Provincial Nominees (27 August 2002). Ss. 4.1–4.12; Agreement for Canada-Prince Edward Island Co-operation on Immigration, Annex A—Provincial Nominees, ss. 2.1–2.8; Annex A—PNP, SK, ss. 4.1–4.14; Agreement for Canada-Alberta Cooperation on Immigration (May 11, 2007), Annex A: provincial nominees, ss. 5.1–5.15.

  8. 8.

    Inadmissibility refers to circumstances that preclude a person’s admission to Canada on a temporary or permanent basis. There are ten grounds of inadmissibility: criminality, serious criminality, organized criminality, security, international and human rights violations, health, financial, misrepresentation, non-compliance with the IRPA and inadmissible family member. IRPA, ss. 34–42.

  9. 9.

    In this section, we discuss only worker nomination streams, although most PTNPs also seek to attract businesspersons who can either invest in local economy or establish their own new businesses.

  10. 10.

    The following are considered close relatives for the purpose of PNP: sister or brother; aunt or uncle; niece or nephew; mother or father; grandmother or grandfather; first cousin.

  11. 11.

    Skill level C, Skill type 1, 3, 7, 8, 9; Skill level D, Skill type 1, 3, 7, 8, 9.

  12. 12.

    Skill level C, Skill type 1, 3, 7, 8, 9; Skill level D, Skill type 1, 3, 7, 8, 9.

  13. 13.

    A close family member is a non-dependent child, brother, sister, niece, nephew or grandchild of the Family Supporter. The family supporter needs to meet some requirements such as being employed or running a business for at least 12 consecutive months as of the date the Applicant’s immigration application was received by NB PNP.

  14. 14.

    “We have a federal family sponsorship program that reunites families,” added Minister Kenney. “This is not the goal of the PNP and we want to work with provinces and territories to ensure that the program is solely focused on supporting economic growth rather than duplicating non-economic federal immigration streams.”

    News Release—Minister Kenney strengthens economic value of provincial immigration programs.

    http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/releases/2012/2012-04-11.asp.

  15. 15.

    PTNPs have increased opportunities for skilled workers to settle permanently in Canada in the following ways. First, all PTNPs have a nomination stream for skilled workers and in this respect may substantially overlap with federal programs such as FSWP and CEC. Thus, some applicants have an option of choosing between nine PTNPs, an FSWP and/or CEC. Second, PTNPs provide an immigration opportunity for skilled workers who are no longer eligible under FSWP due to eligibility requirements and/or new points system. PTNP streams for skilled workers are usually open to applicants in any skilled occupation.

  16. 16.

    For example, Alberta seeks to attract workers in trucking, hotel and lodging, food processing and food services industries, while Saskatchewan has a stream for long haul truck driving and hospitality industries.

  17. 17.

    Research questionnaires were completed between May 2010 and September 2010 by nine provinces (Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia) as well as the Northwest Territories. Although the Yukon has a nominee program, the territory declined our invitation to participate in this research project. For more, see: Nakache and D’Aoust 2012.

  18. 18.

    Newfoundland and Labrador government official, questionnaire response; and follow-up e-mail communication, 26 July 2010 (in Nakache and D’Aoust 2012).

  19. 19.

    For example, the Canada-Manitoba Immigration Agreement stipulates, at s. 0.17, “The Parties Hereto agree on the following: (…) b. That Canada will determine national policy objectives and annual plans for the immigration program; it will be responsible for the selection, admission and control of immigrants and temporary residents and refugee claimants (…) c. That Manitoba will advise Canada regarding its annual immigration levels plans; and d. That Manitoba will exercise its responsibilities in the development and implementation of programs; policies and legislation; facilitating promotion and recruitment of immigrants; determination of provincial nominees; and the provision of settlement and integration services as set out in this Agreement.” Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, “Canada-Manitoba Immigration Agreement” (June 2003) online: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/laws-policy/agreements/manitoba/can-man-2003.asp [CIC, “Canada-Manitoba Agreement”]. Similarly, the Canada-Ontario Immigration Agreement, Annex C: Pilot Provincial Nominee program, s. 4.1 provides that “Ontario has the sole and non-transferable responsibility to assess and nominate candidates”, while s. 4.7 stipulates that “ […] Canada will: (a) exercise the final selection; (b) determine the admissibility of the nominee and his or her dependants with respect to legislative requirements including health, criminality and security; and (c) issue immigrant visas to provincial nominees and accompanying dependants who meet all the admissibility requirements of the IRPA and IRPR.” Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, “Canada-Ontario Immigration Agreement” (November 2005) online: <http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/laws-policy/agreements/ontario/ont-2005-agree.asp>. See also Citizenship and Immigration, “Federal-Provincial/Territorial Agreements”, online: CIC http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/laws-policy/agreements/index.asp.

  20. 20.

    Section 72 (1) of IRPA states: “Judicial review by the Federal Court with respect to any matter—a decision, determination or order made, a measure taken or a question raised—under this Act is commenced by making an application for leave to the Court”. This position was further clarified by the Federal Court in Aulakh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C.J. No. 212, at para. 4: “I am satisfied that Manitoba’s Provincial nominee program is not a “Federal Board commission, or other tribunal” as defined by section 2 (1) of the Federal Court Act. The decision being the subject of the application for leave and judicial review therefore falls outside the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to judicially review, as established by the Federal Court Act, s.18.1 (3)(a)”.

  21. 21.

    The vast majority of the available jurisprudence with respect to provincial nominees focuses on applicants at this stage in the process (i.e., post nomination), who are seeking redress for permanent residence refusals based on failures to fulfill or comply with legislative requirements, principally of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). For example, an application for permanent residency as a member of the PTNP class may be rejected due to inadmissibility, on grounds such as security (IRPA, s. 34(1)), criminality (IRPA, s. 36(1), health (IRPA, s. 38(1)), or misrepresentations (IRPA, s. 40(1)(a)).For more on this topic, see Bellissimo 2011.

  22. 22.

    For Nova Scotia, see Nova Scotia Government (2013) at 13. For Ontario, see Diner (2012) at 6.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Sasha Baglay

  2. School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, 120 University (8005), ON K1N 6N5, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Delphine Nakache

Authors
  1. Sasha Baglay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Delphine Nakache
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sasha Baglay .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Inst. of Technology Fact. of Social Science and Humanities, University of Ontario, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada

    Sasha Baglay

  2. International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Delphine Nakache

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Baglay, S., Nakache, D. (2014). Immigration Federalism in Canada: Provincial and Territorial Nominee Programs (PTNPs). In: Baglay, S., Nakache, D. (eds) Immigration Regulation in Federal States. International Perspectives on Migration, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8604-1_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation