Taking out formal citizenship is viewed by the federal government as an indicator of integration, that is, it represents successful settlement. Although it can be argued that there are purely instrumental reasons for obtaining Canadian citizenship, for example, obtaining a passport, as was the case for approximately 6% of the respondents in the survey, it is still a large commitment for an individual to make. When we asked the refugees whether or not they had taken out citizenship, 45% said that they had not been in Canada long enough. Of the remaining individuals, 26% reported that they had obtained citizenship, and another 48% had already applied. We asked all of these individuals if it had been a difficult decision to apply for Canadian citizenship; 95% said that it had not. When the 26% of eligible individuals were questioned as to why they had not applied, nearly half of them (46%) said that they did not have enough money to pay the fees. One respondent commented that "People shouldn’t have to pay to become citizens; we already have to pay a head tax of $1500. Refugees should be exempt from these payments as they have lost everything" (0900). Another 16% of those who had not applied for citizenship reported that they had not had enough time to do so; and 21% said that there was no reason in particular for not applying (results not shown in a table).
Thus, the eligible respondents in this survey appeared to be quick to take out citizenship. They listed many reasons for becoming Canadians, including the following (in rank order from most often cited): this is my home now; I need a passport; I don’t have a home country; I want to be Canadian/feel Canadian; there is more security/safety here; I want the same rights as other Canadians.
In the public opinion survey we asked whether immigrants/refugees value their Canadian citizenship, as an indication of the public’s perception of newcomers’ degree of integration (see Table 7-24). Seventy-one percent of the public thought that immigrants and refugees do appreciate their citizenship; 16% noted that "some do and some don’t" and 10% stated that they do not. Of the 10% who answered negatively, 41% said that the newcomers refuse to change or become like Canadians. In a related response, another 30% claimed that they don’t respect Canada’s laws or culture. Forty-five percent of the people who responded positively stated that the reason newcomers value their Canadian citizenship is because Canada is a better country than their home country. Another 11% attributed immigrants’ appreciation to freedom found in Canada, and 7% linked it to the benefits Canada offers. Five percent of the public surveyed suggested that the newcomers worked hard for their citizenship and therefore valued it.
The settlement experiences of the respondents in this study are diverse and illuminating. They are not, however, new. Taken across all respondents in this study, the settlement experiences, positive and negative, have been catalogued many times before, and the barriers to successful settlement and integration faced by refugees in this study are the same ones identified elsewhere (e.g., Canadian Task Force on Mental Health Issues, 1988, After the Door has been Opened, Ottawa: Minister of Supplies and Services Canada.) What is distinctive here are the differences among the host communities, and refugees’ perceptions of the fit between their needs and the communities’ resources. There were not many city differences, but those that emerged are suggestive of a difference in the quality of life experienced by the refugees.
The city that differs most from the others is Fort McMurray. There are fewer services there than in many other places, and members of the public in that city see less of a need for settlement assistance than do people in the other locations. For refugees who have English language skills and an occupation that is needed in this resource-based city of newcomers, the atmosphere appears to be very welcoming in that 75% spend their time with other Canadian friends often or daily. They also report experiencing lower levels of discrimination than do their peers elsewhere. Refugees in Fort McMurray are far more likely to feel like ‘real Canadians’ than are refugees in the other cities. In addition, 67% of refugees there state that they have enough income to cover their living costs, compared to half the refugees in all the other cities save Medicine Hat. Finally, a higher percentage of refugees in Fort McMurray reported that their hopes and expectations had been realized to a large extent. All this said, Fort McMurray seems to be a suitable place only for individuals with a very specific employment profile (see Chapter 5).
In terms of integration, the youth in Calgary seemed to be more concerned about "fitting in"; they also reported being subject to more discrimination there than did the youth in Edmonton. Adult refugees reported low levels of discrimination in general; however, a majority of respondents in Medicine Hat felt that they experienced discrimination. Despite their perceptions of a negative reception, people continue to stay in Medicine Hat, likely because a high percentage (65%) feel that their income is sufficient.
As reported in Chapter 6, a larger percentage of people in the smaller cities accessed ESL in their first year than did refugees in Calgary or Edmonton; however, there were more complaints about the nature of ESL in the smaller cities because of a lack of range.
Finally there are differences by city in terms of volunteer participation. Refugees in Lethbridge and Medicine Hat are far more likely to participate in volunteer activities than their counterparts in any other city. A third of the refugee volunteers in Lethbridge are working at their unpaid positions more than three times a week.